Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.411 S Monarch St.0041.2008.ASLUh THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER PARCEL ID NUMBER PROJECTS ADDRESS CASE DESCRIPTION REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION 0041.2008.ASLU 2737 182 19 002 411 S MONARCH STREET JENNIFER PHELAN FINAL PUD DANCING BEAR, LLC 12/31/2008 CLOSED BY Angela Scorey on 03/18/2009 00q I. 20w PSI,U 2:737-� 182 19002 Fie Edt Record Navigate Form Reports Fame[ Tab Flab A lit -4 [a A Ll • -) a i9 ��h i I I I- I I I I y l I Men Custom Fields AdacFmeMa FoW Uv Notifications Fees - Qwditions Actions Fee Summary Parcels Sub&,oits Routing 1lista Routing Status YakAk Penh Type Permit # 0041.2008.ASLU it _y Address 911 S MONARCH 57 J Ap /Suite City JASPEN State CO - zip 81611 Permit Information Master Permit F --j Routm quace a.1.07 Applied 09129!2008 I Project J Status pending Approved �JI Description FINAL PUD Issued F- J Final —J Submitted E B E N 9258700 Clock Running Days f0 Expires 0911912009 J Owur_... Last Name DANCING BEAR LAND, LLC J First Name �— N ML Phone (970] 9258700 SUITE SUI7E 203 ASPEN C081611 r Owlerls AppicaM? Applicant Last Name DANCING BEAR LAND, LLC J First Name F 201 N ML Phone 19701 9258700 Cust # 127038 J SUITE 203 ASPEN C081611 Lander. Last NawF- j First Name Phone f AspenGold(b) p1 -4:�Zqj. n S FKL EIN, COTE & EDWARDS, LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW HERBERT S. KLEIN hsk@kcelaw.net 201 NORTH NULL STREET, STE. 203 LANCE R. COTE, PC' Irc@kJ law.net ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, HL PC jee@kcelaw.net TELEPHONE: (970) 925 -8700 COREY T. ZURBUCH ch@keelaw.net FACSIlUR.E: (970) 925 -3977 EBEN P. CLARK epc @kcelaw.net www.kcelawrsst MADHU B. KRISHNAMURTI mbk@kcelaw.net DAVID C. UHLIG dcu@kcelaw.net • also admitted in California September 23, 2008 City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission c/o Andrea Hingley Assistant Community Development Director Planner 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Application for "Other" PUD Amendment and Commercial Design Review for 411 S. Monarch Street, Aspen ( "the Project ") To the Members of the Commission: This letter is the application and written description for the applications above and a written explanation of how the proposal complies with the City of Aspen Land Use Code. I. Introduction: The applicant is Dancing Bear Land, LLC, 210 N. Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 ( "Applicant "). Our firm, Klein, Cote & Edwards, LLC, 201 N. Mill Street, Suite 203, Aspen, Colorado 81611 is authorized to act on Applicant's behalf with regard to the Project. Please address all correspondence regarding this application to our firm and to my attention. The subject property is located at 411 S. Monarch Street, Aspen. The parcel is identified as parcel number 273718219002, and the legal description of the property is: THE DANCING BEAR LODGE ACCORDING TO THE FINAL PUD PLAN AND PLAT RECORDED JUNE 8, 2004 IN PLAT BOOK 69 AT PAGE 80 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 498443, IN THE RECORDS OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO; also known as: RECEINF-p Lots P, Q, R and S, Block 77, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State ofwido lilU'' ( "Property "). CITY 0i '' COMMUN111'• .1 AT City of Aspen, Planning and Zoning Commission September 23, 2008 Page 2 of 23 This firm certifies that Applicant is the owner of the Property and is entitled to submit this development application. An accurate copy of Schedule B -2, the current exceptions to title to the Property, is attached as Exhibit C hereto. A vicinity map is attached as Exhibit D. A table of contents listing all of the exhibits hereto follows this letter. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the Project was originally approved by the Aspen City Council in 2003 in Ordinance No. 29 Series of 2003, and the Dancing Bear Lodge Final PUD Plan and Plat is recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin County at Plat Book 69 Page 80, Reception No. 498443. II. Present Application: Applicant is requesting an amendment of the approved PUD plan to accommodate the screening and enclosure of spa mechanical equipment on the rooftop. The location of the enclosure is designated for screened mechanical and spa equipment in the original PUD approvals. The enclosure of this equipment will screen neighboring properties from the noise and visual impacts of this necessary equipment. Applicant has consolidated this equipment in the rear corner of the rooftop furthest from Wagner Park and Durant Avenue. Applicant first proposed a cube shaped enclosure, but has since reduced the size to the absolute minimum possible while still meeting code requirements. Therefore, the enclosure is the minimum size necessary and principally benefits the neighboring property owners and the appearance and atmosphere of the City generally. The current rooftop configuration with the enclosure is illustrated in the architectural drawings attached as Exhibit G. Construction and design is consistent with that used in the rest of the building. The enclosure is wood framed and the exterior is high quality black slate, matching the slate on the remainder of this level of the building. The proposed amendment is consistent with and an enhancement to the final development plan and will not change the approved location of spa and mechanical equipment on the roof, except in that it will concentrate spas and equipment from other areas of the roof top into a single corner toward the rear of the building. The amendment will enhance the project and the surrounding neighborhood by protecting adjoining owners and the public from the noise and sight of the spa equipment. City of Aspen, Planning and Zoning Commission September 23, 2008 Page 3 of 23 Based on the foregoing, Applicant requests: A. Other Amendment to approved PUD permitting the enclosure to remain; and B. Commercial Design Review Approval. The requested Amendments comply with the specific provisions of the City of Aspen Land Use Code and all other requirements as set forth below. Applicant will address each requested approval separately below. III. PUD Amendment: Section 26.445.100 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code ( "Code "), titled "Amendment of PUD Development Order" governs the grant of any amendment to any approved development order for a final development plan. The current request is being processed for review by the Commission under Section 26.445.100.B. Therefore, this application may be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Commission at a public hearing pursuant to Code Subsection 26.445.030.0 Step 3. Subsection 26.445.030.0 Step 3 sets out the process and possible actions on an application and incorporates the criteria in Code Section 26.445.050, titled "Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD ". Section 26.445.050 states a development application shall comply with the following standards and requirements and requires the applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures. The present Application requests only a minor change to one comer of the previously approved structure and will not alter the height, mass or site coverage as previously approved. The proposal simply adds an enclosure over and around approved and necessary mechanical equipment. Therefore, the amendment enhances not only the project itself, but decreases the project's impact on the surrounding neighbors and City. The amendment will have only a minor effect on the appearance of the building, and the requested amendment will not alter the remainder of the previously approved PUD criteria. Therefore, where a criterion will not be altered, or otherwise does not apply to this amendment, Applicant will indicate that the criteria are inapplicable or unchanged. Section 26.445.050.A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Response: The proposal is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan ( "AACP ") in that it is part of a plan for sustainable growth and represents design of the highest quality that is compatible with the historic features of the community and the environment. The proposal is an increase in the protection afforded the neighboring properties and environs from the noise and visual impacts of the necessary mechanical equipment. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. City of Aspen, Planning and Zoning Commission September 23, 2008 Page 4 of 23 Response: The proposed amendment will not change the approved use of the space, and is consistent with both the previously approved appearance and use of the roof top. The amendment will enhance the project and surrounding areas by limiting the impacts of the approved use of the roof top area. The resulting quiet and enhanced visual appearance will better match the character of the surrounding areas in this neighborhood to the south and west of Wagner Park. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Response: The Project as approved is bounded on two sides by new development, on a third by a modern condominium complex and the fourth by Wagner Park. The proposed amendment will not significantly change the approved uses and appearance of the Project. In fact, the proposal will lessen any adverse effects (visual and sound impacts) that might otherwise have been caused by this mechanical equipment. 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. Response: The amendment as proposed is for a mechanical enclosure only and is therefore not subject to GMQS. Section 26.445.050.B. Establishment of dimensional requirements requires proposed dimensional requirements to comply with the following: 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with influences on the property. Response: The proposed amendment will not change the height, scale and site coverage of the Project, and will impact the massing in only the most minor fashion. Therefore, the amendment will not change the overall dimensions of the Project. 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. Response: See above. 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 nonresidential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. City of Aspen, Planning and Zoning Commission September 23, 2008 Page 5 of 23 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. Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not increase visits to the site and will not affect the parking in the area. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not affect the required infrastructure. The Project is located directly adjacent to the Central Core and adequate infrastructure was found to exist for the Project. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Response: In applicable. See above. 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. Response: Inapplicable. Section 26.445.050 C., Site design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man -made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not alter the natural or the previously approved man-made features of the site. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not alter the previously approved structure as it may affect open spaces and vistas, if any. The enclosure is of the minimum size permitted by code to enclose the mechanical equipment in that area of the roof top. The enclosure falls entirely within the "shadow" of the currently approved or required roof lines. City of Aspen, Planning and Zoning Commission September 23, 2008 Page 6 of 23 Specifically, the enclosure lies behind a roof top stair enclosure that was not part of the Applicant's plan, but was a required addition imposed by the Building Department. 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. Response: The proposed amendment will not alter the orientation of the structure to public streets. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not alter the previously approved emergency and service vehicle access. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not alter the previously approved handicap access. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not alter the previously approved site drainage. 7. For nonresidential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not alter the previously approved space between buildings. Section 26.445.050.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. Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not alter the previously approved landscape plan. Section 26.445.050.E. Architectural character. 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. Response: The proposed amendment will not alter the previously approved general architectural appearance of the building. Applicant will use high quality black slate on the enclosure. This is the same surface that was previously approved for this level of the structure. The proposed amendment will actually enhance visual character of the City by hiding mechanical equipment City of Aspen, Planning and Zoning Commission September 23, 2008 Page 7 of 23 that would otherwise be visible on the Project's roof top. 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. Response: Inapplicable. The proposal will not affect the Project's natural heating and cooling. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not alter the previous design with regard to storage and shedding of snow, ice and water. Section 26.445.050.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. Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not alter the previously approved design with regard to lighting. 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. Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not alter the previously approved design with regard to lighting. Section 26.445.050.G. Common park, open space or recreation area. Response: Inapplicable. The approved Final PUD Plan did not include a common park, open space or recreation area. Section 26.445.050.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. Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not alter the previously approved utilities and public facilities associated with the Project. Section 26.445.050.I. Access and circulation. (Only standards 1 & 2 apply to minor PUD applications) The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: r City of Aspen, Planning and Zoning Commission September 23, 2008 Page 8 of 23 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. Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not alter previously approved access plan. The Project abuts public streets on both Monarch Street and Durant Avenue. 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. Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not alter previously approved access and parking arrangements. Section 26.445.050.J. Phasing of development plan. Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not affect the previously approved phasing. IV. Commercial Design Review Criteria: Section 26.412.050 of the Code, titled Review criteria, states that an application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the fagade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might City of Aspen, Planning and Zoning Commission September 23, 2008 Page 9 of 23 be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. Response: Subsection B is not applicable to the current proposal as this is a new structure and there is no change in the approved use of the space that is to be enclosed. In addition, the proposed amendment will change the exterior appearance only slightly and will be seamless with the existing exterior as approved in the original P.U.D. Therefore, there will be little or no variation in the appearance and design from the previous approval. Therefore, it appears the proposal must meet only the Commercial Design standards set out in Section 26.412.060. Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards sets out the following standards: Standard: The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed -use development: A. Public amenity space. Creative, well- designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights -of -way or private property within commercial areas. On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on -site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. 2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at -grade relationships with adjacent rights -of -way are encouraged. 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights -of -way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. 4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. City of Aspen, Planning and Zoning Commission September 23, 2008 Page 10 of 23 5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. Response: The public amenity space requirement for the entire Project was satisfied in the original approvals by the provision of open space as required in the approval ordinance. The amendment proposes to enclose only the area designated as screened mechanical area in the original approvals. Therefore, the proposal will not enclose any existing "open space ". Standard: B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A utility, trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated along the alley meeting the minimum standards established by Section 26.575.060, Utility /trash/recycle service areas, unless otherwise established according to said Section. Response: The proposed amendment will not alter previously approved utility, trash and recycle service area. This standard was satisfied as part of the original P.U.D. design, review and approval. A utility, trash and recycle service area has been located along the alley meeting the minimum standards established by Section 26.575.060, Utility /trash/recycle service areas. An enclosure for the recycling, loading and trash area has recently been approved by Staff and added to the design to protect the area from wildlife and further shield the area from view. Standard: 2. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property and along the alley. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. Response: The proposed amendment will not alter the previously approved utility plan. This standard was satisfied as part of the original P.U.D. design, review and approval. All utility service pedestals are to be located on private property and along the alley, and easements will allow service providers access. There are no encroachments into alley. City of Aspen, Planning and Zoning Commission September 23, 2008 Page 11 of 23 Standard: 3. Delivery service areas shall be incorporated along the alley. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. Response: The proposed amendment will not alter previously approved delivery service area. This standard was satisfied as part of the original P.U.D. design, review and approval. The delivery service areas are incorporated along the alley side and are enclosed. The truck loading facility is integrated into the building. Standard: 4. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. Response: The proposed amendment will not alter previously approved mechanical exhaust plan and will enhance the overall mechanical plan of the Project by screening the spa mechanical area from view and containing any noise generated by that equipment. This standard was satisfied as part of the original P.U.D. design, review and approval. Mechanical exhausts, including parking garage ventilation, are vented through the roof and the exhaust equipment is located as far away from the street as possible. Standard: 5. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right -of -way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. Response: The proposed amendment will enhance the Project's compliance with this criterion by enclosing mechanical equipment that was previously approved to sit on the open roof top. This standard was satisfied as part of the original P.U.D. design, review and approval. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting is routed internally within the building and located on the roof and is not visible from a public right -of -way. C City of Aspen, Planning and Zoning Commission September 23, 2008 Page 12 of 23 V. Commercial Character Area Design Obiectives and Guidelines: Section 26.412.050(C) further requires that all applications comply with the appropriate Design Review Guidelines. The Project is located in the Commercial Character Area and must comply with the guidelines applicable to that area set forth in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. Staff has advised Applicant that because this is a minor revision, Applicant need only address the Final Design Guidelines. Those Objectives and Guidelines and Applicant's responses follow. Objective: 1. Strengthen the sense of relatedness with the Commercial Core Historic District. Strengthening the definition of the street edge in a manner similar to the Commercial Core is desired. At the same time, the Commercial Area is a place where more variety in design is encouraged. Imitating historic styles is not an objective, but re- establishing a sense of a stronger fundamental framework will enhance the urban qualities of this area and is a priority. Response: The proposed amendment will not alter the previously approved fagade of the Project. All remaining characteristics will remain as previously approved. Objective: 2. Maintain a retail orientation. Greater retail presence at the street edge should be achieved to ensure an enhanced street vitality and an enriched and more urban definition of the commercial street frontage. Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not alter the retail orientation of the building fagade. Obiective• 3. Promote creative, contemporary design. Designs should seek creative new solutions that convey the community's continuing interest in exploring innovations. At the same time, the fundamental principles of traditional design must be respected. This means that each project should strike a balance in the design variables that are presented in the following pages. City of Aspen, Planning and Zoning Commission September 23, 2008 Page 13 of 23 Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not alter the previously approved fagade of the Project. The design variables that were approved to balance traditional and contemporary design will be maintained. Objective: 4. Encourage a well - defined street wall. The intent is to more clearly establish a strongly defined street wall, but with some greater variety than in the Commercial Core Historic District since the historic building edge is not as defined. A stronger street fagade definition should be achieved while at the same time recognizing the value of public dining and landscaped space. Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not alter the previously approved fagade of the Project. Objective: 5. Reflect the variety in building heights seen traditionally. It is important that a range and variation in building height and scale in the Commercial Area be recognized in future development. Larger buildings should be varied in height and reflect original lot widths. Response: The proposed amendment will not alter the previously approved heights and fagade of the Project. The varied favade and roof height and all other exterior dimensional characteristics will remain as previously approved. The enclosure is located at the rear corner of the building and is screened from view by the previously approved roof line and rooftop features. Objective: 6. Accommodate outdoor public spaces while establishing a clear definition to the street edge. Providing space in association with individual buildings remains important, but should be balanced with much greater building street presence and corner definition. Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not alter the previously approved fagade of the Project. City of Aspen, Planning and Zoning Commission September 23, 2008 Page 14 of 23 Obiective• 7. Promote variety in the street level experience. Display cases, architectural details and landscaping are among the design elements that should be used. Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not alter the previously approved street level fagade of the Project. Guideline: 1.29 A new building shall reflect the traditional lot width (30 ft.) as expressed by two or more of the following: • Variation in height at internal lot lines • Variation in the plane of the front fagade • Street fagade composition • Variation in architectural detailing and materials to emphasize the building module Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not alter the previously approved fagade of the Project. Guideline: 1.30 The detailed design of the building fagade should reflect the traditional scale and rhythm of the block. This should be achieved using all of the following: • The fenestration grouping • The modeling of the fagade • The design framework for the first floor storefront • Variation in architectural detail and/or the palette of fagade materials Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not alter the previously approved fagade of the Project. /^ r City of Aspen, Planning and Zoning Commission September 23, 2008 Page 15 of 23 Guideline: 1.31 A building should reflect the architectural hierarchy and articulation inherent in the composition of the street fagade. The following should be addressed: • The design and definition of the traditionally tall first floor • The vertical proportions of the upper level fenestration pattern and ratio of solid wall to window area. Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not alter the previously approved facade of the Project. Guideline: 1.32 A building should reflect the three - dimensional characteristics of the street fagade in the strength and depth of modeling, fenestration and architectural detail. Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not alter the previously approved fagade of the Project. Guideline: 1.33 Any new building shall be designed to maintain a minimum of 9 feet from floor to ceiling on all floors. Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not alter the previously approved floor to ceiling heights. Guideline: 1.34 Maintain the distinction between the street level and upper floors. • The first floor should be the tallest floor to floor height in the building. • The first floor of the primary fagade should be predominantly transparent glass. • Upper floors should be perceived as being more opaque than the street level. Upper story windows should have a vertical emphasis. • Highly reflective or darkly tinted glass is inappropriate. • Express the traditional distinction in floor heights between street levels and upper levels through detailing, materials and fenestration. The presence of a belt course is an important feature in this relationship. City of Aspen, Planning and Zoning Commission September 23, 2008 Page 16 of 23 Response: The proposed amendment will not alter the previously approved floor to ceiling heights. The design and definition of the traditionally tall first floor and the vertical proportions of the upper level fenestration pattern and ratio of solid wall to window area will remain as they existed in all previous approvals. Guideline: 1.35 A new building should be designed to maintain the stature of traditional street level retail frontage. • This should be 13 -15 ft. in floor to floor height on the first floor. • The minimum required first floor height must be maintained for at least the first 50 foot depth of the lot, and may only be dropped to a lower height beyond that point for areas that are devoted to storage, circulation, offices, restaurant kitchens, alley commercial spaces, or similar secondary uses. Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not alter the previously approved floor to ceiling heights. The design and definition of the traditionally tall first floor will remain as it existed in all previous approvals. Guideline: 1.36 Minimize the appearance of a tall third floor. • Where a third floor's floor to ceiling height is in excess of 12 ft., it should be set back a minimum of 15 ft. from the street fagade to reduce the apparent height. • Increase the parapet height to screen the visual impact of a tall top floor. • The design of a set back third floor shall be simpler in form, more subdued in modeling, detail and color than the primary fagade. Response: The proposed amendment will not alter the previously approved floor to ceiling heights, and will not affect the appearance of the fagade. The enclosure is set back from the parapet and not readily visible from either street front or Wagner Park. Therefore, the proposed amendment will not affect the appearance of the third floor or rooftop. City of Aspen, Planning and Zoning Commission September 23, 2008 Page 17 of 23 Guideline: 1.37 The first floor faFade should be designed to concentrate interest at the street level, using the highest quality of design, detailing and materials. • A strong and distinctively designed retail framework for the first floor of the building. • An entryway designed to use the full height of the storefront. • A distinct change in the palette of materials used for the first floor design framework. • The depth and strength of the modeling of elements and details. Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not alter the previously approved first floor fagade of the Project. Guideline: 1.38 The retail entrance should be at the sidewalk level. • All entrances shall be ADA compliant. • On sloping sites the retail frontage should be as close to a level entrance as possible. Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not alter the previously approved first floor fagade of the Project. The street level will provide ADA accessibility. Guideline: 1.39 Incorporate an airlock entry into the plan for all new structures. • An airlock entry that projects forward of the primary fagade at the sidewalk edge is inappropriate. • Adding temporary entries during the winter season detracts from the character of the historic district. • Using a temporary vinyl or fabric "airlock" to provide protection from winter weather is not permitted. City of Aspen, Planning and Zoning Commission September 23, 2008 Page 18 of 23 Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not alter the previously approved first floor fagade. Guideline: 1.40 Window area along the first floor shall be a minimum of 60% of exterior street fagade area when facing principal street(s). Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not alter the previously approved first floor fagade of the Project. Guideline: 1.41 Where appropriate a building shall be designed to maintain the character and transparency of the traditional street level retail frontage. Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not alter the previously approved first floor fagade of the Project. Guideline: 1.42 Design of the first floor storefront should include particular attention to the following: • The basic elements and proportions of storefront design • Depth and strength of modeling • The palette of materials and finishes used in both the structural framework and the storefront window • The concentration of architectural detail to ensure a rich visual experience • The complementary use of signage and lettering to enhance the retail and downtown character • The use of lighting to accentuate visual presence Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not alter the previously approved first floor fayade of the Project. City of Aspen, Planning and Zoning Commission September 23, 2008 Page 19 of 23 Guideline: 1.43 Retail frontage facing onto side courts or rear alleys should follow similar design principles to the street frontage, adjusted for the scale of the space. • It should be designed with a similar attention to architectural articulation, detail and materials. • These should have a richness of detail that is inviting to users. Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not alter the previously approved first floor fagade of the Project. Guideline: 1.44 A larger building should reflect the traditional lot width in the form and variation of its roof. This should be achieved through the following: • A set back of the top floor from the front fapade • Reflect the traditional lot width in the roof plane Response: Inapplicable. The proposed amendment will not alter the previously approved fagade of the upper floors or the roof. Guideline: 1.45 The roofscape should be designed with the same design attention as the secondary elevations of the building. • Group and screen mechanical units from view. • Locate mechanical equipment to the rear of the roof area. • Position, articulate and design rooftop enclosures or structures to reflect the modulation and character of the building. • Use materials which complement the design of the building faVades. • Design roof garden areas to be unobtrusive from the street. • Use 'green roof design best practice, where feasible. Response: The proposed amendment will result in greater compliance with this guideline. Applicant has located the necessary rooftop mechanical equipment in rear corner of City of Aspen, Planning and Zoning Commission September 23, 2008 Page 20 of 23 the building and the proposed enclosure will screen the grouped mechanical units from view. The previously approved roof top structure and the new enclosure are positioned and articulated to reflect a modulation in the character of the building. The high quality black slate matches and complements the approved the design of the building fagades on that level. This enclosure in necessary in part because applicant moved all the approved spas to the rear edge of the roof top to ensure that the roof garden areas are unobtrusive from the street. Guideline: 1.46 High quality, durable materials should be employed. • The palette of materials should be specified, including samples of materials as required. Response: Guideline: Response: Guideline: Response: The black slate material previously approved for this level will be used on the enclosure. Therefore, the proposed amendment will comply with all materials requirements as previously approved. 1.47 Building materials should have these features: • Convey the quality and range of materials seen traditionally • Reduce the perceived scale of the building and enhance visual interest of the facade • Convey a human scale • Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within Aspen's climate Only the previously approved black slate material will be used and it will meet all stated criteria. 1.48 A building or additions should reflect the quality and variation in materials seen traditionally. Only the previously approved black slate material will be used and it will meet all stated criteria. City of Aspen, Planning and Zoning Commission September 23, 2008 Page 21 of 23 Guideline: 1.49 Where contemporary materials are used they shall be: • High quality in durability and finish • Detailed to convey a human scale • Compatible with a traditional masonry palette Response: Only the previously approved black slate material will be used and it will meet all stated criteria. Guideline: 1.50 Materials used for third floor accommodation set back from the street fagade(s) should be more subdued than the primary fagades. Response: Only the previously approved black slate material will be used and it will meet all stated criteria. The color palette has been selected for its subdued character. Guideline: 1.51 Paving and landscaping should be designed to complement and enhance the immediate setting of the building and area. Response: The proposal will not alter the previously approved paving and landscaping. All paving and landscaping will be constructed as previously approved, and all will meet the stated criteria. City of Aspen, Planning and Zoning Commission September 23, 2008 Page 22 of 23 VI. Conclusion: Based on the foregoing, Applicant meets all of the requirements for the requested amendments, and the proposed amendment represents an enhancement of the Project that principally benefits the neighboring properties and the public generally. Thank you for considering this application. If there is further information that you require, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, KLEIN, COTE & EDWARDS, LLC By: K Eben P. Clark P &Z Applicaiton Letter 9- 23 -08.doc City of Aspen, Planning and Zoning Commission September 23, 2008 Page 23 of 23 Table of Contents: Exhibit A - Completed Land Use Application Exhibit B - Signed Fee Agreement Exhibit C - Schedule of Exceptions to Title Exhibit D - Vicinity Map Exhibit E - Pre - application Conference Summary Exhibit F - Approved Final PUD Plan and Plat, including: Floor Area Calculations; Site Survey; Site Plan; Landscape Plan; and Floor Plans. Exhibit G - Detail of requested modifications Exhibit H - List of adjacent owners within 300 feet for public hearing EXHIBIT i ATTACHMENT 2 —LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: _Noc-'t,11 _'_Seiza LAN cl(. LLC Location: y ( I S - see,: c,�, (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 'z 162- - I`i 6crz APPLICANT: rr Name: �R.Y Cuc_ 2 .w, Y'i I,LL Address: y11 S M mA,?.�, lQS(a Co Phone #: -o CieS -S Z REPRESENTATIVE: Name: tvW CLA, - e J (' r 8 c Q Address: '1-41 u CO e? I O Phone #: 1 its b3�od TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Temporary Use ❑ GMQS Allotment Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Text/Map Amendment ❑ Special Review ❑ Subdivision ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes ❑ Final SPA (& SPA Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane ❑ Commercial Design Review ❑ Lot Split ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion ❑ Residential Design Variance ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Other: ❑ Conditional Use EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals,, etc.) i 2Aw4tg c,,3ti . e -Y I PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) i iy �k 70-D "ri' d^e'y. lave you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ Lxl Pre- Application Conterence Summary Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement ❑ Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards 3 -D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5" X I I" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3 -D model. Your pre - application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3 -D model. EXHIBIT CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of Cittyof Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and V i 1Gi��4 I�E'cs4 <�l LU- (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICAON{TT has submitt(e'd ry�N .7tNw.a� to CITY an application for (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 48 (Series of 2006) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY'S waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ awhich is for _ hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $235.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT �gN4•�� Z�S"700 A4 -Lg . By: FIT— �' Chris Bendon Community Development Director Date: 23 SE P O$ Billing Address and Telephone Number. Required 22S Ai , t1n.dSf f�P�7e 47-s `izl –6q0. CADocuments and Settings\ johannahr \Desktop\LUFeeAgree.doc •^ I EXHIBIT I I'll ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B -2 (Exceptions) Our Order No. Q62001350 The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. Taxes and assessments not yet due or payable and special assessments not yet certified to the Treasurer's office. 7. Any unpaid taxes or assessments against said land. 8. Liens for unpaid water and sewer charges, if any. 9. RESERVATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS AS SET FORTH IN THE DEED FROM THE CITY OF ASPEN RECORDED DECEMBER 24, 1887 IN BOOK 59 AT PAGE 564 AND JULY 19, 1889 IN BOOK 59 AT PAGE 571, PROVIDING AS FOLLOWS: THAT NO TITLE SHALL BE HEREBY ACQUIRED TO ANY MINE OF GOLD, SILVER, CINNABAR OR COPPER OR TO ANY VALID MINING CLAIM OR POSSESSION HELD UNDER EXISTING LAWS. 10. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF MULTIPURPOSE EASEMENT AGREEMENT ELECTRIC AND COMMUNICATION UTILITIES RECORDED JUNE 15, 1976 IN BOOK 313 AT PAGE 246. 11. EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND ALL OTHER MATTERS AS SHOWN IN THE SURVEY RECORDED JUNE 9, 1997 IN PLAT BOOK 44 AT PAGE 11 AND FINAL PUD PLAN AND PLAT FOR DANCING BEAR LODGE RECORDED JUNE 8, 2004 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 498443. 12. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE# 29 (SERIES 2003) APPROVING THE DANCING BEAR LODGE PRESERVATION PUD APPLICATION RECORDED JUNE O8, 2004 AT RECEPTION NO. 498441. 13. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF PUD AND SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B -2 (Exceptions) Our Order No. Q62001350 The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: AGREEMENT RECORDED JUNE 08, 2004 AT RECEPTION NO. 498442. 14. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF INDEMNIFICATION AND TEMPORARY EXCAVATION AND SHORING SYSTEM EASEMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED OCTOBER 30, 2006 AT RECEPTION NO. 530449. 15. CONDOMINIUM DECLARATIONS, WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CLAUSE, BUT OMITTING ANY COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, BASED UPON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, FAMILIAL STATUS, MARITAL STATUS, DISABILITY, HANDICAP, NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, OR SOURCE OF INCOME, AS SET FORTH IN APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SAID COVENANT OR RESTRICTION IS PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED , UNDER RECEPTION NO. 16. EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY, AND ALL OTHER MATTERS AS SHOWN ON CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR DANCING BEAR RESIDENCES RECORDED UNDER RECEPTION NO. 17. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF EASEMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED OCTOBER 30, 2006 AT RECEPTION NO. 530449. 18. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF ENCROACHMENT LICENSE AGREEMENT RECORDED JUNE 11, 2007 AT RECEPTION NO. 538776. 19. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF NOTICE OF APPROVAL RECORDED AUGUST 28, 2007 AT RECEPTION NO. 541427. 20. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF MEMORANDUM OF LOAN AGREEMENT RECORDED OCTOBER 19, 2007 AT RECEPTION NO. 543334. 71 0 0 CD �D G CD C CD R EXHIBIT ' CITY OF ASPEN PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Andrea Hingley, 429 -2797 DATE: 8/25/08 PROJECT: 411 S. Monarch (Dancing Bear) REPRESENTATIVE: Eben Clark of Klein, Cotes, and Edwards, LLC OWNER: Dancing Bear Land, LLC TYPE OF APPLICATION: PUD Amendment (Other Amendment) DESCRIPTION: In 2003, Ordinance No. 29 granted approval of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the Dancing Bear Lodge. Part of the site specific development plan approved a mechanical room on the roof of the building for the spa equipment. Changes to this mechanical room have resulted in a larger structure located closer to the parapet. This change exceeds what can be approved through an Insubstantial PUD amendment. The change cannot be processed administratively as it is a "change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's original approval and the site review criteria material." The request for an amendment to the PUD will need to be processed under Section 26.445.100 B., Other Amendment. The review is under the purview of the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing and a land use application will need to be submitted for minor application. Land Use Code Sectionls 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.412.060 Commercial Design Standards 26.445 Planned Unit Development 26.445.100.6, Other Amendment Review by: Staff for complete application Referral agencies for technical considerations if necessary Public Hearing: Yes at P &Z review Planning Fees: $1,470.00 Total Number of Application Copies: 12 Copies To apply, submit the following information: 1. Total Deposit for review of application. 2. Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 3. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 4. Completed Land Use Application. 5. Signed fee agreement. 6. Pre - application Conference Summary. 7. An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City of Aspen. 8. Proof of ownership. 9. Existing site plan. 10. Existing and proposed floor plans and elevation drawings that include proposed dimensional requirements. 11. A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how a proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. 12. A written description of proposed construction techniques to be used. 13. All other materials required pursuant to the specific submittal requirements. 14. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing. The GIS department can provide this list on mailing labels for a small fee. 920.5453 15. Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of copies noted above) as well as the text only on either of the following digital formats. Compact Disk (CD)- preferred, Zip Disk or Floppy Disk. Microsoft Word format is preferred. Text format easily convertible to Word is acceptable. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. AN3Atl 09 008 1 uoppru ;sul,p / ;uawaBley-3 ap sum D091S ®A83AV ;pege8 al zesll!3f1 sum%4?ne -A mm alllna; el za;lnsuo3 '. jaled a sall3e; m4anbl ;4 ALYEMENI MOHAMMED & ALICE ASPEN KABINN LLC NNIE THOMAS E 3109 OAKMONT OR C/O NIKE COMM/NINA KAMINER BE BE 84 EXHIBIT STATESVILLE, NC 28625 75 BROAD ST RM 500 ASPEN, 98 98 81612 NEW YORK, NY 10004 -2415 H , BERHORST JERRY BLUE LLOYD JR BOGIN ROBERT M BERHORST CAROLE PLEAS ALEXA 4280 S MEADOW BROOK LN 7161 LINDENMERE DR PO BOX 1569 EVERGREEN, CO 80439 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48301 GRAYTON BEACH, FL 32459 BRAYMAN WALTER W & PATRICIA BRIGHT GALEN BRIGHT GALEN 844 ROCKWELL LN 205 E DURANT AVE #30 407 S HUNTER ST #3 KANSAS CITY, MO 64112 -2363 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BROWNELL LORRAINE B CALKINS GEORGE W CALLAHAN PATRICIA 1030 SECOND ST 105 S CHEROKEE 0184 MOUNTAIN LAUREL DR MORGAN CITY, LA 70380 DENVER, CO 80223 -1834 ASPEN, CO 81611 CARRIGAN RICHARD A JR CAUSING JENNIFER M CHAPLIN ARLENE & WAYNE 25526 WILLIAMS RD PO BOX 10343 54 LAGORCE CIR WARRENVILLE, IL 60555 ASPEN, CO 81612 MIAMI BEACH, FL 33141 CHRISPAT ASPEN LLC CHRISTENSEN EUGENE J CHU FAMILY TRUST 2/3 INT 1107 5TH AVE PO BOX 10061 LU NANCY CHAO TRUST 1/3 INT NEW YORK, NY 10128 ASPEN, CO 81612 38 CORMORANT CIR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CITY OF ASPEN CLAUSEN FAMILY TRUST NO 1 COHN PETER L 130 S GALENA ST C/O GUNDY MGMT CO 1601 S CENTRAL AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 47 GLENDALE, CA 91204 MORRIS, IL 60450 CROSBY CHRISTINE ANN DANCING BEAR LAND LLC DOLLE NORMA 1050 E WATERS AVE #15 210 N MILL ST #203 124 E COOPER AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 DONCER JOYCE TRUST ELLIS DIANA L ROQUE TRUSTEE EVANS DAVID COURTNEY 7641 W 123RD PL 13320 MULHOLLAND OR PO BOX 952 PALOS HEIGHTS, IL 60463 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 ASPEN, CO 81612 FAULKNER JOHN L FELDMAN SELMA FOX THOMAS H 2433 ROCKINGHAM ST 300 S POINTE DR APT 2403 119 E COOPER AVE ARLINGTON, VA 22207 MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139 -7329 ASPEN, CO 81611 T 09 Tam;ead load (se3 jo; waded paa j M 90915 A1113Atl 09 008 t uolvni�sul,p �. >uawa6mep ap sun ®0915 ®AH3AV 1,ljege6 a1 zasum w03*AJ6A8' .A&M a81na; el za}lnsuo3 v aalad a selhe; sauenbl ;� FREIRICH MARK A FUQUA ALVAH D JR & DIANNE L FYRWALD JON ERIK & GUDRUN L PO BOX 774056 446 LAKE SHORE DR 4348 PLUMWOOD DR STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, CO 80477 SUNSET BEACH, NC 28468 WEST DES MOINES, IA 50265 GEORGIEFF KATHERINE TRUSTEE OF GLICKMAN EDWIN C THE 2322 LAZY 0 RD KATHERINE GEORGIEFF REVOCABLE LIVING TRS SNOWMASS, CO 81654 #11 TOPPING LN ST LOUIS, MO 63131 GREINER JERRY M GREINER TERESA U 330 BICKLEY RD GLENSIDE, PA 19038 GUNION JOHN F 1004 MARINA CIR DAVIS, CA 95616 HERRON SANDRA A 119 E COOPER AVE APT 19 ASPEN, CO 81611 -1761 HOSKIN REEDE PO BOX 2478 BASALT, CO 81621 -2478 ICAHN LIBA PO BOX 11137 ASPEN, CO 81612 -9627 J &E HANSEN LLC C/O EDWARD HANSEN 255 SEASPRAY AVE PALM BEACH, FL 33480 KAUFMAN STEVEN B TRUST C/O VIRGINIA HARLOW 0554 ESCALANTE CARBONDALE, CO 81623 -8770 KINGSBURY FAMILY TRUST PO BOX 198 HOLDERNESS, NH 03245 GROOS NICHOLAS D 210 N INDUSTRIAL PARK RD HASTINGS, MI 49058 GUTNER KENNETH H REV TRUST PO BOX 11001 ASPEN, CO 81612 HOLLY TREE INVESTMENTS LLC 4823 HOLLY TREE DR DALLAS, TX 75287 HOTEL DURANT 122 E DURANT ASPEN, CO 81611 IMHOF FAMILY TRUST 2409 GREEN ST SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94123 JACOBSON FAMILY TRUST 2168 SANTA MARGARITA DR FALLBROOK, CA 92028 KEBER VINCENT M III 1301 WAZEE #2E DENVER, CO 80204 KULLGREN NANCY A 205 E DURANT AVE UNIT 2 -C ASPEN, CO 81611 GOLDSMITH ADAM D SMITH RONA K PO BOX 9069 ASPEN, CO 81612 GUBSER NICHOLAS J PO BOX 870 ASPEN, CO 81612 HATCHER HUGH S 205 E DURANT AVE APT 2E ASPEN, CO 81611 HORTON KAREN JANE TRUST 588 S PONTIAC WAY DENVER, CO 80224 IAVARONE GIANFRANCO & RITA 341 ORIENTA AVE MAMORONECK, NY 10543 IMREM SUE GORDON TRUSTEE 219 E LAKE SHORE DR #51D CHICAGO, IL 60611 KAPLAN BARBARA 3076 EDGEWOOD RD PEPPER PIKE, OH 44124 KEITH JOHN III 300 PUPPY SMITH ST #203 -230 ASPEN, CO 81611 LACY ROANE M JR PO BOX 367 WACO, TX 76703 -0367 T � Tam;ead lard Ase3 ao; jaded peadT 00915 31V7dW31 @antl asn . ®0915 ®AM2AM1�°//1 Aa3An -09 -008 -1. uolpn,isul,p ,.�. wortiane•n UVkM apma; el za;InsuoD LARRABEE DONALD C JR LEATHERMAN ROBERT D 411 LAKEWOOD CIR #A110 PO BOX 11930 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80910 ASPEN, CO 81612 LIFT ONE CONDOMINIUM ASSOC LIFT ONE LLC 72.40% 131 E DURANT AVE 24 LINDENWOOD LN ASPEN, CO 81611 LITTLETON, CO 80127 %u9wa6Je9 ap sv^. 009L5 ®A83AV Wege6 al zosimn ♦ aalad g selpe; sauanbq LEVY HELEN JOAN TRUST 421 WARWICK RD KENILWORTH, IL 60043 -1145 LIMELITE REDEVELOPMENT LLC C/O GENERAL MANAGEMENT 1201 GALAPAGO ST #101 DENVER, CO 80204 LOCHHEAD RAYMOND R & EMILIE M LORING PETER & ELIZABETH S MACDONALD KENNETH HUGH REV 200 SHERWOOD RD LORING WOLCOTT & COOLIDGE OFFICE TRUST PASO ROBLES, CA 93446 230 CONGRESS ST 44 W HANNUM BOSTON, MA 02110 SAGINAW, MI 48602 MAGES LAWRENCE M & MARY K 84% MARCUS ANN H C/O S MARCUS MARK KENNETH A 216 LINDEN AVE WILMETTE, IL 60091 117 N MONARCH ST #01 200 PANTIGO RD ASPEN, CO 81611 EAST HAMPTON, NY 11937 MCCONNELL THOMAS W & KAY L MCKENZIE BART B & PAIGE PARAVANO MESSNER CHRISTIAN 3814 OAKHILLS 4840 30TH ST NORTH 3111 BEL AIR DR APT 202 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48301 ARLINGTON, VA 22207 -2716 LAS VEGAS, NV 89109 MILLER R GREG MOUNTAIN CHALET ENTERPRISES INC MULKEY DAVID A DR PO BOX 4577 333 E DURANT AVE TRUSTEE ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 2860 AUGUSTA DR LAS VEGAS, NV 89109 NELSON ARLENE NEWMAN KERRY J & RICKI R ONEAL PROPERTIES LLC 119 E COOPER ST #6 617 PRINCE DR 8100 E CAMELBACK RD #31 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEWBURGH, IN 47630 SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85251 -2773 PROP LLC SMITH SMITH PATRICK A PAY ERIC GEOFFREY PHILLIPS B R 360 I, 119 E COOPER AVE APT 12 311 S ASPEN ST #1 BIRMINGHAM, INGHA BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 MI 48 ASPEN, CO 81611 -1772 ASPEN, CO 81611 PIECE OF THE PIE LLC PINES LODGE CONDO ASSOC PINES LODGE DEVELOPMENT LLC PO BOX 2492 152 E DURANT AVE 2353 IRVINE AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 PITNER N KATHRYN POPKIN PHILIP G PRASAD REV TRUST PO BOX 11930 PO BOX 7956 3776 W 3700 N ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 DARLINGTON, ID 83255 T an9LS2iA ?17AM1 \�/!1 Tainjead lead Ase3jo; �� jadedpeadT M ®09LS31VIdW3l�JaAda A83AV 09 006 1 uoluni ;suLP lu8w96Ae4:) ap sw-% @09LS ®A83AV ilaege6 al zoslil ;n w03-AMe nnnnnn alllna; el za3lnsuoD V salad g selpe; sauan6l3� PRODINGER IRMA PURVIS ROBERT K & CAROLYN K RINGSBY GRAY PO BOX 1245 PO BOX 3089 PO BOX 1292 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 HAIKU, HI 96708 ROARING FORK PROPERTIES C/O HOWARD A WILL JR 5055 26TH AVE ROCKFORD, IL 61109 RUMSEY DANIEL W 13700 MARINA POINTE DR #512 MARINA DL REY, CA 90292 -9259 SCHUMACHER JUDY M 0115 GLEN EAGLES DR ASPEN, CO 81611 SHEFFER BARBARA & DOUGLAS PO BOX 250 ASPEN, CO 81612 SKY BLUE LLC 27.60% 5743 CORSA AVE # 101 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91362 SOUTH POINT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 205 E DURANT AVE #2F ASPEN, CO 81611 STAPLETON DAVID W 206 E DEAN ST #2A ASPEN, CO 81611 STEINER DONALD R BUCKHEAD GRAND 3338 PEACHTREE RD #3307 ATLANTA, GA 30326 SZYMANSKI WILLIAM R & LYNNE E 2220 E SILVER PALM RD BOCA RATON, FL 33432 ROBLES ENRIQUE ALVAREZ ALVAREZ CRISTINA MONTES URALES 350 LOMAS CHAPULTEPEC MEXICO DF MEXICO, 11000 SCHAPIRO MARC & PATRICIA 1685 TAMARAC DR GOLDEN, CO 80401 SCULL JAMES E PO BOX 2051 ASPEN, CO 81612 SHENNAN MELISSA 822 LANE LORRAINE LAKE FOREST, IL 60045 -1643 SILT ASPEN DEAN STREET LLC C/O EPROPERTY TAX DEPT 206 PO BOX 4900 SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85261 -4900 SOUTHPOINT- SUMNER CORP 4828 FORT SUMNER DR BETHESDA, MD 20816 STARK RENEE A 205 E DURANT AVE APT 1 D ASPEN, CO 81611 -3813 STITT ELIZABETH WILES IRREV TRUST 1450 SILVERKING DR ASPEN, CO 81611 TAROCH HOLDINGS LTD C/O PATRICK D MCALLISTER PC 315 E HYMAN AVE #305 ASPEN, CO 81611 -2909 ROSS[ ELAYNE R 700 LITE AVE #710 ASPEN, CO 81611 SCHAYER CHARLES M III 588 S PONTIAC WAY DENVER, CO 80224 SHAW ROBERT W 5208 A PERSHING AVE FORT WORTH, TX 76107 SILVERKAN MARC A& MARILYN L 937 DALE RD MEADOWBROOK, PA 19046 SOUTH POINT CONDO LLC 150 N MARKET WICHITA, KS 67202 SPAULDING RICHARD W THOMPSON ELEANOR M PO BOX 278 CONCORD, MA 01742 -0278 STARWOOD VACATION OWNERSHIP C/O JOAN LAND ACCT MGR 9002 SAN MARCO CT ORLANDO, FL 32819 SULLIVAN JOHN B TRUST 1300 E REUSCH RD ELIZABETH, IL 61028 THALBERG KATHERINE C/O BROOKE ANDERSON 3131 CONNECTICUT AVE NW #2801 WASHINGTON, DC 20008 T �� Wq Tainieai laad Rse3 jo; � jade ea T tian �09LS�A21�AH1�91 __ dP d, ®09LS31VIdW31® VasD A83Atl- O9-008-L ua ni;sul,p 0 + Waw96aeg3 Sp suaV�, @09L5 MA83Atl }uege6 al zasimn worArane•nAmm alllna; el zallnsuo:) ♦ salad a salpe; sauanbl34 THREE REEDS LLC TOWNE PLACE OF ASPEN CONDO TYDEN FAMILY FARMS PTNP 2224 VIA SEVILLE RD NW ASSOC INC 1730 IROQUOIS TR ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87104 -3096 C/O ASPEN LODGING COMPANY 747 S GALENA ST HASTINGS, MI 49058 ASPEN, CO 81611 VANDER WALL DEAN ROBERT & BEVERLY J PO BOX 189 LONE PINE, CA 93545 WEINGLASS LEONARD PO BOX 11509 ASPEN, CO 81612 WITEK ROBERT J & RONA R 225 S MONARCH #G103 ASPEN, CO 81611 WOW LIFT ONE LLC C/O WARSTLER ROBERT T 3225 ELK CANYON CIR SEDALIA, CO 80135 -8573 ®09 LS.A.M9AH l�l°// 1 VANTONGEREN HAROLD V & LIDIA M 2000 E 12TH AVE BOX 8 DENVER, CO 80206 WHITE JALEH THICKMAN DAVID 152 E DURANT AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 -1737 WOODING MERRITT B PO BOX 339 HOPE, NJ 07844 WUGALTER JOEL 716 BISHOPS LODGE RD SANTE FE, NM 87501 -1127 VENTER HENDRIK JOHANNES PO BOX 11979 ASPEN, CO 81612 WICHMANN VICTORIA BOX 4388 ASPEN, CO 81612 WOODSON TATJANA REV TRUST PO BOX 125 TETON VILLAGE, WY 83025 TaAn ead laad Ase3 ao; waded PaaiT Rd ®09LS 3iVldW31 &�Uantl asD u 11 N TOe:.1 u r TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Andrea Hingley, Planning Technician+ THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director DATE OF MEMO: November 3, 2008 MEETING DATE: November 18, 2008 RE: 411 S. Monarch Street — Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Commercial Design Review APPLICANT /OWNER: Dancing Bear Land, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Eben P. Clark, Klein, Cote and Edwards, LLC STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request to accommodate the equipment area on the 3` floor rooftop. During the original approval process, both City Council and P & Z had concerns regarding the height, scale and massing of the upper floors of the building. LOCATION: Civic Address - 401 S. Monarch SUMMARY: Street; Legal Description — Lots P, Q, R and S, Block 77, City and Townsite of Aspen; Parcel Identification Number — 2735- 182 -19 -002 CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the Lodge zone district with a PUD overlay containing a timeshare lodge development currently under construction. PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting an amendment to the approved PUD to accommodate the screening and enclosure of the spa mechanical equipment area on the -1 floor A site specific PUD was approved for the development of the lodge in 2003. The project is currently under construction. During a routine field inspection, the City's Building Department staff noticed an additional unapproved enclosure. The City "Red Tagged" the project and allowed construction on other elements of the project to proceed with the condition that the applicant apply for this PUD Amendment. Page 1 of 12 41 its rte- Figure 1: Vicinity Map BACKGROUND: The applicant proposes to accommodate the enclosure of the spa mechanical equipment area on the 3`d floor rooftop, adjacent to the gazebo of the previously approved project, the Dancing Bear Lodge, that is now currently under construction at 411 S. Monarch Street (See Application - Exhibit B). The majority of the project has been completed, including an enclosure on the 3`d floor roof, which was `Red Tagged' as the structure differed from the approved plans. This structure that exists currently is different than what was submitted as part of this application. The proposed structure includes roofs of varying heights (5 ft & 9ft). The mechanical area has been on all approved plans in the same general area where this enclosure is proposed. The concern is that what is proposed is more visible, as the structure is located closer to the parapet. Two different approvals are required. The applicants' representative, Eben Clark, had met with staff to see if the request could be approved administratively. Staff determined that the request could not be made administratively, as more than one approval is necessary. The required approvals include a PUD Other Amendment and Commercial Design Review — Substantial Amendment. Page 3 of 12 The Dancing Bear Lodge received final PUD approval by Council on August 11, 2003 by Ordinance No. 29 of Series 2003. Prior to the original approval, numerous discussions were held as there was concern among City Council members as well as Planning and Zoning members regarding the height, scale and massing of the building. LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission to accommodate the enclosure of the spa mechanical equipment area on the .3 floor rooftop on the Dancing Bear Lodge: • PUD Amendment pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.100 B. Other Amendment An amendment found to be consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final development plan by the Community Development Director, but which does not meet the established thresholds for an insubstantial amendment, may be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Since height and massing were discussed in great detail during the original approvals, staff feels the proposed enclosure is not consistent with the projects original approval and cannot be reviewed administratively. • Commercial Design Review for a change to the original design that received final approval, as pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412.080.B. Substantial Amendments. The application, as presented, requires both a PUD Amendment, as well as commercial design review which qualifies the review as a substantial review. DISCUSSION: During the approval processes there was much concern regarding the height, scale and massing of the building. Plans were revised to accommodate P & Z's and City Council's recommendation to reduce the visual mass and height of the building. This was accomplished through having a tiered effect of the upper floors of the building, the uppermost floor being the gazebo. The gazebo was centered in the middle of the building so that it appeared that the building did not have a 4h floor. It was noted in the meeting minutes from City Council dated, June 23, 2003, that the view plane from the Wheeler Opera House would not be compromised by this project, as lodges farther up Aspen Mountain are higher. The proposed mechanical equipment on the roof has been shown on previous plans and is not a new element for the building. The equipment enclosure in the proposed location will be visible from certain points around the building. Staff feels that the enclosure could be less of an eyesore for the neighbors than uncovered spa mechanical equipment, but because of the concerns of the boards that this application is being returned back to P & Z for the decision. • PUD Other Amendment The plat showing the approved PUD is different than the application received. The approved plat shows elevations that show only the gazebo to be above the parapet wall for all sides of the building. The submitted application shows a significant structure adjacent to the gazebo which Page 4 of 12 r will be visible from several sides. The height of the proposed enclosure is approximately the same as the top of the gazebo, but still lower than the existing elevators shaft. The desired enclosure is considered an `Other Amendment' as it changes the dimensions which were previously approved for the 4th floor. • Commercial Design Review It appears that the enclosure, in its intended location addresses the design concerns of placing the mechanical equipment to the rear of the building to help shield it from view. The concern of staff is that the part that is visible does change the intended look of the building. The tiered effect does not appear to work as well with the proposed enclosure and therefore it is a height and massing concern, not evident in the original approvals. The proposed structure is visible from the alley and S. Aspen St., only slightly visible from E. Durant Ave and not visible from S. Monarch St. The application must also comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. The project is located in the Commercial Character Area. The Commercial Character Area has some design objectives and guidelines that the proposed amendments to the building must meet. The intent of the proposed enclosure is to meet the design guidelines as much as possible and still remain compliant with the building code. This is demonstrated by the proposed location of the enclosure being located towards the rear of the building and being set back from the facade, which helps to screen it from view. RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that the application is substantial in nature. Much discussion of size, height and mass at the approval hearings that it has warranted a P & Z review of the proposed structure on the 3`d floor roof plane. The same materials will be used to cover the proposed enclosure. The Commission should consider the possible visual and noise mitigation benefits of the proposed enclosure. Community Development Department staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the Planned Unit Development Other Amendment, and Commercial Design Review - Substantial Amendment requests. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Community Development Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the PUD Amendment application. All motions should be made in the positive. If, after sufficient effort no motion can be adopted the chairman should request a motion to deny the application. "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2008, to approve the Spa Equipment Enclosure application for 411 S. Monarch St." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Staff Findings Exhibit B — Meeting Minutes from Aspen City Council (June 23, 2003 and July 28, 2003) Exhibit C — Application Page 5 of 12 .�1 PUD Other Amendment 10-, EXHIBIT A The same criteria are used to reviewing a PUD with the focus on the changed conditions and the requested amendment. A. General Requirements: 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen area Community Plan. Response: The proposed development remains consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) as the intent of the change is to protect the neighboring properties from the visual and auditory impacts of necessary mechanical equipment. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Response: The proposed development remains consistent with the character of the existing land uses in the surrounding area, as the proposed change is not a change in use. The development will serve as a benefit to the community by acting as an auditory and visual buffer for the spa equipment. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Response: Much of the surrounding area is currently under development, so the proposed change will not drastically alter the use or appearance as it will not need to be replaced in the near future. 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. Response: GMQS does not apply to this change, as the proposed development is for a mechanical enclosure only. B. Establishment of dimensional requirements: 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. Response: The proposed amendment will not change the height, scale or site coverage on the given property, though the massing will be altered on the northwest corner of the building. The height of the proposed enclosure is no higher than the previously approved elevator shaft. b) Natural or man-made hazards. Page 6 of 12 Response: Natural characteristics such as steep slopes, waterways, trees and land forms are not impacted by the proposed spa enclosure on the roof. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade and significant vegetation and landforms. Response: Natural or manmade features are not altered by the proposed enclosure of the spa equipment. 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. Response: The structure is proposed to help decrease the auditory and visual effects of spa mechanical equipment, therefore making it less of an impact on the neighborhood. View planes in concern are only impacted very slightly by the proposed 3rd floor alteration, as the existing gazebo is not higher than the proposed enclosure. 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. Response: Massing is only the dimensional requirement impacted by the spa enclosure on the roof on the northwest corner of the building. The height of the proposed enclosure is no higher than the previously approved roof line of 46'. C. Site design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. 7. For nonresidential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Response: Page 7 of 12 The proposed enclosure on the 3`d floor roof will minimally impact natural features, such as the Wheeler Opera House view plane, as there already exists a gazebo on the roof to obstruct the view. D. Landscape plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the City, with surrounding parcels and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well- designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation and provides an ample quantity and 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. Response: N/A E. Architectural character. 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less- intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Response: The general architectural appearance of the building is not changing; the proposal is to enclose spa equipment on the 3`d floor roof. The enclosure is closer to the parapet and therefore more visible. The equipment has always been located in the area of the proposed enclosure. The enclosure is meant to screen the equipment from view, as well as control the noise from the equipment. The enclosure will be covered with material consistent with the rest of the building and is compatible with the rest of the character of the neighborhood. 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. Response: N/A G. Common park, open space or recreation area. Response: N/A G. Utilities and public facilities. Page 8 of 12 P- 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. Response: N/A Commercial Design Review Criteria 26.412.050 Review Criteria An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the fagade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. (Ord. No. 13, 2007, § 1) Response: The proposed spa enclosure on the roof is a slight deviation from the original design. The enclosure is to visually block the spa equipment from view, as well as help control the noise from the equipment. The structure will match the materials if the rest of the building Sec. 26.412.060. Commercial design standards. The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed -use development: A. Public amenity space. Creative, well - designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights -of -way or private property within commercial areas. On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Page 9 of 12 PON � Public amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method-or combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on -site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. 2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at -grade relationships with adjacent rights -of -way are encouraged. 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights -of -way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. 4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. 5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. Response: The proposed enclosure of the spa mechanical equipment on the roof will not change any public amenity space, as the location of the enclosure is roughly in the same place as the original proposed location, though slightly larger and set closer to the parapet. B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A utility, trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated along the alley meeting the minimum standards established by Section 26.575.060, Utility /trash/recycle service areas, unless otherwise established according to said Section. 2. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property and along the alley. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. 3. Delivery service areas shall be incorporated along the alley. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. 4. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. 5. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be Page 10 of 12 visible from a public right -of -way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. (Ord. No. 13, 2007, §1) Response: Utility, delivery and trash services will not be impacted by the proposed amendment to the structure. The mechanical equipment has been located as much as possible towards the rear of the building, and equipment has been grouped in the proposed location. The structure, though visible from some locations has been made to be as onobstruive as possible in its given location. Applicable review criteria from the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines Commercial Character Area Design Objectives and Guidelines: Floor Stature: 1.36 Minimize the appearance of a tall third floor. (Page 31) • Where a third floor's floor to ceiling height is in excess of 12 ft. it should be set back a minimum of 15 feet from the street fagade to reduce the apparent height • Increase the parapet height to screen the visual impact of the tall top floor • The design of a setback third floor shall be simpler in form, more subdued in modeling, detail and color than the primary fagade Response: The proposed change is an alteration to the 3`d floor roof top. The enclosure is closer to the parapet than the original proposed location of the equipment. The proposed alteration of the roof is on the western side of building and only covers a small portion of that side. The 2nd floor roof is set back from the street fagade, as is the 3`d floor. The enclosure is at the edge of the 3`d floor and is visible from certain perspectives. Roofscape: 1.44 A larger building should reflect the traditional lot width in the form and variation of its roof. (Page 34) This should be achieved through the following: • A setback of the top floor from the fagade • Reflect the traditional lot width in the roof plane Response: The top floor is set back from the front facade. The proposed alteration is closer to the parapet than the original design location of the equipment. The proposed alteration is to screen the equipment from view as well as provide a sound barrier for the noise. 1.45. The roofscape should be designed with the same design attention as the secondary elevations of the buildings. (Page 34) • Group and screen mechanical equipment from view • Locate mechanical equipment to the rear of the roof area • Position, articulate and design rooftop enclosures or structures to reflect the modulation and character of the building • Use materials which compliment the design of the building fagades Page 11 of 12 r-. Design roof garden areas to be unobtrusive from the street Use Green Roof design best practice where feasible Response: The roofscape has been designed as much as possible to meet this standard, and will result in a greater compliance with this guideline as the equipment will now be shielded from view. The equipment is located at the back of the building and is grouped into one area. The enclosure's location is as unobtrusive as possible; it is not visible from Wagner Park (S. Monarch St) and is only visible from certain locations on Durant St. Page 12 of 12 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 23, 2003 Councilwoman Richard moved to adopt Ordinance #23, Series of 2003, t ee provision that the neighbors be consulted at the time of the soils s widrAhe engineer and that the fire marshal look at fire and safety ess during an emolition and excavation time as well as the final evelopn plan and that wilding permit will not be issued for this ess the Residences application has been withdrawn Peterson asked what consu'lfi g with the i means. Councilwoman Richard said the background and history when the 'Is sti the applicants are required to submit a o city staff. Vann said the condition stakes recommendation of the soils a development department, said does that leave staff. Peters will give the Falenders a copy language "consulted ". , =f the soils survey tbors would like to give being looked at. Vann said evaluation to be reviewed by applicants will comply, with the Ann Woods, community Vhe neighbors 1we not "consulted ", where ;aid when the soils dy is submitted, they Peterson said he is no omfortable with the Councilwoman Richards withdrew her motion. Councilman Semrau moved to adopt Ordinance #23, Series of 2003, second reading with the condition that prior to the issuance of a buildin permit or demolition permit, the application for the Residences at the Littl Nell will be withdrawn and that the Falenders will be provided with a copy of the soils study and invited to comment; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. Roll call vote: Richards, yes; Torre, yes; Paulson, no; Semrau, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #29, SERIES OF 2003 — Dancing Bear PUD James Lindt, community development department, told Council this is a lodge preservation PUD to redevelop a site at 411 South Monarch street. Council is the final reviewing body of all land use requests for this site. Lindt showed Council where the site is, just west of Wagner park. The site is 12,000 square feet and is zoned LTR. There is currently a one -story lodge building with 23 bedrooms. This building has been vacant for the last 5 years. Lindt said the proposal is to demolish the existing lodge and replace it with an 11 -unit time share lodge of 28 bedrooms. Each unit will have lock off capabilities. 15 J �A Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 23, 2003 Lindt reviewed each floor of the proposal. The first floor has a lobby and check in area access from South Monarch street; a lounge/bar with patio seating; one 1400 square foot, 2 bedroom lodge unit; 2 affordable housing units of 2 bedrooms. The second floor contains 4 lodge units, two 1400 square feet 2 bedroom units; two 2800 square feet 3 bedroom units. The third, floor. contains 3 2800 square foot 3 bedroom units. The fourth floor has 3 three bedroom units and a recessed patio. The fifth floor has a glass gazebo, which would have a hot tub and exercise area. Lindt said the applicant proposes 3 below grade levels. The first level has a garage access accessed from the alley, as well as a games and recreation area, and a storage area. There are 24 parking spaces proposed on site; 5 spaces at grade on the applicant's property. The second floor below grade contains the majority of the garage. The third floor below grade contains more storage for the owner's personal goods, mechanical area and conference room. Lindt said the timeshare will be 8 shares per unit, 58 totals estates. The FAR is 3.25:1 and a height of 57 feet to the midpoint of the gazebo. Lindt told Council staff feels this is an appropriate use for the site. In the past this has been used as a lodge. This project will bring vitality to a very important comer in town. The applicant has proposed a good deal of their affordable housing mitigation on site. The applicant has proposed greater than .7/lodge bedroom of parking spaces, which is required.by code. Lindt noted one concern is the height, which is proposed at 57 feet as measured by the land use code. Other lodges in that area are the St. Regis, which is 50 to 60 feet, the Mountain Chalet is low 50's. Three P &Z members felt the height was too extreme for the 28 feet as allowed in the LTR zone. Lindt told Council the upper floors are recessed to create a wedding cake effect, which helps lessen the mass. The building has been stepped down to the.west towards the townhomes. Lindt said staff feels the massing is appropriate with the exception of the turret. Lindt told Council the applicant proposed to use two spaces on Monarch as loading zones. Staff does not agree a lodge of 11 units needs a loading zone and added a condition that two alley spaces be signed as check -in parking. The third issue is the financial impact analysis to compare the proposed timeshare lodge with the tax revenues that would have been gained through lodge use. Lindt said the applicant's financial impact analysis shows there 16 Reeular Meetine Aspen City Council June 23, 2003 would not be a tax revenue loss through this fractional fee change. The city's finance director, Paul Menter, commented the projected nightly rental rates are too high and the analysis should be redone with a lower rate. Menter requested a condition that the city be able to do an audit after the lodge is operating. Mitch Haas, representing the applicant, reiterated this site has been sitting vacant for several years and has been years since it has contributed to Aspen's bed base. Haas said a boarded up building is sending an antithetical message to tourists regarding the economy and the vitality of lodges on the fringe of the commercial core., Haas told Council most potential purchasers of this property wanted to build residential townhomes. This owner is interested in developing something that will contribute to the vitality and economic sustainability of the town. The applicant proposes two above grade employee housing units. This development should raise occupancy levels and should attract new visitors to Aspen. Haas noted there are trash compactors and recycling facilities access off the alley. There will be a decrease of 1 lodge unit from the Aspen Manor; however, the bedrooms will increase from 23 to 28. There will be an increase of leasable commercial space on the property including a sidewalk patio cafe on the corner. Haas told Council the applicants propose to house 4.5 employees and the remaining fraction of employee will be mitigated by cash -in -lieu. The management and operation of the lodge will be done with an existing lodge or with a management company. Haas said a strong architectural statement is important on this corner, right across from a large park. The perceived mass of the structure is broken up by different forms and modules, changes in exterior building materials, balconies, different window forms and shapes, and stepping the building back. Haas said they have tried for a classic wedding cake style building, the structure steps down in height to the west and the southwest comer of the lodge is only 25 feet above grade. The west side of the lodge is 3 stories as is the northwest and northeast corners of the building. The midsection of the building is 4 stories. The 5th story gazebo sits in the center of the building. The building height has been lowered and the mass reduced through P &Z review. Haas told Council the height at the corner of Monarch and Durant is less than 32 feet without the turret. 17 r^ ^ Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 23, 2003 Haas said the height of the structure varies depending from where it is measured. The fluctuations are a function of the topography of the site. The highest measured height on a public right -of -way is at the northwest "corner along the alley and it is 39'9 "; the southeast comer 31'6" exclusive of the turret. The height is the gazebo is mitigated by using glass, by the stepping back of the surrounding levels and the fact it is setback 27 feet from Durant Avenue. - This should not shadow streets or surrounding properties. The Wheeler Opera House view plane of Aspen mountain would not be compromised by this development. The overall height of Dancing Bear is lower than that of the St. Regis. The Mountain Chalet addition was approved at 52 feet to the midpoint of a pitched roof and allows 5 stories in that building. Haas said given the site's location and proximity to downtown and the transportation center, there should belittle need for cars. There are 24 on- site parking spaces. The applicant commits to encouraging employees and guests to use alternative transportation. A fleet of bicycles will be kept on site for guests and employees. There will be provision for airport shuttle by the applicant or by contract with another lodge who does airport shuttle. The applicant has committed to keeping a small fleet of hybrid vehicles for use by guests and employees. Haas said they hope to obtain LEEDS certification, which is a national green building program, and to come as close to possible of the gold level. Haas summarized this is will replace an eyesore, will add hot beds, and will _ . revitalize the Durant/Monarch intersection. The applicants hope to set a precedent for green building; they plan of housing 4.5 FTEs on site. There will be over $1 million in direct tax generation in the first 5 years of operation. The project provides community facilities, is self sufficient for parking and storage and the project furthers the AACP goals with respect to small lodges, affordable housing, economic sustainability, growth and the environment. David Brown, architect, went over the materials and the architecture of the proposed building. Brown told Council they went through the guidelines in the fractional timeshare ordinance and have tried to incorporate everything the ordinances envisions. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. m 1 A I Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 23, 2003 Cliff Weiss said this building is out of scale for the neighborhood. Weiss said he does not feel this size building will contribute to the community. Roger Haneman, P &Z member, said this project will bring more benefits to the community than the one Council just approved. Haneman said these applicants made a great effort to meet the requests of P &Z. Dale Paas, Limelite Lodge, said he is concerned about the economic viability of the base of Aspen Mountain; however, he is very concerned about the economic sustainability of the Limelite Lodge. Paas said a massive building of this height and bulk will negatively affect the ability of the Limelite to rent rooms. Paas said this building does not blend with the neighborhood. Paas requested Council only approve 28 foot high building as allowed by the code. Stan Hajenga, manager Mountain Chalet, presented a letter from the owners of the Snow Queen Lodge stating they are against the proposed height, which goes against the principles of planning in this area. Hajenga applauded that someone is trying to develop this corner. Hajenga said the city needs to look at a system that allows a building to fall into disrepair for 5 years. Hajenga said the proposed height will affect many neighbors and many businesses: Hajenga said when the Mountain Chalet addition went through the process, they had to meet the view plane requirements. This building does not meet the view plane requirements. Hajenga said he would like to see this corner redeveloped; however, this proposal is beyond the scale and height called for. Debbie Falender said she reviewed the PUD and other land use code ordinances. The PUD ordinances say height, mass, parking, and density should respect the underlying zoning. The underlying zoning here is 1:1 and the FAR for this proposed project is 3.25:1. The PUD ordinance also states that the property shall be clustered to preserve significant open space. Ms. Falender noted that does not mean a building should be built right up to the borders of the property. Ms. Falender said this is too big for town. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Richards said she appreciates all the work that has been done; however, she cannot approve this plan. Councilwoman Richards noted there is discussion in the infill about creating more view planes and 19 14�1 �% Regular Meetine Aspen City Council June 23, 2003 one of Shadow Mountain and this will block the view of Shadow Mountain. The building is taller than the surrounding pine trees. Councilwoman Richards agreed she would like to see redevelopment on this lot; however, this is overreaching. Councilwoman Richards said only 9% open space may work for a one story building but it does not work for a 5 story building. Councilwoman Richards noted part of a PUD process is to look at a greater public benefit. This proposal does not add any extra affordable housing out of 36,000 square feet. Councilwoman Richards said this site is on the north side of Durant and has transitioned to a different neighborhood from the base of the mountain. Councilwoman Richards noted this building will be higher than the Elk's Club building. Councilwoman Richards said this is zoned LTR and one could construct 3 residential townhomes on this site, which would not contribute to the community either. Mayor Klanderud said she, too, has problems with the height, especially as it would block the view of Shadow Mountain. Mayor Klanderud said the turret makes the building interesting. Mayor Klanderud stated she would consider some height variance; however, this is much too high. Mayor Klanderud said she would prefer to see all affordable housing built rather than get cash -in -lieu for housing. Mayor Klanderud said she is concerned there are only 2 parking spaces for affordable housing. Mayor Klanderud agreed it is great something is being planned for this site. It is a critical block in Aspen. Brown said some of the benefits to the community are that this project will provide hot beds and will bring guests to Aspen with'money to spend. Councilman Paulson agreed the structure is took tall. Councilman Paulson said he likes the gazebo. Councilman Paulson said he would like to see the building shrunk. Councilman Paulson asked about the trees on site. Brown said they have met with city staff, who have identified 2 or 3 significant trees on Durant street that should remain. The applicants will cooperate with the parks to give them what they ask for. Haas told Council the large conifers are not appropriate for pedestrian traffic as they grow all the way to the ground. The parks department is recommending trees that are more easily walked under. Councilman Paulson asked what will keep a person from buying 6 or 12 months of one unit. City Manager Steve Barwick said that is covered in the city's timeshare ordinance, which he will have to Council at their next 20 Regular Meetine Aspen City Council June 23, 2003 Councilwoman Richards moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 11 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Paulson. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #55, SERIES OF 2003 — Obermeyer Temporary Use Bendon, community development department, told Council this / irary use request is for a real estate office to be located on the !/ Beyer property. Bendon said staff does not see any issues wit( this Mayor Mayor Councilwoman seconded by Cc opened the public hearing. There were closed the public hearing. moved to approve Resolutiop,165, Series of 2003; Paulson. All in favor, mot' n carried. John Worcester, city attorney, toil base of Smuggler Mountain along owns lots 2 and 5 of the Aspen ele city. City Clerk Kathryn Koch rel order. Worcester said there is 1/ of interests exists. The area is ar The property has- not been property owners have co annexations pending. Mayor Klanderud Mayor Klanderu4 Councilman seconded by Annexation unci 's property is located at the s rcle. The owner, Alain Degrave, subdivision, which are already in the ;d e posting and publication are in ati with the city and a community Of bel integrated within the city. into sep to parcels. 100% of the to annexation. . the public hearing. There the public hearing. are no other comments. moved to adopt Resolution #56, Series of 2003; woman Richards. K= Paulson said he would like a neighborhood map for second . to make sure where this is located in reference to any possible ner plan for Smuggler Mountain. i in favor with the exception of Councilman Paulson, motion carried. 22 Rmular Meetine Aspen City Council June 23, 2003 consideration of this application. Barwick said the city cannot guarantee how a building will be occupied but can guarantee that one person may not purchase all the weeks. Councilman Semrau pointed out the infill ordinance would only allow 30 feet plus an additional 8 feet with special review and a historic TDR. Councilman Semrau said agreed this is a great project in a great location but it is too big; the height and mass are out of scale for the site. Under the PUD process, the applicant has the responsibility of proving a project is deserving of an exception. Councilman Torre asked what percentage of the total square footage is actual lodge space and what is amenities, parking, storage. Brown said it is 50 % net Ieaseable under the LTR definition of net leasable. Councilman Torre said there seems to be a lot of amenity space built in and there may be a way to lessen that, make the units smaller, and make the project smaller. All the amenities will make guests stay on property rather than go out in town and spend money. Brown said the intent of the amenities like the game room and movie theatre is to give families things to do. Brown said without the amenities, this is not a competitive project and would be under serious distress. Brown said there is not a square inch that could be removed without impacting the project. Mayor Klanderud noted when the Obermeyer project first came to Council, there was an outcry about the height. The design team came back with a project at the height requirement, which won broad support. Brown pointed out applicants are not allowed to talk to Council until the end of the process. It would be better to have a more collaborative process. Brown asked Council what would be the right height, the right mix, the right project. Councilman Semrau said the right use is family type lodging and the amenities are great; however, the mass, scale and height are out of character. Councilman Semrau said he feels 38 feet would be appropriate for the neighborhood. Mayor Klanderud agreed she could approve 38 feet. Mayor Klanderud said she would also like all employees housed on site. Mayor Klanderud said she likes the commitment to green development. Councilman Semrau moved to continue Ordinance #29, Series of 2003, to July 28; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. 21 A '` X1'1 ibi Regular Meeting Asuen City Council July 28 2003 '•- she would like to strike "conversion of lodge rooms" as affordable mitigation as conversion of lodge rooms has been a problem in A; Vann said that has never been part of their solution and he agreed be deleted. Councilwb{nan Richards said she is willing to accept payme -in -lieu in order to facilitate some of the city's larger housing projects Councilwoman Richards sugg sted the applicant look at buying some B ingame Parcel D units for their igation. Councilwoman Richards que Toned the value of the 8 employee 'ts on site and asked if 8 lodge roo might be a better use of that space. Va said solving the affordable hou ng issues is a challenging task and ey will take these suggesti s into consideration. Mayor Klanderud said ci 's housing project y, like Burlingame parcel D, are to makeup for the deficit i housing and u ' g this housing for mitigation is not going towards the soluti The app ' ants have assumed the responsibility for providing ho sing fo their project. Councilman Semrau said it would be a disservice to s 1 rlingame Parcel D to a private developer. Councilman Semrau s ' he will only consider cash -in -lieu for the units that may be located out de e city limits. Councilman Semrau stated it is much more difficul o get its than to get money. Woodford said the 8 units on site are r acement its and one is not allowed to give payment -in -lieu for housi replacement its. Councilman Semrau agreed those 8 units should stay n site. Councilman Torre saA his concerns are the roo decks, the location, and he would like them oved slope side. Councilor Torre suggested the lodge units could a smaller than 4,000 square feet, hich would allow more lodge beds on p perty. Councilman Torre said he do not want the food and beverage ea used apres ski only but should be ye ound. Councilman one said he is not opposed to cash in lieu he would like to see as man units in the city limits as possible. Mayor anderud opened the public hearing. There were no Mayor anderud closed the public hearing. Coybcilman Semrau moved to approve Resolution #33, Series of 200 , Zroval amendments as presented by staff and changes that the applicant at shall demonstrate adequate parking or formulate a plan with the owners of the Little Nell hotel, change apres ski activities to year round activities, and delete ference to conversion of lod t , and construction management plan in #9; s nded by Coun ' man Richards. Roll call vote: Richards, yes; Torre, yes; , yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #5 S S OF 2003 — Code mendment Infill Council emrau moved to continue Ordinance #5, cries of 2003, to Augps 5;seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion ORDINANCE #29, SERIES OF 20017 Dancing Bear PUD James Lindt, community development department, reminded Council at the last public hearing, they stated the proposed project was too large and too tall. The applicant will present a revised design. David Brown, representing the applicant, showed Council the current design and told them they have taken off one floor. The first two stories are of stone, stepping back onto a shingled darker floor and above that is a greenhouse, gazebo and roof. The setback is 5 feet rather than 2 feet. Brown told Council the corner facing Monarch and Durant is 31 feet to the 3rd floor and 20'6" at the 2 "d floor. At the alley for the main part of the building is 38 feet. The gazebo adds another 8 to 10 feet, which makes the building 44 feet at the midpoint of the glass shed. The top of the highest elevator shaft is 46 feet. The building elevations at the street are 34 to 31 to 34 feet. Brown showed the first project as reviewed by P &Z, the recommendation from P &Z and the current iteration. The building is greatly reduced. The project is now 9 three- bedroom suites with lock offs for 18 keys. The building as is has 23 bedrooms; this will be an increase of 3 free market bedrooms. The lower levels have not changed since the last presentation. The 2 two - bedroom employee units are the same as before and are now twice the required mitigation. All the suites range from 1700 to 2200 square feet, averaging 2,000 square feet. The bar and restaurant is smaller than before. The second floor contains 4 suites and 4 lock offs. The 3rd floor has been stepped back so each unit has its own outdoor deck. The roof has solar collectors, gardens, hot tubs and gazebo. The height of the gazebo varies 10 w, Rezular Meetine Amen City Council July 28 2003 from 43 to 45 at the highest point. Brown showed elevations from different points around the project. Mitch Haas, representing the applicant, noted the gazebo will be set back 17 feet from the Durant avenue fagade and 13 feet from Monarch street. Haas said the building is within the 38 -foot height requested by Council except for the gazebo, which is transparent and sits in the middle of the building. Haas said this feature is necessary to set this project apart from other time -share projects. Haas said the gazebo does not add to the perceived height of the building. Haas said the height measure is not as important as the qualitative measurements. The gazebo placed at the comer of Monarch and Durant would fit within the height limits but it would not be a good design. Haas reminded Council the recently approved Hyatt is 46 feet with a ground elevation higher than this site. The Mountain Chalet was approved with a 52 -foot height limit. Haas stated the applicants will make all efforts to achieve LEEDS certification and the gazebo will provide a perfect place for photovoltaic cells and capture of energy. The glass stairwell on Monarch is another location for passive solar gain for reuse. This corner needs revitalization. The project plans to add to the streetscape with the restaurant. The applicant plans to provide a hybrid vehicle for use by residents as well as bicycles. The applicant is providing 115% housing for employees when only 60% is required. Haas said they feel this will be a fiscal benefit to the city. This is a self - sufficient development for parking, affordable housing, economic sustainability and providing amenities on site. Lindt told Council staff feels this proposal 'meets community goals in bringing vitality to this location. The use, is appropriate; this site has been tourist accommodations. The applicant has met their housing requirements. Lindt said this building is lower than other PUDs in the surrounding area. At the last meeting, Council indicated 38 feet would be appropriate on this site. Staff does not recommend asking for removal of the gazebo as it is set back. far enough that it would not be a dominant feature of the building. The gazebo will be constructed out of translucent materials. Council brought up the restaurant space at the last meeting and whether it will remain that use in the future. There is a condition in the ordinance to require a PUD amendment if the owners want to convert this space from a restaurant. Lindt reminded Council at the previous meeting they indicated one parking space /affordable unit was too few. The amended ordinance {I 11 Rmutar Meetine As I Citv Council July 28 2003 requires two parking spaces per two - bedroom unit. The applicant has requested leasing parking spaces in the public right -of -way for loading. Staff does not feel a 9 -unit lodge would require loading spaces. The city engineer is opposed to leasing spaces in the public right -of -way. Paul Menter, finance director, pointed out not all tax information is available because the Aspen Manor has not been operating for the past 5 years. Menter said the applicant's fiscal analysis meets the code requirements. Menter told Council the condition on whether a fee is owed levers on the historical occupancy rate of the hotel. The original occupancy rate was estimated at 61 %; the revised application is 51 % as attested by the previous owner. The difference is whether a fee is owed or not. Menter concluded no fee is owed. Brown agreed there appears to be no fiscal impact to the applicant and this should be a cash generator for the community. City Manager Steve Barwick suggested for the future, Council consider a minimum occupancy rate for fiscal analysis amendment to this code section. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. Susan O'Neal asked about the row of evergreens on Durant. Haas said the one on the comer and one other will be preserved; the parks department has asked the other trees to be removed and replaced with more appropriate street streets. Kathy Petner, 210 East Cooper, commended the applicants for their design, for stepping the building back, for the green development, for the extra affordable housing. Ms. Petner said she is concerned' about the 46- %2 feet and the precedent this will set for fixture developments in this area. Ms. Petner asked if the gazebo will be used at night and will be lit. Brown said it will be glass and there will be window coverings in order to make this a green project. It will be lit and will be used at night. The gazebo will be used as an exercise room, mechanical equipment and lounge. Dale Paas, Limelight Lodge, said he is very concerned about keeping the scale of the neighborhood. Paas pointed out every time this project has comeback for city review, it has been abetter project. Toni Kronberg said she is concerned about the height. Visitors like the view of the mountain. People do not want taller buildings. Ms. Kronberg said this is a special site as it allows views of Shadow Mountain from the malls and from Wagner Park. 12 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 28 2003 Mayor Klanderud entered into the record letters from Carol Saunders - White, Jim Scull, and one from Andrea Clark all concerned with the height of the project as well as light from the gazebo, at night. Haas said condition #21 requires a PM 10 mitigation plan to be reviewed by environmental health. Haas stated the measures they have already committed to the in the application are more than adequate and should be accepted as the PM 10 mitigation plan. These measures are a fleet of bicycles, hydroelectric vehicles, airport shuttle, employee bus passes, and marketing the location. These are all representations of the application. Lindt told Council environmental health staff feels the applicant has gone above and beyond PM10 mitigation. Lindt suggested the condition be amended that the applicant meets the representations of their application. Mayor Klanderud requested these representations be listed in the condition. The applicant agreed. Haas brought up condition #31, the 4 parking spaces for affordable housing, and requested only 2 spaces be required. Haas said the applicants feel they are being penalized for providing more housing than necessary. Haas noted the memorandum states that cash -in -lieu of school dedication is not attributable to the time -share units but is for the affordable housing units. Herb Klein, representing the applicant, said they do not have a problem with the city finance department conducting an annual audit, but does have a problem that if the city finds there is a shortfall, that they be obligated to pay some impact fee as determined by Council. Klein stated there is no provision in the code for this requirement. There are no standards for this requirement and this should have some study and legislation. Menter said what staff is most interested in is collection information. Barwick suggested adding language that this condition would only apply if the city adopts code amendment within the next year. Mayor Klanderud stated she does not have a problem deleting conditions #40. Councilmembers agreed. Klein requested a change in condition #41 about a "substantial' change to the restaurant; let the community development department decide whether this is a major or minor PUD amendment. Council agreed. Mayor Klanderud said when Council has required fewer on site parking spaces because employees will not use their cars has not worked. Councilwoman Richards agreed. Councilman Semrau said in this 13 n Regular Meeting . Aspen ON Council July 28 2003 neighborhood, it would be a great service to have 4 parking spaces. Council agreed to require the applicant provide 4 parking spaces for the affordable housing. Councilwoman Richards said the city should not lease any spaces in the right -of -way on Monarch to this project. Councilwoman Richards pointed out this project is only providing 9% open space. Councilwoman Richards said she is concerned about reflections off the gazebo. Councilwoman Richards said she cannot accept the 4`s floor. Where the gazebo is placed does not meet what the Council intended when they said 38 feet at the highest. 'Councilwoman Richards said she does like the changes in massing and in material. Councilwoman Richards stated she sees a separation between the north and south side of Durant and this structure would be setting a precedent for the south side. Councilman Torre said he is concerned that the on -site amenities will keep the guests on site rather than getting out into the community. Councilman Torre said the gazebo raises the heights beyond what Council envisioned. Councilman Torre said the project could have a hot tub and rooftop garden without the gazebo structure. Councilman Torre said he feels the applicants have worked hard on this iteration. Councilman Semrau agreed this is an improvement and an interesting design. Councilman Semrau agreed about not leasing parking in the public right -of -way. Councilman Semrau does not support a 4`s floor but does support an architectural element that makes this an extraordinary building. Eliminating the gazebo would make it a more boring building. Mayor Klanderud said she, too, is concerned about the gazebo and whether it is appropriate in this location. The light and reflection are major concerns. Mayor Klanderud questioned the excavation of 3 floors below grade. Mayor Klanderud asked if this would be in the proposed Shadow Mountain view plane. Lindt said this would probably be located within the view plane; however, it has not been drafted. Mayor Klanderud said she would rather see the hybrid vehicles eliminated. Brown said the gazebo is located away from the northwest corner because of concerns of the neighbor. The building is 38 feet at this corner and is 31 feet on the street side. Brown said the applicants feel the gazebo will make this space very special and could be used by the community for special events 14 spar ......... ...... Regular Meeting Asuen City Council Julv 28 2003 and fund raisers. Brown said the sunlight reflection will be brief. The gazebo could be wrapped in fabric to cut down on this reflection or use non- reflective glass. Councilman Semrau suggested the size of the gazebo be reduced to 1500 square feet square feet. Councilwoman Richards stated the underlying height allowed in this zone district is 28 feet and going up to 38 feet is a significant variation. Going up another 8 feet is too much; the gazebo makes it appear as a 4`h floor. Councilwoman Richards said she would not disapprove of uses on the roof but without the structure. Mayor Klanderud said this is a creative design with a good way to hide the mechanical equipment; however, she is concerned about the height. Councilman Semrau moved to continue Ordinance #29, Series of 2003, to August 11; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #32, SERIES OF 2003 — South Aspen Street P ,ORDINANCE #33, SERIES OF 2003 — South Aspen Alley acation Coun '%man Semrau recused himself based on owning d within 300 feet of this application. James Lindt, community develo ent department, told Council th%inte D review is for an applicatio from Aspen Land Fund II to conste market and 17 affordabl ousing units on 3 parcels of land near ction of South Asp en Juan streets. Sunny Vann, represents Aspen LLund II, reminded Council Savanah Limited Partnership receiv the o inal conceptual approval for this piece of property in 2001. Vann sai submitted a final application in 2002. The property has been for sal \prerty. ts asked staff to hold the final review until final disposition of thVann told Council Aspen Land Fund II acquired fs proper 2002, notified the community development depa nt and aske lete the final application. Vann told Coun 'I this application is identical to conceptual application except for m r changes made in response to neighb'orbood concerns. Council oman Richards asked about the reference to the app %annlict.- ting to bui� a hotel. Vann said Aspen Land Fund II purchased the to buy tourist accommodations at the base of the mountain. The 15 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council Jul v 28 2003 need to complete this approval process in order to satisfy the lenders. Vann told Council there is no other application pending on this parcel. The applicants would like to explore doing a more intensive tourist project at this site. Mayor Klanderud opened the. public hearing. Milton Zale, representing Lift One condominium, said they appreciate that the developers have lowered the height of the building from 28 to 25 feet. Zale asked how far off Aspen street to the west will the building be set back. Zale asked how far south of the property line will the construction be. Zale said there is an issue where the garbage will be located and.how it will be collected. Vann said the changes made were made at the request of Lift One and the most significant was the reduction in height below that allowed in the zone district. The applicants also agreed to move the trash area from the west side of the parking lot to the east side near the street. Vann pointed out the closest dimension from the property to the garage is 34 feet. Lift One also asked for extensive landscaping, which has been added to the plan. Zale said the. critical dimension is to move the building to the west, which would open up views for Lift One owners. Vann said the applicants negotiated with the homeowners association, extensive site lines were done, and roof lines were changed. Vann noted it was never mentioned that the building should be moved to the west. Vann said they have no room to move the building to the west. Vann pointed out this area requires a 5 -yard setback; this proposal has 8 feet. The request is tc add another 15 feet to that setback, which would eliminate one of their units. Vann told Council this project is within all setback requirements, is within allowable FAR, within allowable density, and has more than the required open space and meets the parking requirements. The applicants asked for no variations in dimensional requirements. Larry Saliterman, building at 603 S. Garmisch, commended the developers and the city for listening to the neighbors and for coming up with a good i plan. Zale said although he recognizes what the applicants have done to a change the plan, if they do not move the buildings, this will create problems for the owners. Vann reminded Council the negotiations with adjacent property owners were done at conceptual review. The applicants revised 16 EXHIBIT ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: TAB xG v .'S& ;.a L,nN cx LLt_ Location: q S. Y�lov.1 c�r l�Snerd Cs% (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) L 192- - 19 Gcs- APPLICANT: ff Name: -D� _ t >j L.tr.c, k'r LLLL Address: t{�1 vwAaz , AS01fu Ccs Phone #: C-i-e 9"! -f3 4T�3 Name: E taer-l-i o"'t, - Address: Phone #: i3z i2 044 ,C) TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Temporary Use ❑ GMQS Allotment Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Text/Map Amendment ❑ Special Review ❑ Subdivision ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes ❑ Final SPA (& SPA Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane ❑ Commercial Design Review ❑ Lot Split ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion ❑ Residential Design Vari *ce ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Other: ❑ Conditional Use EXI',S''TING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) 421, 0,"E, LaQ�e�l !'[S.�l)l7 ._ �x iJa -�y Ca4i�ej PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: S I .j 7i) ,pro Pre - Application Conference Summary [ Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement ❑ Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements - Including Written Responses to Review Standards 3 -D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5" X 1I" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3 -D model. Your pre - application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3 -D model. AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY; December 2, 2008 4:30 p.m. — Public Hearing SISTER CITIES, CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL H. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public III. MINUTES IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. ZG Master Plan (verbal update presented at the meeting) B. 311 S. Monarch (Dancing Bear Lodge), PUD Amendment VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. BOARD REPORTS VIH. ADJOURN e^N * *For internal Staff use only. Not for publication. Dates subject to Change ** - CITY AGENDAS - City Council -2 "d and 4tn Mon. @ 5:00 PM, (Work sessions for Council @ 5 on Mondays, 4 on Tuesdays) P/Z -1St and 3d Tues. @ 4:30 PM, HPC -2nd & 4t" Wed. @ 5:00 PM. BOA Thurs. @ 4 Week of November 24, 2008 12/2 P&Z 04:30 (closed) Notice: 11110 ZG master plan, update — BG (continued from 11/18) 311 S. Monarch (Dancing Bear), PUD Amendment — AH. (continued from 11/18) 12/16 P&Z 04:30 (closed) Notice: 11124 Aspen Institute, SPA Amendment, PH — JL (Greenwald Pavilion) Pitkin County Jail Site — SPA Amendment, PH - EE 1/6 P&Z 04:30 (closed) Notice: 12/15 Aspen Institute, SPA Amendment, PH — JL (Greenwald Pavilion) (continued from 12/16) Pitkin County Jail Site — SPA Amendment, PH — EE (continued from 12/16) 1120 P&Z 04:30 Notice: 11/24 2/3 P&Z 04:30 Notice: 1/12 1005 Waters Ave., Residential Design variances, PH - JL 2117 P&Z 04:30 Notice: 1/26 VTa MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Andrea Hingley, Planning Technician THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Direct DATE OF MEMO: November 26, 2008 MEETING DATE: December 2, 2008 RE: 411 S. Monarch Street — Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Commercial Design Review Continued from November 18, 2008 APPLICANT /OWNER: Dancing Bear Land, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Eben P. Clark, Klein, Cote and Edwards, LLC LOCATION: Civic Address - 401 S. Monarch Street; Legal Description — Lots P, Q, R and S, Block 77, City and Townsite of Aspen; Parcel Identification Number — 2735- 182 -19 -002 CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the Lodge zone district with a PUD overlay containing a timeshare lodge development currently under construction. PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting an amendment to the approved PUD to accommodate the screening and enclosure of the spa mechanical equipment area on the 3rd floor rooftop. SUMMARY: At the November 18, 2008 hearing the applicant asked to continue the hearing until December 2, 2008 to determine if the enclosure on the roof could be modified to address the Commission's concerns regarding the mass, scale and height of the structure. The applicant has submitted revised plans showing a smaller structure than previously presented (Exhibit C Pg.3). The footprint of the enclosure is now 9' x 11.5', instead of 9.5' x 14.5' (Exhibit D.1). The enclosure has been pulled back from the northwest parapet by about 3 ft. and remains about 8 ft. from the north parapet (Exhibit D.1). The height has been reduced by 1 ft from 87' to 77'. The enclosure continues to have 2 levels of varying heights, and is shown to be lower than the roof of the central gazebo (Exhibit D.2 & D.3). Page 1 of 2 The proposed enclosure still differs from the approved PUD in location, but is closer to the intent of the commercial design review standards than what was previously submitted. The proposed enclosure will result in a greater compliance as the equipment is shielded from view and is located at the back of the building and is grouped into one area. The enclosure is now set back from the edge of the 3rd floor but continues to be visible from certain perspectives. It is not visible from Wagner Park (S. Monarch St) and is only visible from certain locations on Durant Ave., S. Aspen St. and the alley. The enclosure's location and size has been designed to be as unobtrusive as possible, and blend in with the rest of the building and the surrounding area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As originally approved in the PUD, the mechanical area was located away from the 3`d floor parapet and railing and in a more central location on the roof. As noted in the November 18, 2008 memorandum, staff felt that the change in the location of the mechanical equipment could not be approved administratively, as there have been concerns about the prominence of a 4d' story on the building. The location of the mechanical equipment enclosure is closer to the edge of the 3`d floor than originally approved and staff cannot support the request. With that being said, the applicant has reduced the size of the structure further and the enclosure will assist in dampening sound. A further setback from the edge of the 3`d floor will assist in minimizing the impact of the structure. The Planning and Zoning Commission will need to weigh the intent of the original approval with the practical constraints presented to them in making a decision. Exhibit A — Staff Findings (Provided with 11/18/08 memo) Exhibit B — Meeting Minutes from Aspen City Council (Provided with 11/18/08 memo) Exhibit C — Application (Provided with 11/18/08 memo) Exhibit D — Revised Plans Exhibit E - Applicant Supplemental Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION No. 34 (SERIES OF 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENCLOSING THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ON THE ROOFTOP OF THE DANCING BEAR LODGE LOCATED AT 411 SOUTH MONARCH STREET, LEGALLY KNOWN AS LOTS P, Q, R AND S, BLOCK 77, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Parcel Identification Number 2737 - 182 -19 -002 WHEREAS, Eben P. Clark of Klein, Cot6 and Edwards, LLC located at 201 North Mill Street, Suite 203, Aspen, Colorado on behalf of Dancing Bear Land, LLC, 210 North Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado, submitted a request, a Planned Unit Development Other Amendment and Commercial Design Review — Substantial Amendment dated September 23, 2008 to the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located at 411 S. Monarch Street, Aspen, the parcel is identified as parcel number 273718219002, and the legal description of the property is: THE DANCING BEAR LODGE ACCORDING TO THE FINAL FINAL PUD PLAN AND PLAT RECORDED JUNE 8, 2004 IN PLAT BOOK 69 AT PAGE 80 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 498443, IN THE RECORDS OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO and also known as Lots P, Q, R and S, Block 77, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado ( "Property's; and WHEREAS, the Planned Unit Development approval for the Property was originally approved by the Aspen City Council in 2003 by Ordinance No. 29 Series of 2003, and the Dancing Bear Lodge Final PUD Plan and Plat is recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin County at Plat Book 69 Page 80, Reception No. 498443 (the "PUD "); and r) 1.1 WHEREAS, the current request is to receive approval for a Planned Unit Development Other Amendment and Commercial Design Review — Substantial Amendment to amend the PUD to permit the enclosure of the spa mechanical equipment on the rooftop. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the application for a Planned Unit Development Other Amendment pursuant to Code section 26.445.100 (B) (PUD Other Amendments), and Commercial Design Review - Substantial amendment pursuant to Code section 26.412.080.13 (Review Procedures) under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on November 18, 2008; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended denial of the request; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO IN REGULAR MEETING ASSEMBLED, THAT: Section 1: The Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. A Planned Unit Development Other Amendment, and Commercial Design Review - Substantial Amendment application was initiated by: Eben P. Clark of Klein, Cote and Edwards, LLC located at 201 North Mill Street, Suite 203, Aspen, Colorado on behalf of Dancing Bear Lodge, 210 North Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado. B. Notice of the proposed Planned Unit Development Other amendment, and Commercial Design Review - Substantial Amendment has been provided to surrounding property 2 owners in accordance with Section 26- 304- 060(E)(3) of the Aspen Municipal Code. Evidence of such notice is on file with the City Clerk. Section 2• Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the Planned Unit Development Other amendment as requested and Commercial Design Review - Substantial Amendment application request for the property. The approval granted herein is conditioned on the following: A. The applicant shall meet all of the conditions of Ordinance No. 29. of Series 2003; however the applicant has approval to enclose the spa mechanical equipment on the top floor. The enclosure shall have the same fagade materials as the rest of the building. B. A change order shall be required to the existing building permit. Section3: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5• All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 6: The rights granted by the approval of this site - specific development plan shall remain vested for a period of three (3) years from the effective date of the approved development order. No later than fourteen (14) days following the final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a. Bite specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a vested property right, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 411 S. Monarch Street., City and Townsite of Aspen, CO, by Resolution No. N Series of 2008, of the Aspen City Council. Section 8• The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on November 18, 2008. APPROVED AS TO FROM: COMMISSION: Jim True, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk PLANNIG AND ZONING LJ Erspamer, Chairperson EXHIBIT A — Approved site plan and elevations 4 A• �gA JZI11918 OCrYMalOO SY 'N3d ie t'm 1S HVNOW H1f10S l if wills 3900121V99 9M9NVO v mm a fills 1; Jul lit, IEI�, le I .� s u t6i l it a' ff ff E ,.,. oil s � � p�► sR � t. IA $ • U) 3 #Y N 1 oT � > v o C z m m Zz �y � DANCING BEAR LODGE it it fig ul 411 SOUTH MONARCH ST.6�7 H z ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 } .1 • b] R L L9 La oavao'm hN3dsv M Ile 3.01 21438 JNDNba Q. N If lyj • is! LL9L9 OCN%O'lM%BdSV pie is •.LS FOWYNOW HMOs I tv i d : I ay . 3.01 lIV39 DNDNV(3 IU L .1 A� L YI � I a rl f� i� J r t. N, V 6 llll, ~. lei I 69 ' oil 1V ®e ® ®B �e i l l i a c PACE A*wzmd IN I fig aw,o u®Ilwlma.1 -m I I twurlart.umw r: fnAlrt->AtR I wwflswva. DL1G ]C��G9® DaG1Gi (� ��($�� PUMP STATION SCHEMATIC m z c o n K1 m (n °� �m No m C m =Z v 4 R.A. AS NOTED A.Al RJ.O. LS 05/IS /OB NO .11 oAIE REN90N4 •VowY•e.^•pWw- IxwN4afv -Iwaw. -Tr l lwi -p p.r. . n /nryt w eaxnw THESE DRAWNCS ARE THE PROPERTY OF P.A.C.E. AND SMALL NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY NAM e9 � DP'��XpAjl' ,V 'i1. V V i l l i a c PACE A*wzmd IN I fig aw,o u®Ilwlma.1 -m I I twurlart.umw r: fnAlrt->AtR I wwflswva. DL1G ]C��G9® DaG1Gi (� ��($�� PUMP STATION SCHEMATIC m z c o n K1 m (n °� �m No m C m =Z v 4 _..�I I �I o o r • �I �J Is E R 2S i5 II n 2 w N i a c PACE A*wzmd IN I fig aw,o u®Ilwlma.1 -m I I twurlart.umw r: fnAlrt->AtR I wwflswva. DL1G ]C��G9® DaG1Gi (� ��($�� PUMP STATION SCHEMATIC MARK KREBS 09/)81 COMPRA RON PACKAGE ° � a R.A. AS NOTED A.Al RJ.O. LS 05/IS /OB NO .11 oAIE REN90N4 •VowY•e.^•pWw- IxwN4afv -Iwaw. -Tr l lwi -p p.r. . n /nryt w eaxnw THESE DRAWNCS ARE THE PROPERTY OF P.A.C.E. AND SMALL NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY N I KLEIN, COTE & EDWARDSS LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAw HERBERT S. KLMN hakelcelaw.nel 201 NORTH?MLL STREET. STE, 203 LANCER COTA, PC' he eelew.nel ASPEN, COLORADO 91611 JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, E7. PC lee towl.nee TELEPHONE: (970) 92547M EBENP. CLARK epoftcehw.nel n FACS7MD.E:(970) 9253977 COREY T. ZURBUCH ctek7Jxe1aw.nn MADHU B. KRISHNAMURT1 mbUfteelaw.nel DAVID C. UHLIO dcuktkeelew.nel MATTHEWTS. LOWRY mml0kcelaw.nel ' alm admired G CY7'dmnL November 25, 2008 City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission c/o Jennifer Phelan Deputy Director - Community Development 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Supplement to Application for "Other'TbD Amendment and Commercial Design Review for 411 S. Monarch Street, Aspen ("the Project') To the Members of the Commission: This letter and the accompanying exhibits are intended to supplement the application and written description previously submitted for the above referenced application. I. Introduction: The applicant is Dancing Bear Land, LLC, 210 N. Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 ( "Applicant "). Our firm, Klein, Cot6 & Edwards, LLC, 201 N. Mill Street, Suite 203, Aspen, Colorado 81611 is authorized to act on Applicant's behalf with regard to the Project. Please address all correspondence regarding this supplement to our firm and to my attention. The subject property is located at 411 S. Monarch Street, Aspen. The parcel is identified as parcel number 273718219002, and the legal description of the property is: THE DANCING BEAR LODGE ACCORDING TO THE FINAL PUD PLAN AND PLAT RECORDED, JUNE 8, 2004 IN PLAT BOOK 69 AT PAGE 80 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 498443, IN THE RECORDS OF THE CLERK AND.,RECORDER, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO; also known as: City of Aspen, Planning and Zoning Commission November 25, 2008 Page 2 of 3 Lots P, Q, R and S, Block 77, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado ( "Property ") The Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the Project was originally approved by the Aspen City Council in 2003 in Ordinance No. 29 Series of 2003, and the Dancing Bear Lodge Final PUD Plan and Plat is recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin County at Plat Book 69 Page 80, Reception No. 498443. H. Application: Applicant is requesting an amendment of the approved PUD plan to accommodate the enclosure of spa mechanical equipment on the rooftop. The location of the enclosure is designated for screened mechanical and spa equipment in the original PUD approvals. At the hearing held on November 18, 2008, the Commission indicated that while the Application in its initial form was not likely to pass, the Commission would consider a revised Application. To that end, Applicant requested a continuance of the hearing to the Commission's next meeting on Tuesday December 2, 2008, and the Commission granted that request. Since the first hearing on this Application, the Project architects, O'Bryan Partnership, Inc., have reworked the spa mechanical enclosure. By stacking and rearranging, the equipment within the enclosure, the architects were able to reduce the footprint of the structure as well as its overall height. While the structure was formerly 14' -6" long and 9' high, it is now 11' -6" long and 8' tall. Perhaps the most important aspect of these changes is that they have allowed Applicant to move the structure an additional three f6et (3') from the building's western parapet. This final aspect was in response to specific commeVts from the Commission, and these changes can be seen in the exhibits attached hereto. At the hearing to be held Tuesday December 2, 2008, Ken Robertson with O'Bryan Partnership will be present and can give the Commission additional details on the redesign of the enclosure. III. Conclusion: Thank you for considering this application. If there is further information you require, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, KLEIN, COT$ & EDWARDS, LLC By; Eben P. Clark �s F..-WO City of Aspen, Planning and Zoning Comlrnssion November 25, 2008 Page 3 of 3 Table of Contents: Exhibit A —Sheet SP5.0 - Pump Station Schematic Exhibit B — Sheet A107 Roof Garden Plan Exhibit C — Sheet A544 Roof Exterior Detail Exhibit D — Sheet A202 South Elevation Exhibit E — Sheet A203 West Elevation Exhibit F — Sheet A204 North Elevation supplement spa Eno App 11.25 -08 1� '1111.41. ., §, ,§ |F� «q [ � A� � $ .,,..,..,.., •!•;!!!!!| | || . � � � � ■ , »� ° � ,� ■ \ � m PUMP STATION �— $ _ PAC s� ^ law= , 14�1 � � � g t T Ic R .� ■•� "pH� § ' ,� � \ G •� �.� .,� i M� � �kA&. f \� \< H� | 44| I |!� | |� , \ �� .]�� y NWN - ► |�99 § - -- - - l | � � § >f $ § \ � ` DANCING BEAR LO DGE i :; |j� ��8 ' ;/ � � g t T Ic ,i MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Andrea Hingley, Planning Technician THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Direct6;p DATE OF MEMO: November 26, 2008 MEETING DATE: December 2, 2008 RE: 411 S. Monarch Street — Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Commercial Design Review Continued from November 18, 2008 APPLICANT /OWNER: Dancing Bear Land, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Eben P. Clark, Klein, Cote and Edwards, LLC LOCATION: Civic Address - 401 S. Monarch Street; Legal Description — Lots P, Q, R and S, Block 77, City and Townsite of Aspen; Parcel Identification Number — 2735- 182 -19 -002 CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the Lodge zone district with a PUD overlay containing a timeshare lodge development currently under construction. PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting an amendment to the approved PUD to accommodate the screening and enclosure of the spa mechanical equipment area on the 3`d floor rooftop. SUMMARY: At the November 18, 2008 hearing the applicant asked to continue the hearing until December 2, 2008 to determine if the enclosure on the roof could be modified to address the Commission's concerns regarding the mass, scale and height of the structure. The applicant has submitted revised plans showing a smaller structure than previously presented (Exhibit C Pg.3). The footprint of the enclosure is now 9' x 11.5', instead of 9.5' x 14.5' (Exhibit D.1). The enclosure has been pulled back from the northwest parapet by about 3 ft. and remains about 8 ft. from the north parapet (Exhibit D.1). The height has been reduced by 1 ft from 87' to 77'. The enclosure continues to have 2 levels of varying heights, and is shown to be lower than the roof of the central gazebo (Exhibit D.2 & D.3). Page 1 of 2 r The proposed enclosure still differs from the approved PUD in location, but is closer to the intent of the commercial design review standards than what was previously submitted. The proposed enclosure will result in a greater compliance as the equipment is shielded from view and is located at the back of the building and is grouped into one area. The enclosure is now set back from the edge of the 3`d floor but continues to be visible from certain perspectives. It is not visible from Wagner Park (S. Monarch St) and is only visible from certain locations on Durant Ave., S. Aspen St. and the alley. The enclosure's location and size has been designed to be as unobtrusive as possible, and blend in with the rest of the building and the surrounding area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As originally approved in the PUD, the mechanical area was located away from the 3`d floor parapet and railing and in a more central location on the roof. As noted in the November 18, 2008 memorandum, staff felt that the change in the location of the mechanical equipment could not be approved administratively, as there have been concerns about the prominence of a 0 story on the building. The location of the mechanical equipment enclosure is closer to the edge of the 3`d floor than originally approved and staff cannot support the request. With that being said, the applicant has reduced the size of the structure further and the enclosure will assist in dampening sound. A further setback from the edge of the 3`d floor will assist in minimizing the impact of the structure. The Planning and Zoning Commission will need to weigh the intent of the original approval with the practical constraints presented to them in making a decision. Exhibit A — Staff Findings (Provided with 11/18/08 memo) Exhibit B — Meeting Minutes from Aspen City Council (Provided with 11/18/08 memo) Exhibit C — Application (Provided with 11/18/08 memo) Exhibit D — Revised Plans Exhibit E - Applicant Supplemental Page 2 of 2 is Jennifer Phelan From: Eben Clark [epc @kcelaw.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 12:17 PM To: Jennifer Phelan Subject: RE: Dancing Bear Application Hi Jennifer: That stuff should be no problem. I did include 11 x 17 of the approved permit set. But, I can get a full size of the plat and plan if that is what you need. Andrea sent a tentative date of 11118. If we can't get any earlier, that will work. Please let me know when that is more certain. Thanks, Eben Klein, Cote & Edwards, LLC Eben P. Clark 201 N. Mill St., Suite 203 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tel: 970.925.8700 Fax: 970.925.3977 email: eoca- KCElaw.net Visit our website at www.kcelaw.net CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message may be attorney - privileged and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s) named above. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone (970- 925 -8700) or e -mail, and delete this e-mail message. Thank you. We do not guaranty that any files attached to this email are virus free; you should scan any attached files for viruses before opening them. IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein From: Jennifer Phelan [mailto:Jennifer.Phelan @ci.aspen.co.us] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 12:13 PM To: Eben Clark Subject: Dancing Bear Application Eben: I just finished reviewing the application for its completeness and will need a couple more items to deem it complete: 1) A letter of consent from the owner allowing your firm to represent him. 2) More of the title insurance so that it shows that the LLC is the owner of the property. It looks like the title policy is missing some pages. Additionally, although you included a copy of the recorded plat, the plans are really hard to read. Can you get a better copy of the recorded plat (at least the roof plan and any elevation that showed the spa equipment)? Did Andrea get back to you with available dates for the hearing? DB Capital Holdings, LLC 9/30/2008 P.O. Box 571 ;Par. t:oil[er Aspen, CO 81612 910.925.6800 P.O Box =7 t 970.925.68119 A; E?.n, C0 81,M2 Jean@O,incingbearaspen.com To Whom It May Concern: The purpose of this letter is to inform The City of Aspen, and all its relevant agencies, that the firm of Klein, Cote & Edwards, LLC represents Dancing Bear Land, LLC and its parent company DB Capital Holdings with regard to the properties located at 411 S. Monarch and 219 E. Durant. All notices and inquires relating to the current PUD Amendment Application and any other planning and land use issues should be address to the attention of Eben P. Clark, Esq. at Klein, Cote & Edwards. Please contact me with any questions. Jean Coulter Vice President — Finance and Operations DB Capital Holdings, LLC �s I 3CHEDULE A- OWNER'S POLICY CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY AMOUNT OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER PCT192601-3 December 28, 2004 @ 3:07 PM $5,500,000.00 A75- ZO24778 1. NAME OF INSURED: DIVENERE ASPEN HOLDINGS, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 2. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREIN AND WHICH IS COVERED BY THIS POLICY IS: IN FEE SIMPLE 3. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST REFERRED TO HEREIN IS AT DATE OF POLICY VESTED IN: DIVENERE ASPEN HOLDINGS, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 4. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS POLICY IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: DANCING BEAR LODGE, according to the Final PUD Plan & Plat recorded June 8, 2004 in Plat Book 69 at Page 80 as Reception No. 498443. Countersigned: 416, iol- Authorized officer or agent PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS AVE. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970) 925- 1766/(970) -925 -6527 FAX OWNER'S POLICY ' TITLE INSURANCE Issued by Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation POLICY NUMBER aLandAmer €ca Lawyers Title Insurance CorpomllonIsa member ofMe A75- ZO24778 Lawyers Title LandAmerica family of fills Insurance underwriters. SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE B AND THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS, LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation, herein called the Company, insures, as of Date of Policy shown In Schedule A, against loss or damage, not exceeding the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A, sustained or incurred by the Insured by reason of: I . Title to the estate or Interest described in Schedule A being vested other than as stated therein; 2, Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on the title; 3. Unmarketability of the title; 4. Lack of a right of access to and from the land. The Company will also pay the costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred In defense of the title, as insured, but only to the extent provided in the Conditions and Stipulations, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION has caused Its corporate name and seal to be hereunto affixed by Its duly authorized of cars, the Policy to become valid when countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company. LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION l �NEeeANpF rrl Attest: 1W S orS By' � ♦ yC / Ala -14 4 Secretary y1 "A 12 l President EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE -The following matters are expressly exduded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arlse by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (t) the ocwpancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (iq the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (Iii) a separation In ownership or a change In the dimensions or area of the land or oily parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters: (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the Insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting In loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the Insured claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy. 4. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting In the Insured the estate or Interest insured by this policy, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state Insolvency, orsimllor creditors' rights laws, that Is based on: (a) the transaction creating the estate or interest Insured by this policy being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer, or (b) the transaction creating the estate or Interest Insured by this policy being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure: (i) to timely record the instrument of transfer; or (if) of such recordation to Impact notice to a purchaser for value ore judgment or lien creditor. NM1PA10 ALTA Owners Policy (10117192) Valid Only If Schedules A and B are Attached Form 1190 -74Z ORIGINAL 7) with the requirements of part 3 of article 90 of title 7, CRS., the constituent documents, and the organic statutes, and that the individual in good faith believes the facts stated in the document are true and the document complies with the requirements of that Part, the constituent documents, and the organic statutes. This perjury notice applies to each individual who causes this document to be delivered to the secretary of state, whether or not such individual is named in the document as one who has caused it to be delivered. 7. Name(s) and address(es) of the individual(s) causing the document to be delivered for filing: Murray Kristy 201 N Mill St #203 (Street name and number or Post Ofce Box information) Aspen CO 81611 (City) (Stare) (PasmL/Jip Code) Unitetl States (Province- tfopplaoble) (Country- fnot US) (fhe document need not state the true name and address of mare than one individual. However, if)ou wish to state the name and address ofany additional indliiduals causing the document to be deliwrafforftling, mark this box ❑ andindudeanaaada mntstotingthe none and ndrorr ofanrh indwidunlr) Disclaimer: This form, and any related instructions, are not intended to provide legal, busineas or tax advice, and are offered as a public service without representation or warranty. While this form is believed to satisfy minimum legal requirements as of its revision date, compliance with applicable law, as the same may be amended from time to time, remains the responsibility of the user of this form. Questions should be addressed to the user's attorney. AMD_LLC Page 2 of 2 Rev. 6/15/2005 r^. yqe# 01 ® Colorado Secretary of State Date and Time: 10/25/2005 11:08 AM Document processing fee If document is filed on paper $125.00 If document is filed electronically $ 50.00 Fees & forms /cover sheets are subject to change. To file electronically, access instructions for this form/cover sheet and other information or print copies of filed documents, visit www.sos.state.co.us and select Business Center. Paper documents must be typewritten or machine printed. Entity Id: 20041434748 Document number: 20051396790 .wove srece rve orncc use onu Articles of Amendment filed pursuant to §7 -90 -301, et seq. and §7 -80 -209 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) ID number: 1. Entity uaaue: 2. New Entity name: (if applicable) 3. Use of Restricted Words (Many ofthese terms are contained in an etdity name, true name of an entity, trade name or trademark stated in this document, mark the applicable box): 4. Other amendments, if any, are attached. S. If the limited liability company's period of duration as amended is less than perpetual, state the date on which the period of duration expires: 20041434748 DiVenere Aspen Holdings, LLC (If changing the name ofthe limited liability company, indicate name Bar UHL the name change) Bear Land, LLC ❑ "bank" or "trust" or any derivative thereof ❑ "credit union" ❑ "savings and loan" ❑ " insurance ", "casualty", "mutual ", or "surety" (mm/dd/ym) OR If the limited liability company's period of duration as amended is perpetual, mark this box: ❑✓ 6. (Optional) Delayed effective date: p.,,. ✓durrrr) Notice: Causing this document to be delivered to the secretary of state for filing shall constitute the affirmation or acknowledgment of each individual causing such delivery, under penalties of perjury, that the document is the individual's act and deed, or that the individual in good faith believes the document is the act and deed of the person on whose behalf the individual is causing the document to be delivered for filing, taken in conformity AMD_LLC Page I oft Rev. 6115 /2005 ,s Andrea Hingley From: Susan O'Neal [susanchristine44 @cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 2:14 AM To: Andrea Hingley Subject: Re: Dancing Bear Pictures Attachments: image002.jpg Thanks, Andrea, I withdraw my objection if the railing is transparent and doesn't obstruct the view. Regards, Susan - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: Andrea Hingley To: Susan O'Neal Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:02 AM Subject: Dancing Bear Pictures Hi Susan Picture 005 is taken from the intersection of S. Aspen and Durant. Picture 001 is taken from the alley. The structure shown is the enclosure, though it will have a slightly different shape if approved. Please note that as funny as it looks, in yellow the colors if approved will match the rest of the building. The height of the equipment enclosure is not higher than the original approved roof height. Please call with any questions. Thanks Andrea Hingley A I City of Aspen I Community Development 1 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 1 970 - 429 -2797 1 Fax: 970 - 920 -5439 I andreahinalev@ci.aspen.co.us lwww.asnennitkin.com A Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Jackie Lothian From: LJ Erspamer [walkabout @sopris.net] Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 7:48 PM To: Jim True Cc: Jackie Lothian Subject: FW: Dancing Bear roof top proposal to enclose spa mechanical equipment Jim and Jackie. I just received this in the email. Please include this in the public record. Li From: Junee Kirk [mailto:ju nee. kirk@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 7:36 PM To: zcliff weiss; Mike Wampler; U Erspamer Subject: Fw: Dancing Bear roof top proposal to enclose spa mechanical equipment Ladies, Today I received a PUBLIC NOTICE regarding the Dancing Bear for a public hearing to be held on Tuesday, November 18 at 4:30 pm before the Aspen P &Z in the Sister Cities Room. It's difficult to understand precisely what these public notices are referring to, but this notice says the Dancing Bear owners propose to "enclose the spa mechanical equipment in the roof in a building that is currently under construction ". If Dancing Bear is referring to the building that's almost completed, I VOTE A RIGOROUS NO, they may NOT enclose the spa mechanical equipment on the roof of the building ... IF it obstructs the view of Smuggler Mountain for everyone who lives in South Point. Stan Clausen told me three years ago they originally asked for a 62 foot building height for the Dancing Bear - -- because they could always reduce the height, but they deliberately IGNORED the law - - -to see what they could get away with - - -and they succeeded. The Dancing Bear is THREE FLOORS PLUS the spa and terrace on top of the third floor which is three floors plus the rooftop room!!! There is EVERY reason to believe if they enclose the "spa mechanical equipment ", it will totally obstruct South Point owners from being able to see Smuggler and Wagner Park. No, no, no-- - -they already got permission to break the law and create THREE FLOORS PLUS THE ROOFTOP terrace - -they should NOT be allowed any more height than this. Why didn't they know they needed to have "the spa mechanical equipment enclosed" BEFORE they began building? I think they're trying to pull the wool over our eyes and get permission for extra construction on the rooftop. PLEASE fight this ploy for the good of everyone. Thank you. Sincerely, Susan P.S. If you'd like to cut and paste any of this (except the part about Stan Clausen) to present to the meeting on Nov. 18, please do so because I feel strongly about NOT obliterating the rooftop view. Susan Christine O'Neal 8100 E. Camelback Rd., # 31 Scottsdale, AZ 85251 Tel. (480) 664 -3200 The mind works best when it's open! No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.aviz.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.5/1758 - Release Date: 10/31/2008 8:22 AM C!—" OF ASPEN C % � A( SPDN --TT PAID �; I N DATE REP NO, I'2q V �q � SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, Made Decembers, 2004 - between MSE ASPEN HOLDINGS, LTD. A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (WHO ACQUIRED TITLE AS MSE ASPEN HOLDINGS, LTD. A COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP) of the County of Broward and State of Florida, of the first part, GRANTOR and DIVENERE ASPEN HOLDINGS, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY whose legal address Is: 124 Annapolis Lane ponce Vedga Fl. 32062 of the County of se Johns State of Florida , of the second part, GRANTEE WITNESSETH, That the said parties of the first part, for and Inconsideration of the sum of Ten dollars and other _ good and valuable considerations, to the sold parties of the first part, in hand paid by the said parties of the second 'part, the receipt Whereof Is hereby confessed and acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and - conveyed and by these presents do grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm unto the said parties of the second part, (is successors and assigns forever, all the following described lots or parcel of land, situate, lying and being In the County of PITKIN and Stale of COLORADO, to wit DANCING 13EAR LODGE, according to the Final PUO Plan & Plat recorded June 8, 2004 in Plat Book 69 at Page 80 as Reception No. 498443. Together with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances there -unto belonging; or In anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, Issues and profits thereof; and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever, of the said parties of the first part, either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the heredilamonts and appurtenances; TO HAVE AND o TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, with the appurtenances, unto the said parties of the y second part, Its successors and assigns forever. And the said parties of the first part for themselves, their heirs and assigns do covenant, grant, bargain and agree -to and with the said parties of the second part, their successors and assigns, the above bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of said parties of .=0-. the second part, its successors and assigns, against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming or to claim the Whole or any part thereof, by through or under the said parties of the first part to WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND. The singular shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of gender shall be applicable to all genders. mw Ol °� IN WITNESS WHEREOF,-the said parties of the first part have hereunto set their hand(s) and aeal(s). '�Y W F /VJ SIGNATURES ON PAGE 2 RETURN TO: Klein, Cote & Edwards, PC 201 No. Mill St. Ste. 203 Aspen, Co. 81611 Adn: Herb.Kleln I IIfII� VIII I'III� IIII� I�IIII III IIII�I III �IIII III I��I 205490 03:e4i aRVIR DBMS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 11.00 0 550.00 PAGE 1 C 1 SCHEDULE B- OWNERS CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY POLICY NUMBER PCT192601-3 December 28, 2004 @ 3:07 PM A75- ZO24778 THIS POLICY DOES NOT INSURE AGAINST LOSS OR DAMAGE BY REASON OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts In boundary lines, shortage In area, encroachments, any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Water rights, claims or title to water. 6. Taxes for the year 2004 not yet due or payable. 7. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deed from the City of Aspen recorded in Book 59 at Page 571 providing as follows: "That no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws ". S. Easement Agreement for Electric and Communication utilities as set forth in instrument recorded in Book 313 at Page 246. 9. Encroachment of Deck onto the property lying Westerly of the subject property as disclosed on Survey by Aspen Survey Engineers, updated September 5, 1995 as Job No. 20003 recorded November 12, 1997 as Reception No. 41047 in Plat Book 44 at Page 11. 10. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2003 by The City of Aspen recorded June 8, 2004 as Reception No. 498441. 11. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Planned Unit Development (PUD) & Subdivision Improvements Agreement recorded June 8, 2004 as Reception No. 498442. 12. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Plat of subject property recorded June 8, 2004 in Plat Book 69 at Page 80 as Reception No. 498443. 13. Deed of Trust from To the Public Trust For the use of Original Amount Dated Recorded Reception No. : DIVENERE ASPEN HOLDINGS, LLC se of the County of PITKIN ALPINE BANK $4,000,000.00 December 28, 2004 December 28, 2004 505491 (Continued) POLICY NO. A75- 2024778 CASE NO. PCT192601-3 SCHEDULE B- OWNERS -- EXCEPTIONS -- CONTINUED -- 14. Deed of Trust from : DIVENERE ASPEN HOLDINGS, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY To the Public Trustee of the County of PITKIN For the use of : MSE ASPEN HOLDINGS, LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Original Amount : $1,500,000.00 Dated : December 28, 2004 Recorded : December 28, 2004 Reception No. :505492 EXCEPTIONS NUMBERED 1, 2,3 AND 4 ARE HEREBY OMITTED l CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS (Continued) . 7 DETERMINATION, EXTENT OF LIABILITY AND COINSURANCE. This policy IS a contract of indemnity against actual monetary loss or damage sustained or incurred by the insured claimant who has suffered loss or damage by reason or matters insured against by this policy and only to the extent herein described. (a) The liability of the Company u der this policy shall not exceed the least of (r) the Amount of Insurance stated In Schedule A; or, (u) the difference between the value of the Insured estate or ,merest as insured and the value of the Insured estate or Interest subject to the defect, lien Or encumbrance insured against by this policy. (o) In the event the Amount of Insurance stated In Schedule A at the Date or Policy Is less than BD percent of the value of the Insured estate or Inl @real or the full consideration paid: for. the land, whichever Is less, of g subsequent (o the Dale of Policy an improvement Is erected on the land which Increases the value of the msuied estate or interest by at least 20 percent over the Amount of Insurance slated . n+ Schedule A. then this Policy is subject to the following: (i) where no subsequent Improvement has been made, as to any partial loss, the Company shall only pay the loss pro tale In the proportion that '! the amount of insurance at Dale of Policy bears to ghe total value of the insured estate or interest at Date of Policy; or (ii) where a subsequent Improvement has been made, as to any partial loss, the Company shell only pay the lose pro rata In the proportion that 170 percent of the Amount of Insurance slated In Schedule A bears to the sum or the Amount of Insurance staled In Schedule A and the amount expended for me improvement. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to costs, attorneys' tees and expenses for which the Company Is liable under this policy, and shall only apply to Ina( portion of any loss which exceeds, in the aggregate, 10 percent or the Amount of Insurance stated In Schedule A. (c) The Company will pay only those costs, attorneys' fees an expenses ntcuned in accordance with Section 4 of these Condiflom an Stipulations, S. APPORTIONMENT. If the land described In Schedule A consists of two or more parcels which are not used as a single site, and a loss is established affecting one or more of the parcels but not all, the loss shall be computed and settled on a pro rate basis as If the amount of insurance under this policy was divided Dro rate as to the value on Date of Policy of each soperale parcel to the whole, exclusive of any ImprovemMnls made subsequent to Date of Policy, unless a liability or value has otherwise been agreed upon as Io each parcel by the Company and the Insured at the time of the issuance of this policy and shown by an express statement or by an endorsement attached to this policy. 9. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. (a) If the Company establishes the Illle, or removes the alleged defect, Ilan d, encumbrance, or cures the lack of a right of access to or from the fend, or cures me claim or unmerketobillly of title, all as Insured, In a reasonably diligent manner by any method. including litigation and the completion of any appeal% therefrom, lt snarl have fully performed Its obligations with respect to that matter and shall not be liable for any loss or damage "used thereby. 101 In the event of any litigation, Including litigation by the Company or Wirt Ine Cu,npany's consent, the Company shall have no liability for loss or damage until there nas been a final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction, and disposition of all appeals therefrom, adverse to the tide as Insured. tc; The Company shall not be liable for lose or damage to any Insured for haunny voluntarily assumed by the Insured In Belling any dalm or suit wllhoul the undo, written consent of the Company. lo. REDUCTION OF INSURANCE; REDUCTION OR TERMINATION OF LIABILITY. All payments under this policy, except payments made for costs, attorneys' lees and expenses. shall reduce the amount of the Insurance pro tanlo. (b) When liability and the extent of logo or damage has been definitely food In accordance with these Conditions and Stipulations, the loss or damage shag be payable wlthlh 30 days thereafter, 13, SUBROGATION UPON PAYMENT OR SETTLEMENT. (a) The Company'. Right of Subrogallon. Whenever the Company shell have settled and paid a claim under this policy, all fight of'subrogalion shall vest In the Company unaffected by any act of Ira.. Insured claimant. The Company shall be subrogated to and be entitled to all rights and remedies which the Insured claimant would have had against any person or property In respect to the'claim had this policy not been Issued. If requested by the Company, the Insured diflMAnt shell transfer to the Company all rights and remedies against any person or pro any necessary In order to perfect this tight of subrogation The and reason 14, nt shag permit the Company to sue, compromise or settle in She name 1 claimant and to use the name of the Insured claimant In any. 110dallon Involving these rights or remedies, ISM on account of a claim does not fully cover the loss of the Insured -,q: Company shall be subrogeled to these rights and remedies In.thi." eh the Company's payment bears to She whole amount of the loss, duld result from any act of the Insured cfalmam, It staled above, that )Id this policy, but the Company, In that event, shall be required to Pay.-.Sit of any losses Insured against by Ihle ppolicy which shag exceed the lv loot to the Company by reason of the Impairment by the Insured,.;,jY Company$ right of subrogation. Cbmpany's Alghts Against Non - Insured Obligors, ,pany's right of subrogation against non - Inaured obligors shag exist ude,;Wlmoul limitation, the rights of the Insured to Indemnities, teir . pollcles of Insurance or bons, notwithstanding any terms talned In those Instruments which provide for subrogation rights by =5 hollcy. z law, either the Arbitration Assodallbn. Arbitrable matters may I controversy or claim between the Company and U to [his policy, of Semi of the Company In u breech of a policy provision or other obligation. Amount of Insurance Is $1,000,000 or less shall h the Company or the Insured. All arbitrable motion In excess of $1,000,000 shall be arblualedzor Company and the Insured. Arbitration pursuant to effect e n the date the demand for arblMon Is me the Rules In effect at Dale of Polcyy shall be bin, may Include attorneys', fees only If the laws of the permfl a tour to award attorneys' fees to a pre swam rendered by the Arbltralor(s) may be enter thereof. any or the Insured mey':�1.;,! III Rules of 0ia American' . 1 are not limited to, any arising oul'of or reladrtg ;s vlth Its Issuance or the 'able matters when the . d el the option of Amount of InaUrf B'. rgreed.to:by-bbih ft s policy and under or, at the option of 7 upon the parties. rte In which the lot Ing party. Judgme In any court havint " The law of the seta of the land shall apply to an arbitration under the Tiffs,:- Insurance Arbitration Rules. ;y BRA copy of the Rule& maybe obtained from the Company upon request. ' 16. � LIABILITY LIMITED TO THIS POLICY; POLICY ENTIRE CONTRACT..-:.;r;,', )�(A) This policy. together with all endorsements, If any, attached hereto by the ComtSany Is the entire policy and contract between I Ins_ ad or ,U (Company. In Iplerprill any. provlslod of this 011dy, this ppolicy shell Will as a whole (b) $_.;Any dam of loss or demo99e, whether or no Tl 011, atkena, and - - whhih'at)see but of the status of the Wa to the %stele fell covered hereby or by an yy action asserting such claim, shell be restdeled 1 e poll ". (c),; No amendment of of enosemenl to this po rail Ocye made' espl by a'idling endorsed hereon or attached hereto signed by b bier the Pre&Ment, a Vice Prasldehl;.lhe Secretary, an Assistant Secretary, or. Va oMcer or out ad signatory of the Company. 16. "SEVERABILITY. 11. LIABILITY NONCUMULATIVE, In the event any prievldoh of the policy Is held ima ltd or unenforceable under n s expressly understood lost the amount of Ineurena tarter this II shall applicable law the policy shell be deemed riot to Include that provision and ell other be reduced by any amount the Company may ps under any policy Insuring a Provl&lona she }I remelt In NII force and edeq yy - mongage to which exception is taken In Schedule B or o which the Insured hes NOTICES, WHER E SENT. 17, agreed. assumed. or taken subject, or which le hereefle� bkeoUled by an Insured All notices required lobe given the Company end any statement In writing' ailu v,hicb is a charge or Ilan on the estate or Interest described or referred to In ,': Schedule A. and the amount so paid shall be deemed a payment under this policy' 4squlred to be furnished the Company shall Include the number of this policy a,% to me ,hsured owner .xx ` and.shall be addles ad to: Consumer Affairs Department, P,0.. Box 27587 ;p.. Ichniond,.Mrpinfe 23261.7567. 'vq 12. PAYMENT OF LOSS. y 4 7l.4+` (a) No payment shall be made without producing this policyy folendorsamenta +i of me payment unless the policy has been lost or destroyed, In whieh'use proof o} 7r loss or destruction shall be furnished to the satisfaction of the Company. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Andrea Hingley, Planning Technician THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director �. DATE OF MEMO: November 3, 2008 MEETING DATE: November 18, 2008 RE: 411 S. Monarch Street — Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Commercial Design Review APPLICANT /OWNER: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Dancing Bear Land, LLC Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning - Commission deny the re uest to accommodate the REPRESENTATIVE: equipment area on the 3` floor rooftop. During the original Eben P. Clark, Klein, Cote and approval process, both City Council and P & Z had Edwards, LLC concerns regarding the height, scale and massing of the upper floors of the building. LOCATION: Civic Address - 401 S. Monarch SUMMARY: Street; Legal Description — Lots P, A site specific PUD was approved for the development of Q, R and S, Block 77, City and Townsite of Aspen; Parcel Identification Number — 2735- 182 -19 -002 CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the Lodge zone district with a PUD overlay containing a timeshare lodge development currently under construction. PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting an amendment to the approved PUD to accommodate the screening and enclosure of the spa mechanical equipment area on the 3`d floor the lodge in 2003. The project is currently under construction. During a routine field inspection, the City's Building Department staff noticed an additional unapproved enclosure. The City "Red Tagged" the project and allowed construction on other elements of the project to proceed with the condition that the applicant apply for this PUD Amendment. Page 1 of 12 Photo of the subject property — taken from Durant Avenue showing the enclosure (in yellow). i Photo of property — taken from S. Aspen/Alley Page 2 of 12 r^ Figure 1: Vicinity Map BACKGROUND: The applicant proposes to accommodate the enclosure of the spa mechanical equipment area on the 3`d floor rooftop, adjacent to the gazebo of the previously approved project, the Dancing Bear Lodge, that is now currently under construction at 411 S. Monarch Street (See Application - Exhibit B). The majority of the project has been completed, including an enclosure on the 3rd floor roof, which was `Red Tagged' as the structure differed from the approved plans. This structure that exists currently is different than what was submitted as part of this application. The proposed structure includes roofs of varying heights (5 ft & 9ft). The mechanical area has been on all approved plans in the same general area where this enclosure is proposed. The concern is that what is proposed is more visible, as the structure is located closer to the parapet. Two different approvals are required. The applicants' representative, Eben Clark, had met with staff to see if the request could be approved administratively. Staff determined that the request could not be made administratively, as more than one approval is necessary. The required approvals include a PUD Other Amendment and Commercial Design Review — Substantial Amendment. Page 3 of 12 The Dancing Bear Lodge received final PUD approval by Council on August 11, 2003 by Ordinance No. 29 of Series 2003. Prior to the original approval, numerous discussions were held as there was concern among City Council members as well as Planning and Zoning members regarding the height, scale and massing of the building. LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission to accommodate the enclosure of the spa mechanical equipment area on the 3`d floor rooftop on the Dancing Bear Lodge • PUD Amendment pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.100 B. Other Amendment An amendment found to be consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final development plan by the Community Development Director, but which does not meet the established thresholds for an insubstantial amendment, may be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Since height and massing were discussed in great detail during the original approvals, staff feels the proposed enclosure is not consistent with the projects original approval and cannot be reviewed administratively. • Commercial Design Review for a change to the original design that received final approval, as pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412.080.B. Substantial Amendments. The application, as presented, requires both a PUD Amendment, as well as commercial design review which qualifies the review as a substantial review. DISCUSSION: During the approval processes there was much concern regarding the height, scale and massing of the building. Plans were revised to accommodate P & Z's and City Council's recommendation to reduce the visual mass and height of the building. This was accomplished through having a tiered effect of the upper floors of the building, the uppermost floor being the gazebo. The gazebo was centered in the middle of the building so that it appeared that the building did not have a 4 1 floor. It was noted in the meeting minutes from City Council dated, June 23, 2003, that the view plane from the Wheeler Opera House would not be compromised by this project, as lodges farther up Aspen Mountain are higher. The proposed mechanical equipment on the roof has been shown on previous plans and is not a new element for the building. The equipment enclosure in the proposed location will be visible from certain points around the building. Staff feels that the enclosure could be less of an eyesore for the neighbors than uncovered spa mechanical equipment, but because of the concerns of the boards that this application is being returned back to P & Z for the decision. PUD Other Amendment The plat showing the approved PUD is different than the application received. The approved plat shows elevations that show only the gazebo to be above the parapet wall for all sides of the building. The submitted application shows a significant structure adjacent to the gazebo which Page 4 of 12 will be visible from several sides. The height of the proposed enclosure is approximately the same as the top of the gazebo, but still lower than the existing elevators shaft. The desired enclosure is considered an `Other Amendment' as it changes the dimensions which were previously approved for the 4th floor. • Commercial Design Review It appears that the enclosure, in its intended location addresses the design concerns of placing the mechanical equipment to the rear of the building to help shield it from view. The concern of staff is that the part that is visible does change the intended look of the building. The tiered effect does not appear to work as well with the proposed enclosure and therefore it is a height and massing concern, not evident in the original approvals. The proposed structure is visible from the alley and S. Aspen St., only slightly visible from E. Durant Ave and not visible from S. Monarch St. The application must also comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. The project is located in the Commercial Character Area. The Commercial Character Area has some design objectives and guidelines that the proposed amendments to the building must meet. The intent of the proposed enclosure is to meet the design guidelines as much as possible and still remain compliant with the building code. This is demonstrated by the proposed location of the enclosure being located towards the rear of the building and being set back from the facade, which helps to screen it from view. RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that the application is substantial in nature. Much discussion of size, height and mass at the approval hearings that it has warranted a P & Z review of the proposed structure on the 3`d floor roof plane. The same materials will be used to cover the proposed enclosure. The Commission should consider the possible visual and noise mitigation benefits of the proposed enclosure. Community Development Department staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the Planned Unit Development Other Amendment, and Commercial Design Review - Substantial Amendment requests. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Community Development Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the PUD Amendment application. All motions should be made in the positive. If, after sufficient effort no motion can be adopted the chairman should request a motion to deny the application. "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2008, to approve the Spa Equipment Enclosure application for 411 S. Monarch St." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Staff Findings Exhibit B — Meeting Minutes from Aspen City Council (June 23, 2003 and July 28, 2003) Exhibit C — Application Page 5 of 12 EXHIBIT A PUD Other Amendment The same criteria are used to reviewing a PUD with the focus on the changed conditions and the requested amendment. A. General Requirements: 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen area Community Plan. Response: The proposed development remains consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) as the intent of the change is to protect the neighboring properties from the visual and auditory impacts of necessary mechanical equipment. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Response: The proposed development remains consistent with the character of the existing land uses in the surrounding area, as the proposed change is not a change in use. The development will serve as a benefit to the community by acting as an auditory and visual buffer for the spa equipment. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Response: Much of the surrounding area is currently under development, so the proposed change will not drastically alter the use or appearance as it will not need to be replaced in the near future. 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. Response: GMQS does not apply to this change, as the proposed development is for a mechanical enclosure only. B. Establishment of dimensional requirements: 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. Response: The proposed amendment will not change the height, scale or site coverage on the given property, though the massing will be altered on the northwest corner of the building. The height of the proposed enclosure is no higher than the previously approved elevator shaft. b) Natural or man -made hazards. Page 6 of 12 Response: Natural characteristics such as steep slopes, waterways, trees and land forms are not impacted by the proposed spa enclosure on the roof. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade and significant vegetation and landforms. Response: Natural or manmade features are not altered by the proposed enclosure of the spa equipment. 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. Response: The structure is proposed to help decrease the auditory and visual effects of spa mechanical equipment, therefore making it less of an impact on the neighborhood. View planes in concern are only impacted very slightly by the proposed 3`d floor alteration, as the existing gazebo is not higher than the proposed enclosure. 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. Response: Massing is only the dimensional requirement impacted by the spa enclosure on the roof on the northwest corner of the building. The height of the proposed enclosure is no higher than the previously approved roof line of 46'. C. Site design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. 7. For nonresidential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Response: Page 7 of 12 The proposed enclosure on the 3`d floor roof will minimally impact natural features, such as the Wheeler Opera House view plane, as there already exists a gazebo on the roof to obstruct the view. D. Landscape plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the City, with surrounding parcels and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well- designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation and provides an ample quantity and 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. Response: N/A E. Architectural character. 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less- intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Response: The general architectural appearance of the building is not changing; the proposal is to enclose spa equipment on the 3`d floor roof. The enclosure is closer to the parapet and therefore more visible. The equipment has always been located in the area of the proposed enclosure. The enclosure is meant to screen the equipment from view, as well as control the noise from the equipment. The enclosure will be covered with material consistent with the rest of the building and is compatible with the rest of the character of the neighborhood. 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. Response: N/A G. Common park, open space or recreation area. Response: N/A G. Utilities and public facilities. Page 8 of 12 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. Response: N/A Commercial Design Review Criteria 26.412.050 Review Criteria An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the fagade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. (Ord. No. 13, 2007, § 1) Response: The proposed spa enclosure on the roof is a slight deviation from the original design. The enclosure is to visually block the spa equipment from view, as well as help control the noise from the equipment. The structure will match the materials if the rest of the building Sec. 26.412.060. Commercial design standards. The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed -use development: A. Public amenity space. Creative, well - designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights -of -way or private property within commercial areas. On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Page 9 of 12 Public amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on -site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. 2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at -grade relationships with adjacent rights -of -way are encouraged. 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights -of -way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. 4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. 5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. Response: The proposed enclosure of the spa mechanical equipment on the roof will not change any public amenity space, as the location of the enclosure is roughly in the same place as the original proposed location, though slightly larger and set closer to the parapet. B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A utility, trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated along the alley meeting the minimum standards established by Section 26.575.060, Utility /trash/recycle service areas, unless otherwise established according to said Section. 2. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property and along the alley. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. 3. Delivery service areas shall be incorporated along the alley. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. 4. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. 5. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be Page 10 of 12 visible from a public right -of -way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. (Ord. No. 13, 2007, §1) Response: Utility, delivery and trash services will not be impacted by the proposed amendment to the structure. The mechanical equipment has been located as much as possible towards the rear of the building, and equipment has been grouped in the proposed location. The structure, though visible from some locations has been made to be as onobstruive as possible in its given location. Applicable review criteria from the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines Commercial Character Area Design Objectives and Guidelines: Floor Stature: 1.36 Minimize the appearance of a tall third floor. (Page 31) • Where a third floor's floor to ceiling height is in excess of 12 ft. it should be set back a minimum of 15 feet from the street fagade to reduce the apparent height • Increase the parapet height to screen the visual impact of the tall top floor • The design of a setback third floor shall be simpler in form, more subdued in modeling, detail and color than the primary fagade Response: The proposed change is an alteration to the 3`d floor roof top. The enclosure is closer to the parapet than the original proposed location of the equipment. The proposed alteration of the roof is on the western side of building and only covers a small portion of that side. The 2nd floor roof is set back from the street fagade, as is the 3`d floor. The enclosure is at the edge of the 3`d floor and is visible from certain perspectives. Roofscape: 1.44 A larger building should reflect the traditional lot width in the form and variation of its roof. (Page 34) This should be achieved through the following: • A setback of the top floor from the fagade • Reflect the traditional lot width in the roof plane Response: The top floor is set back from the front fagade. The proposed alteration is closer to the parapet than the original design location of the equipment. The proposed alteration is to screen the equipment from view as well as provide a sound barrier for the noise. 1.45. The roofscape should be designed with the same design attention as the secondary elevations of the buildings. (Page 34) • Group and screen mechanical equipment from view • Locate mechanical equipment to the rear of the roof area • Position, articulate and design rooftop enclosures or structures to reflect the modulation and character of the building • Use materials which compliment the design of the building fagades Page 11 of 12 • Design roof garden areas to be unobtrusive from the street • Use Green Roof design best practice where feasible Response: The roofscape has been designed as much as possible to meet this standard, and will result in a greater compliance with this guideline as the equipment will now be shielded from view. The equipment is located at the back of the building and is grouped into one area. The enclosure's location is as unobtrusive as possible; it is not visible from Wagner Park (S. Monarch St) and is only visible from certain locations on Durant St. Page 12 of 12 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 23, 2003 Councilwoman Richard moved to adopt Ordinance #23, Series of 2003, e provision that the neighbors be consulted at the time of the soils s wi a engineer and that the fire marshal look at fire and safety ess during any,4.emolition and excavation time as well as the final eve plan and that wilding permit will not be issued for this ess the Residences awlic'Ation has been withdrawn Peterson asked what consu ' g with the nt means. Councilwoman Ric said the r background and history when the 'ls Stu( the applicants are required to submit a o' city staff. Vann said the condition sta s recommendation of the soils analy ' . Juli ghbo on the soils survey ;i ors would like to give 1s being looked at. Vann said evaluation to be reviewed by applicants will comply with the development department; said i e neighbors does that leave staff. Petersojr said when the s Woods, community e not "consulted ", where will give the Falenders a c y. Peterson said he is language "consulted ". Councilwoman Richards withdrew her motion. is submitted, they )mfortable with the Councilman�6mrau moved to adopt Ordinance #23, Series of 2003 second rea�ltrlg with the condition that prior to the issuance of a buildin permit orrdemolition permit, the application for the Residences at the Littl Nell will be withdrawn and that the Falenders will be provided with a copy of * soils study and invited to comment; seconded by Councilwoman R,iblhards. Roll call vote: Richards, yes; Torre, yes; Paulson, no; Semrau, Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #29, SERIES OF 2003 — Dancing Bear PUD James Lindt, community development department, told Council this is a lodge preservation PUD to redevelop a site at 411 South Monarch street. Council is the final reviewing body of all land use requests for this site. Lindt showed Council where the site is, just west of Wagner park. The site is 12,000 square feet and is zoned LTR. There is currently a one -story lodge building with 23 bedrooms. This building has been vacant for the last 5 years. Lindt said the proposal is to demolish the existing lodge and replace it with an 11 -unit time share lodge of 28 bedrooms. Each unit will have lock off capabilities, 15 Regular Meetine Amen City Council June 23, 2003 i Lindt reviewed each floor of the proposal. The first floor has a lobby and check in area access from South Monarch street; a lounge/bar with patio seating; one 1400 square foot, 2 bedroom lodge unit; 2 affordable housing units of 2 bedrooms. The second floor contains 4 lodge units, two 1400 square feet 2 bedroom units; two 2800 square feet 3 bedroom units. The third,floor.contains 3 2800 square foot 3 bedroom units. The fourth floor has 3 three bedroom units and a recessed patio. The fifth floor has a glass gazebo, which would have a hot tub and exercise area. Lindt said the applicant proposes 3 below grade levels. The first level has a garage access accessed from the alley, as well as a games and recreation area, and a storage area. There are 24 parking spaces proposed on site; 5 spaces at grade on the applicant's property. The second floor below grade contains the majority of the garage. The third floor below grade contains more storage for the owner's personal goods, mechanical area and conference room. Lindt said the timeshare will be 8 shares per unit, 58 totals estates. The FAR is 3.25:1 and a height of 57 feet to the midpoint of the gazebo. Lindt told Council staff feels this is an appropriate use for the site. In the past this has been used as a lodge. This project will bring vitality to a very important corner in town. The applicant has proposed a good deal of their affordable housing mitigation on site. The applicant has proposed greater than .7/lodge bedroom of parking spaces, which is required by code. Lindt noted one concern is the height, which is proposed at 57 feet as measured by the land use code. Other lodges in that area are the St. Regis, which is 50 to 60 feet, the Mountain Chalet is low 50's. Three P &Z members felt the height was too extreme for the 28 feet as allowed in the LTR zone. Lindt told Council the upper floors are recessed to create a wedding cake effect, which helps lessen the mass. The building has been stepped down to the west towards the townhomes. Lindt said staff feels the massing is appropriate with the exception of the turret. Lindt told Council the applicant proposed to use two spaces on Monarch as loading zones. Staff does not agree a lodge of 11 units needs a loading zone and added a condition that two alley spaces be signed as check -in parking. The third issue is the financial impact analysis to compare the proposed timeshare lodge with the tax revenues that would have been gained through lodge use. Lindt said the applicant's financial impact analysis shows there 16 Reeular Meetine Aspen City Council June 23, 2003 would not be a tax revenue loss through this fractional fee change. The city's finance director, Paul Menter, commented the projected nightly rental rates are too high and the analysis should be redone with a lower rate. Menter requested a condition that the city be able to do an audit after the lodge is operating. Mitch Haas, representing the applicant, reiterated this site has been sitting vacant for several years and has been years since it has contributed to Aspen's bed base. Haas said a boarded up building is sending an antithetical message to tourists regarding the economy and the vitality of lodges on the fringe of the commercial core. , Haas told Council most potential purchasers of this property wanted to build residential townhomes. This owner is interested in developing something that will contribute to the vitality and economic sustainability of the town. The applicant proposes two above grade employee housing units. This development should raise occupancy levels and should attract new visitors to Aspen. Haas noted there are trash compactors and recycling facilities access off the alley. There will be a decrease of 1 lodge unit from the Aspen Manor; however, the bedrooms will increase from 23 to 28. There will be an increase of leasable commercial space on the property including a sidewalk patio cafe on the comer. Haas told Council the applicants propose to house 4.5 employees and the remaining fraction of employee will be mitigated by cash -in -lieu. The management and operation of the lodge will be done with an existing lodge or with a management company. Haas said a strong architectural statement is important on this corner, right across from a large park. The perceived mass of the structure is broken up by different forms and modules, changes in exterior building materials, balconies, different window forms and shapes, and stepping the building back. Haas said they have tried for a classic wedding cake style building, the structure steps down in height to the west and the southwest comer of the lodge is only 25 feet above grade. The west side of the lodge is 3 stories as is the northwest and northeast corners of the building. The midsection of the building is 4 stories. The 5t' story gazebo sits in the center of the building. The building height has been lowered and the mass reduced through P &Z review. Haas told Council the height at the corner of Monarch and Durant is less than 32 feet without the turret. 17 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 23, 2003 Haas said the height of the structure varies depending from where it is measured. The fluctuations are a function of the topography of the site. The highest measured height on a public right -of -way is at the northwest corner along the alley and it is 39'9 "; the southeast comer 31'6" exclusive of the turret. The height is the gazebo is mitigated by using glass, by the stepping back of the surrounding levels and the fact it is setback 27 feet from Durant Avenue. This should not shadow streets or surrounding properties. The Wheeler Opera House view plane of Aspen mountain would not be compromised by this development. The overall height of Dancing Bear is lower than that of the St. Regis. The Mountain Chalet addition was approved at 52 feet to the midpoint of a pitched roof and allows 5 stories in that building. Haas said given the site's location and proximity to downtown and the transportation center, there should be little need for cars. There are 24 on- site parking spaces. The applicant commits to encouraging employees and guests to use alternative transportation. A fleet of bicycles will be kept on site for guests and employees. There will be provision for airport shuttle by the applicant or by contract with another lodge who does airport shuttle. The applicant has committed to keeping a small fleet of hybrid vehicles for use by guests and employees. Haas said they hope to obtain LEEDS certification, which is a national green building program, and to come as close to possible of the gold level. Haas summarized this is will replace an eyesore, will add hot beds, and will revitalize the Durant/Monarch intersection. The applicants hope to set a precedent for green building; they plan of housing 4.5 PTEs on site. There will be over $1 million in direct tax generation in the first 5 years of operation. The project provides community facilities, is self sufficient for parking and storage and the project furthers the AACP goals with respect to small lodges, affordable housing, economic sustainability, growth and the environment. David Brown, architect, went over the materials and the architecture of the proposed building. Brown told Council they went through the guidelines in the fractional timeshare ordinance and have tried to incorporate everything the ordinances envisions. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 23, 2003 Cliff Weiss said this building is out of scale for the neighborhood. Weiss said he does not feel this size building will contribute to the community. Roger Haneman, P &Z member, said this project will bring more benefits to the community than the one Council just approved. Haneman said these applicants made a great effort to meet the requests of P &Z. Dale Paas, Limelite Lodge, said he is concerned about the economic viability of the base of Aspen Mountain; however, he is very concerned about the economic sustainability of the Limelite Lodge. Paas said a massive building of this height and bulk will negatively affect the ability of the Limelite to rent rooms. Paas said this building does not blend with the neighborhood. Paas requested Council only approve 28 foot high building as allowed by the code. Stan Hajenga, manager Mountain Chalet, presented a letter from the owners of the Snow Queen Lodge stating they are against the proposed height, which goes against the principles of planning in this area. Hajenga applauded that someone is trying to develop this comer. Hajenga said the city needs to look at a system that allows a building to fall into disrepair for 5 years. Hajenga said the proposed height will affect many neighbors and many businesses. Hajenga said when the Mountain Chalet addition went through the process, they had to meet the view plane requirements. This building does not meet the view plane requirements. Hajenga said he would like to see this corner redeveloped; however, this proposal is beyond the scale and height called for. Debbie Falender said she reviewed the PUD and other land use code ordinances. The PUD ordinances say height, mass, parking, and density should respect the underlying zoning. The underlying zoning here is 1:1 and the FAR for this proposed project is 3.25:1. The PUD ordinance also states that the property shall be clustered to preserve significant open space. Ms. Falender noted that does not mean a building should be built right up to the borders of the property. Ms. Falender said this is too big for town. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Richards said she appreciates all the work that has been done; however, she cannot approve this plan. Councilwoman Richards noted there is discussion in the infill about creating more view planes and iT AWN Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 23, 2003 one of Shadow Mountain and this will block the view of Shadow Mountain. The building is taller than the surrounding pine trees. Councilwoman Richards agreed she would like to see redevelopment on this lot; however, this is overreaching. Councilwoman Richards said only 9% open space may work for a one story building but it does not work for a 5 story building. Councilwoman Richards noted part of a PUD process is to look at a greater public benefit. This proposal does not add any extra affordable housing out of 36,000 square feet. Councilwoman Richards said this site is on the north side of Durant and has transitioned to a different neighborhood from the base of the mountain. Councilwoman Richards noted this building will be higher than the Elk's Club building. Councilwoman Richards said this is zoned LTR and one could construct 3 residential townhomes on this site, which would not contribute to the community either. Mayor Klanderud said she, too, has problems with the height, especially as it would block the view of Shadow Mountain. Mayor Klanderud said the turret makes the building interesting. Mayor Klanderud stated she would consider some height variance; however, this is much too high. Mayor Klanderud said she would prefer to see all affordable housing built rather than get cash -in -lieu for housing. Mayor Klanderud said she is concerned there are only 2 parking spaces for affordable housing. Mayor Klanderud agreed it is great something is being planned for this site. It is a critical block in Aspen. Brown said some of the benefits to the community are that this project will provide hot beds and will bring guests to Aspen with'money to spend. Councilman Paulson agreed the structure is took tall. Councilman Paulson said he likes the gazebo. Councilman Paulson said he would like to see the building shrunk. Councilman Paulson asked about the trees on site. Brown said they have met with city staff, who have identified 2 or 3 significant trees on Durant street that should remain. The applicants will cooperate with the parks to give them what they ask for. Haas told Council the large conifers are not appropriate for pedestrian traffic as they grow all the way to the ground. The parks department is recommending trees that are more easily walked under. Councilman Paulson asked what will keep a person from buying 6 or 12 months of one unit. City Manager Steve Barwick said that is covered in the city's timeshare ordinance, which he will have to Council at their next 20 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 23, 2003 Councilwoman Richards moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 11 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Paulson. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #55. SERIES OF 2003 — Obermeyer Temporary Use Bendon, community development department, told Council this irary use request is for a real estate office to be located on the peyer property. Bendon said staff does not see any issues wi this Mayor Mayor Councilwoman seconded by Cc opened the public hearing. There were closed the public hearing. moved to approve ResolutiopI455, Series of 2003; Paulson. All in favor, mot' n carried. John Worcester, city attorney, tots base of Smuggler Mountain along owns lots 2 and 5 of the Aspen ele city. City Clerk Kathryn Koch rel order. Worcester said there is 1/ of interests exists. The area is ap The property has-not been s divi property owners have annexations pending. Mayor Klanderud Mayor Klanderuq Annexation unei s property is located at the k rcle. The owner, Alain Degrave, subdivision, which are already in'the :d a posting and publication are in nti with the city and a community of bel integrated within the city. into sep to parcels. 100% of the to annexation. l the public hearing. There the public hearing. are no other comments. Councilman 56rau moved to adopt Resolution #56, Series of X003; seconded b Councilwoman Richards, Khan Paulson said he would like a neighborhood map for second, to make sure where this is located in reference to any possible plan for Smuggler Mountain. in favor with the exception of Councilman Paulson, motion carried. 22 00�1 AM'S Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 23, 2003 consideration of this application. Barwick said the city cannot guarantee how a building will be occupied but can guarantee that one person may not purchase all the weeks. Councilman Semrau pointed out the infill ordinance would only allow 30 feet plus an additional 8 feet with special review and a historic TDR. Councilman Semrau said agreed this is a great project in a great location but it is too big; the height and mass are out of scale for the site. Under the PUD process, the applicant has the responsibility of proving a project is deserving of an exception. Councilman Torre asked what percentage of the total square footage is actual lodge space and what is amenities, parking, storage. Brown said it is 50 % net leaseable under the LTR definition of net leasable. Councilman Torre said there seems to be a lot of amenity space built in and there may be a way to lessen that, make the units smaller, and make the project smaller. All the amenities will make guests stay on property rather than go out in town and spend money. Brown said the intent of the amenities like the game room and movie theatre is to give families things to do. Brown said without the amenities, this is not a competitive project and would be under serious distress. Brown said there is not a square inch that could be removed without impacting the project. Mayor Klanderud noted when the Obermeyer project first came to Council, there was an outcry about the height. The design team came back with a project at the height requirement, which won broad support. Brown pointed out applicants are not allowed to talk to Council until the end of the process. It would be better to have a more collaborative process. Brown asked Council what would be the right height, the right mix, the right project. Councilman Semrau said the right use is family type lodging and the amenities are great; however, the mass, scale and height are out of character. Councilman Semrau said he feels 38 feet would be appropriate for the neighborhood. Mayor Klanderud agreed she could approve 38 feet. Mayor Klanderud said she would also like all employees housed on site. Mayor Klanderud said she likes the commitment to green development. Councilman Semrau moved to continue Ordinance #29, Series of 2003, to July 28; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. 21 A Regular Meeting Aspen City CouncA July 28 2003 she would like to strike "conversion of lodge rooms" as affordable mitigation as conversion of lodge rooms has been a problem in Asj V n said that has never been part of their solution and he agreed i be d ted. / Councilw Richards said she is willing to accept payme -in -lieu in order to fact 'fate some of the city's larger housing projects Councilwoman Richards sugg ted the applicant look at buying /que ingame Parcel D units for their igation. Councilwoman Richarned the value of the 8 employee 'ts on site and asked if 8 lodge ght be a better use of that space. V said solving the affordable hues is a challenging task and ey will take these suggestonsideration. Mayor Klanderud said ct 's housing project,/, ike Burlingame parcel D, are to make up for the deficit t housing and u ' g this housing for mitigation is not going towards the soluti The app . ants have assumed the responsibility for providing ho sing fo their project. Councilman Semrau said it would be a disservice to s 1 rlingame Parcel D to a private developer. Councilman Semrau s ' he will only consider cash -in -lieu for the units that may be located ou de e city limits. Councilman Semrau stated it is much more difficull o get 1 its than to get money. Woodford said the 8 units on site are r acement its and one is not allowed to give payment -in -lieu for housi replacement its. Councilman Semrau agreed those 8 units should stav n site. Councilman Torre so his concerns are the roo decks, the location, and he would like them oved slope side. Council Torre suggested the lodge units could a smaller than 4,000 square feet, hick would allow more lodge beds on p perty. Councilman Torre said he do not want the food and beverage ea used apres ski only but should be ye ound. Councilman/Torre said he is not opposed to cash in lieu he would like to see as man units in the city limits as possible. Mayor Ynanderud opened the public hearing, There were no Mayo�40anderud closed the public hearing. fncilman Semrau moved to approve Resolution #33, Series of 200 , v amendments as presented by staff and changes that the applicant at roval shall demonstrate adequate parking or formulate a plan with the iers of the Little Nell hotel, change apres ski activities to year round' activities, and delet ference to conversion of lod [s, and construction management plan in #9; nded by Coun ' man Richards. Roll call vote: Richards, yes; Torre, yes; ,yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #5 S S OF 2003 — Code mendment Infill Councilm emrau moved to continue Ordinance #5, ries of 2003, to Au 5;seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in fa r, motion ORDINANCE #29, SERIES OF 2003 — Dancing Bear PUD James Lindt, community development department, reminded Council at the last public hearing, they stated the proposed project was too large and too tall. The applicant will present a revised design. David Brown, representing the applicant, showed Council the current design and told them they have taken off one floor. The first two stories are of stone, stepping back onto a shingled darker floor and above that is a greenhouse, gazebo and roof. The setback is 5 feet rather than 2 feet. Brown told Council the corner facing Monarch and Durant is 31 feet to the Yd floor and 20'6" at the 2nd floor. At the alley for the main part of the building is 38 feet. The gazebo adds another 8 to 10 feet, which makes the building 44 feet at the midpoint of the glass shed. The top of the highest elevator shaft is 46 feet. The building elevations at the street are 34 to 31 to 34 feet. Brown showed the first project as reviewed by P &Z, the recommendation from P &Z and the current iteration. The building is greatly reduced. The project is now 9 three- bedroom suites with lock offs for 18 keys. The building as is has 23 bedrooms; this will be an increase of 3 free market bedrooms. The lower levels have not changed since the last presentation. The 2 two - bedroom employee units are the same as before and are now twice the required mitigation. All the suites range from 1700 to 2200 square feet, averaging 2,000 square feet. The bar and restaurant is smaller than before. The second floor contains 4 suites and 4 lock offs. The 3rd floor has been stepped back so each unit has its own outdoor deck. The roof has solar collectors, gardens, hot tubs and gazebo. The height of the gazebo varies 10 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 28 2003 from 43 to 45 at the highest point. Brown showed elevations from different points around the project. Mitch Haas, representing the applicant, noted the gazebo will be set back 17 feet from the Durant avenue fagade and 13 feet from Monarch street. Haas said the building is within the 38 -foot height requested by Council except for the gazebo, which is transparent and sits in the middle of the building. Haas said this feature is necessary to set this project apart from other time -share projects. Haas said the gazebo does not add to the perceived height of the building. Haas said the height measure is not as important as the qualitative measurements. The gazebo placed at the comer of Monarch and Durant would fit within the height limits but it would not be a good design. Haas reminded Council the recently approved Hyatt is 46 feet with a ground elevation higher than this site. The Mountain Chalet was approved with a 52 -foot height limit. Haas stated the applicants will make all efforts to achieve LEEDS certification and the gazebo will provide a perfect place for photovoltaic cells and capture of energy. The glass stairwell on Monarch is another location for passive solar gain for reuse. This corner needs revitalization. The project plans to add to the streetscape with the restaurant. The applicant plans to provide a hybrid vehicle for use by residents as well as bicycles. The applicant is providing 115% housing for employees when only 60% is required. Haas said they feel this will be a fiscal benefit to the city. This is a self - sufficient development for parking, affordable housing, economic sustainability and providing amenities on site. Lindt told Council staff feels this proposal 'meets community goals in bringing vitality to this location. The use is appropriate; this site has been tourist accommodations. The applicant has met their housing requirements. Lindt said this building is lower than other PUDs in the surrounding area. At the last meeting, Council indicated 38 feet would be appropriate on this site. Staff does not recommend asking for removal of the gazebo as it is set back far enough that it would not be a dominant feature of the building. The gazebo will be constructed out of translucent materials. Council brought up the restaurant space at the last meeting and whether it will remain that use in the future. There is a condition in the ordinance to require a PUD amendment if the owners want to convert this space from a restaurant. Lindt reminded Council at the previous meeting they indicated one parking space /affordable unit was too few. The amended ordinance 11 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 28 2003 requires two parking spaces per two- bedroom unit. The applicant has requested leasing parking spaces in the public right -of -way for loading. Staff does not feel a 9 -unit lodge would require loading spaces. The city engineer is opposed to leasing spaces in the public right -of -way. Paul Menter, finance director, pointed out not all tax information is available because the Aspen Manor has not been operating for the past 5 years. Menter said the applicant's fiscal analysis meets the code requirements. Menter told Council the condition on whether a fee is owed levers on the historical occupancy rate of the hotel. The original occupancy rate was estimated at 61 %; the revised application is 51 % as attested by the previous owner. The difference is whether a fee is owed or not. Menter concluded no fee is owed. Brown agreed there appears to be no fiscal impact to the applicant and this should be a cash generator for the community. City Manager Steve Barwick suggested for the future, Council consider a minimum occupancy rate for fiscal analysis amendment to this code section. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. Susan O'Neal asked about the row of evergreens on Durant. Haas said the one on the corner and one other will be preserved; the parks department has asked the other trees to be removed and replaced with more appropriate street streets. Kathy Petner, 210 East Cooper, commended the applicants for their design, for stepping the building back, for the green development, for the extra affordable housing. Ms. Petner said she is concerned'about the 46- feet and the precedent this will set for future developments in this area. Ms. Petner asked if the gazebo will be used at night and will be lit. Brown said it will be glass and there will be window coverings in order to make this a green project. It will be lit and will be used at night. The gazebo will be used as an exercise room, mechanical equipment and lounge. Dale Paas, Limelight Lodge, said he is very concerned about keeping the scale of the neighborhood. Paas pointed out every time this project has come back for city review, it has been abetter project. Toni Kronberg said she is concerned about the height. Visitors like the view of the mountain. People do not want taller buildings. Ms. Kronberg said this is a special site as it allows views of Shadow Mountain from the malls and from Wagner Park. 12 Reealar Meetine Asoen City Council July 28 2003 Mayor Klanderud entered into the record letters from Carol Saunders - White, Jim Scull, and one from Andrea Clark all concerned with the height of the project as well as light from the gazebo' at night. Haas said condition #21 requires a PM 10 mitigation plan to be reviewed by environmental health. Haas stated the measures they have already committed to the in the application are more than adequate and should be accepted as the PM 10 mitigation plan. These measures are a fleet of bicycles, hydroelectric vehicles, airport shuttle, employee bus passes, and marketing the location. These are all representations of the application. Lindt told Council environmental health staff feels the applicant has gone above and beyond PM10 mitigation. Lindt suggested the condition be amended that the applicant meets the representations of their application. Mayor Klanderud requested these representations be listed in the condition. The applicant agreed. Haas brought up condition #31, the 4 parking spaces for affordable housing, and requested only 2 spaces be required. Haas said the applicants feel they are being penalized for providing more housing than necessary. Haas noted the memorandum states that cash -in -lieu of school dedication is not attributable to the time -share units but is for the affordable housing units. Herb Klein, representing the applicant, said they do not have a problem with the city finance department conducting an annual audit, but does have a problem that if the city finds there is a shortfall, that they be obligated to pay some impact fee as determined by Council. Klein stated there is no provision in the code for this requirement. There are no standards for this requirement and this should have some study and legislation. Menter said what staff is most interested in is collection information. Barwick suggested adding language that this condition would only apply if the city adopts code amendment within the next year. Mayor Klanderud stated she does not have a problem deleting conditions #40. Councilmembers agreed. Klein requested a change in condition #41 about a "substantial' change to the restaurant; let the community development department decide whether this is a major or minor PUD amendment. Council agreed. Mayor Klanderud said when Council has required fewer on site parking spaces because employees will not use their cars has not worked. Councilwoman Richards agreed. Councilman Semrau said in this 13 , Reeular Meetine Aspen City Council July 28 2003 neighborhood, it would be a great service to have 4 parking spaces. Council agreed to require the applicant provide 4 parking spaces for the affordable housing. Councilwoman Richards said the city should not lease any spaces in the right -of -way on Monarch to this project. Councilwoman Richards pointed out this project is only providing 9% open space. Councilwoman Richards said she is concerned about reflections off the gazebo. Councilwoman Richards said she cannot accept the 4`h floor. Where the gazebo is placed does not meet what the Council intended when they said 38 feet at the highest. Councilwoman Richards said she does like the changes in massing and in material. Councilwoman Richards stated she sees a separation between the north and south side of Durant and this structure would be setting a precedent for the south side. Councilman Torre said he is concerned that the on -site amenities will keep the guests on site rather than getting out into the community. Councilman Torre said the gazebo raises the heights beyond what Council envisioned. Councilman Torre said the project could have a hot tub and rooftop garden without the gazebo structure. Councilman Torre s aid he feels the applicants have worked hard on this iteration. Councilman Semrau agreed this is an improvement and an interesting design. Councilman Semrau agreed about not leasing parking in the public right -of -way. Councilman Semrau does not support a 0 floor but does support an architectural element that makes this an extraordinary building. Eliminating the gazebo would make it a more boring building. Mayor Klanderud said she, too, is concerned about the gazebo and whether it is appropriate in this location. The light and reflection are major concerns. Mayor Klanderud questioned the excavation of 3 floors below grade. Mayor Klanderud asked if this would be in the proposed Shadow Mountain view plane. Lindt said this would probably be located within the view plane; however, it has not been drafted. Mayor Klanderud said she would rather see the hybrid vehicles eliminated. Brown said the gazebo is located away from the northwest comer because of concerns of the neighbor. The building is 38 feet at this comer and is 31 feet on the street side. Brown said the applicants feel the gazebo will make this space very special and could be used by the community for special events 14 Regular Meetine Ashen ON Council July 28 2003 and fund raisers. Brown said the sunlight reflection will be brief. The gazebo could be wrapped in fabric to cut down on this reflection or use non- reflective glass. Councilman Semrau suggested the size of the gazebo be reduced to 1500 square feet square feet. Councilwoman Richards stated the underlying height allowed in this zone district is 28 feet and going up to 38 feet is a significant variation. Going up another 8 feet is too much; the gazebo makes it appear as a 4th floor. Councilwoman Richards said she would not disapprove of uses on the roof but without the structure. Mayor Klanderud said this is a creative design with a good way to hide the mechanical equipment; however, she is concerned about the height. Councilman Semrau moved to continue Ordinance #29, Series of 2003, to August 11; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #32, SERIES OF 2003 - South Aspen Street P pRDINANCE #33, SERIES OF 2003 — South Aspen Alley acation Coun 'man Semrau recused himself based on owning d within 300 feet of this a lication. James Lindt, community develo ent department, told Council th%inte D review is for an applicatio from Aspen Land Fund II to conste market and 17 affordabl ousing units on 3 parcels of land near ction of South Asp en Juan streets. Sunny Vann, represents Aspen Lan and II, reminded Council Savanah Limited Partnership receiv the or' naLconceptual approval for this piece of property in 2001. Vann sai submitted a final application in 2002. The property has been for sal a applicants asked staff to hold the final review until final dispositi of the pr erty. Vann told Council Aspen Land Fund II acquired s property Dece er 2002, notified the community development dep nt and asked them to c lete the final application. Vann told Coun 'this application is identical to conceptual application except for m' r changes made in response to neighb ood concerns. council Oman Richards asked about the reference to the apNproto ting to bu' a hotel. Vann said Aspen Land Fund II purchased t bu' tourist accommodations at the base of the mountain. Tis 15 ReLrular Meetin Aspen OtE Council July 28 2003 need to complete this approval process in order to satisfy the lenders. Vann told Council there is no other application pending on this parcel. The applicants would like to explore doing a more intensive tourist project at this site. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. Milton Zale, representing Lift One condominium, said they appreciate that the developers have lowered the height of the building from 28 to 25 feet. Zale asked how far off Aspen street to the west will the building be set back. Zale asked how far south of the property line will the construction be. Zale said there is an issue where the garbage will be located and how it will be collected. Vann said the changes made were made at the request of Lift One and the most significant was the reduction in height below that allowed in the zone district. The applicants also agreed to move the trash area from the west side of the parking lot to the east side near the street. Vann pointed out the closest dimension from the property to the garage is 34 feet. Lift One also asked for extensive landscaping, which has been added to the plan. Zale said the. critical dimension is to move the building to the west, which would open up views for Lift One owners. Vann said the applicants negotiated with the homeowners association, extensive site lines were done, and roof lines were changed. Vann noted it was never mentioned that the building should be moved to the west. Vann said they have no room to move the building to the west. Vann pointed out this area requires a 5 -yard setback; this proposal has 8 feet. The request is to add another 15 feet to that setback, which would eliminate one of their units. Vann told Council this project is within all setback requirements, is within allowable FAR, within allowable density, and has more than the required open space and meets the parking requirements. The applicants asked for no variations in dimensional requirements. Larry Saliterman, building at 603 S. Garmisch, commended the developers and the city for listening to the neighbors and for coming up with a good Plan. Zale said although he recognizes what the applicants have done to change the plan, if they do not move the buildings, this will create problems for the owners. Vann reminded Council the negotiations with adjacent property owners were done at conceptual review. The applicants revised 16 EXHIBIT Co ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: _D AtiG k34 - s ?:2 LAN cx , LL Location: 0 '� . l%Aov >kz kj 4:s�,enl Cs`. (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) -Z 1 aZ - I t 0o'z APPLICANT: Name: l ✓A*r (_ UPc t: N3.k'�LLC Address: S�6urJ.4ttl1 Phone 9: Cl -1-D °( ZS —8 � REPRESENTATIVE• Name: CLA, Address: Zdl Nj. &,u , t�£�J CO �ul((A Phone #: oz 't2s e4-6d TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Temporary Use ❑ GMQS Allotment Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Text/Map Amendment ❑ Special Review ❑ Subdivision ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ ESA — 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes ❑ Final SPA (& SPA Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane ❑ Commercial Design Review ❑ Lot Split ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion ❑ Residential Design Vari ,*ce ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Other: ❑ Conditional Use EXI'S'TING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals?, etc.) PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: Xu Pre- Application Conference Summary EF Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement ❑ Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards 3 -D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5" X 1I" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3 -D model. Your pre - application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3 -D model. DB Capital Holdings, LLC 9/30/2008 P.O. Box 571 Jean CG iter Aspen, CO 81612 DB Caper - -i.' Holdings, L, C 9/0.925.6800 P.O. Box 571 970,925.6819 �`�Pen, CO 81612 Jean @d ancingbearaspen. ram To Whom It May Concern: The purpose of this letter is to inform The City of Aspen, and all its relevant agencies, that the firm of Klein, Cotd & Edwards, LLC represents Dancing Bear Land, LLC and its parent company DB Capital Holdings with regard to the properties located at 411 S. Monarch and 219 E. Durant. All notices and inquires relating to the current PUD Amendment Application and any other planning and land use issues should be address to the attention of Eben P. Clark, Esq. at Klein, Cote & Edwards. Please contact me with any questions. Jean Coulter Vice President — Finance and Operations DB Capital Holdings, LLC a r^, Z w rZ o Qw �o C) 0 11918 wvvo O�'N3d6V '15 H�71VNOW wrlos L14 ... e � 333 -�1W do $ Q �a # 3000121438 DNIZNVO 0 a }} m E� EE x PT S sl ' 3 z s i Cl- 0 a a _ �_1 w ilk e 1 a � n f[y Y I } G I T 161 b b b Q W W �5 °P Z w rZ o Qw �o C) 0 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: L4-11 5 r • Moo�-I^ 05yr-eo_. , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Noy I 8 C9 W. 30om ,200 ia STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty -two (22) inches wide and twenty-si� 26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in t. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing continuously visible from the _ day of 1200 to rn ding the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted not: e 'fin) is attached hereto. q!jWp of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community pment O�9Aa J�o 4.060(F)(2) (Department, of the Aspen Land Use Code. At east fifteen described days prior to �)O P ( ) Y P x3M12k bjic hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepar .S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (3 )00) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and govenwnental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions that create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas, and COWAPs are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the, official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. 'gignattde The A � fo,regoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 3 day of 1 L14?,# J2, , 2000, by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: I PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 411 S. MONARCH STREET, PUD OTHER AMENDMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN RE VIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 18, 2088, at a meeting to begin et 4:30 p.m. bef0 re the Aapan Planning antl Zoning Commission, in Ma Sister Cit lea Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena SC, Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Ebon P. Cis* of Klein, Cote 8 Edwards, LLC, 201 North Mill Street, Aspen, CO, 81811 on behalf of Dancingg Bear Land LLC, 210 North Mill Street, Suit. 21%1 Aspen, CO, 81811 who am the owners of the subject property. The applicants ere propos im to enclose the ape machanlC91 eduloment on (979) sfl-I Ermpamer, Chair Aspen Planning aM Zoning Commission Published In the Aspen Times Weekly on Novem bar 2, 2008.(2489081) ,A w ,i Notary Public ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: EPUBLICrI TION 1yCwvN "EonoAlP51 n PH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) 4 OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE ,D BY C.R.S. §24- 65.5 -103.3 ATTACHMENT AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: ` U S. llil.orj" C� S+. Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: lkoayea&A t8. , 200-t STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, C('crL (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty -two (22) inches wide and twenty -six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the Ybkay of 0c6�e� , 200__e,> to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. XMailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Z�t /� Signature The foregoing "Affj avit of Notice" was ackn wledged before me this -0day (I 2, P/ 200 by f� WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL CP(:Y PuA in My commission expires: -/0212 G/;,' NATALLIA F. e KHARKHAL N ubl' My Commission Fxnires IN212011 ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL bus AsreN TiM�s 310 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 61611 ' PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) I, Jenna Weatherred do solemnly swear that I am PUBLISH- ER of the ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY; that the same is a week- ly newspaper printed, in whole or In part, and published In the County of PITKIN, State of Colorado and has a general circu- lation therein; that said newspaper has been published con- tinuously and uninterruptedly In said County of Pilkin for a period of more than filly -two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertise- ment; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United Stales mails as second -class matter under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1679, or any amendments thereof, and that said newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the mean- ing of the laws of the Slate of Colorado. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in tile regular and entire Issue of every number of said week- ly newspaper for the period of _rte. consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated h « g "g t 2— A.D., 20 GL_ , and the last publication of said notice was In the issue of said nowspaper dated L A. D. 200K_ . In witness whereof I have h9rakinto set my hand. Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public In and for the e County of Pilkin, State of Colorado, this 25 day of A.D., 20 a& _ (SEAL) Notary Public My Commission expires COROT'riY R. WOLCOTT fryfomma,ie,; T0612010 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 011 S. MONARCH STREET, PUD OTHER AMENDMENTAND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW s2J Empameq Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on Novem- 1,er2,2008.(2,161237) I A93AV- 09-009-L umpni;sul,p A"^ luama6iep ap srll%� ®09LS ®A83AV 3laege6 al zes!llin .uorAa„ne•nnmm apine; el za31nsuoD v.. ' v talad a salhe; so4pr&14 ALYEMENI MOHAMMED & ALICE ASPEN KABINN LLC BENNIE THOMAS E 3109 OAKMONT DR C/O NIKE COMM/NINA KAMINER PO BOX 9884 EXHIBIT STATESVILLE, NC 28625 75 BROAD ST RM 500 ASPEN, CO 81612 NEW YORK, NY 10004 -2415 H BERHORSTJERRY BERHORST CAROLE 7161 LINDENMERE DR BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48301 BRAYMAN WALTER W & PATRICIA 844 ROCKWELL LN KANSAS CITY, MO 64112 -2363 BLUE LLOYD JR PLEAS ALEXA PO BOX 1569 GRAYTON BEACH, FL 32459 BRIGHT GALEN 205 E DURANT AVE #3D ASPEN, CO 61611 BROWNELL LORRAINE B CALKINS GEORGE W 1030 SECOND ST 105 S CHEROKEE MORGAN CITY, LA 70380 DENVER, CO 80223 -1834 CARRIGAN RICHARD A JR CAUSING JENNIFER M 2S526 WILLIAMS RD PO BOX 10343 WARRENVILLE, IL 60555 ASPEN, CO 81612 CHRISPAT ASPEN LLC CHRISTENSEN EUGENE J 1107 5TH AVE PO BOX 10061 NEW YORK, NY 10128 ASPEN, CO 81612 CITY OF ASPEN CLAUSEN FAMILY TRUST NO 1 130 S GALENA ST C/O GUNDY MGMT CO ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 47 MORRIS, IL 60450 CROSBY CHRISTINE ANN DANCING BEAR LAND LLC 1050 E WATERS AVE #15 210 N MILL ST #203 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 DONCER JOYCE TRUST ELLIS DIANA L ROQUE TRUSTEE 7641 W 123RD PL 13320 MULHOLLAND DR PALOS HEIGHTS, IL 60463 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 FAULKNER JOHN L FELDMAN SELMA 2433 ROCKINGHAM ST 300 S POINTE DR APT 2403 ARLINGTON, VA 22207 MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139 -7329 T n Tam;ead lead Ase3 Jo; BOGIN ROBERT M 4280 S MEADOW BROOK LN EVERGREEN, CO 80439 BRIGHT GALEN 407 S HUNTER ST #3 ASPEN, CO 81611 CALLAHAN PATRICIA 0184 MOUNTAIN LAUREL DR ASPEN, CO 81611 CHAPLIN ARLENE & WAYNE 54 LAGORCE CIR MIAMI BEACH, FL 33141 CHU FAMILY TRUST 2/3 INT LU NANCY CHAO TRUST 1/3 1 N 38 CORMORANT CIR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 COHN PETER L 1601 S CENTRAL AVE GLENDALE, CA 91204 DOLLE NORMA 124 E COOPER AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 EVANS DAVID COURTNEY PO BOX 952 ASPEN, CO 81612 FOX THOMAS H 119 E COOPER AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 jadedpaadT @09LS31VIdW31®tiany9sD OU A83AV- 09-008-L uol nitsul,p wor6jane mmm a81na; el za3lnsuo:) FREIRICH MARK PO BOX 774056 STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, CO 80477 }uawBB1243 ap s " ®09Ls ®A83Ay 3ljege5 al zesimn v jolad a salve} sauanbl;� FUQUA ALVAH D JR & DIANNE L FYRWALD JON ERIK & GUDRUN L 446 LAKE SHORE DR 4348 PLUMWOOD DR SUNSET BEACH, NC 28468 WEST DES MOINES, IA 50265 GEORGIEFF KATHERINE TRUSTEE OF GLICKMAN EDWIN C THE 2322 LAZY 0 RD KATHERINE GEORGIEFF REVOCABLE LIVING TRS SNOWMASS, CO 81654 #11 TOPPING LN ST LOUIS, MO 63131 GREINER JERRY M GREINER TERESA U 330 BICKLEY RD GLENSIDE, PA 19038 GUNION JOHN F 1004 MARINA CIR DAVIS, CA 95616 HERRON SANDRAA 119 E COOPER AVE APT 19 ASPEN, CO 81 61 1 -1 761 HOSKIN REEDE PO BOX 2478 BASALT, CO 81621 -2478 ICAHN LIBA PO BOX 11137 ASPEN, CO 81612 -9627 J &E HANSEN LLC C/O EDWARD HANSEN 255 SEASPRAY AVE PALM BEACH, FL 33480 KAUFMAN STEVEN B TRUST C/O VIRGINIA HARLOW 0554 ESCALANTE CARBONDALE, CO 81623 -8770 KINGSBURY FAMILY TRUST PO BOX 198 HOLDERNESS, NH 03245 GROOS NICHOLAS D 210 N INDUSTRIAL PARK RD HASTINGS, MI 49058 GUTNER KENNETH H REV TRUST PO BOX 11001 ASPEN, CO 81612 HOLLY TREE INVESTMENTS LLC 4823 HOLLY TREE OR DALLAS, TX 75287 HOTEL DURANT 122 E DURANT ASPEN, CO 81611 IMHOF FAMILY TRUST 2409 GREEN ST SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94123 JACOBSON FAMILY TRUST 2168 SANTA MARGARITA DR FALLBROOK, CA 92028 KEBER VINCENT M III 1301 WAZEE #2E DENVER, CO 80204 KULLGREN NANCY A 205 E DURANT AVE UNIT 2 -C ASPEN, CO 81611 GOLDSMITH ADAM D SMITH RONA K PO BOX 9069 ASPEN, CO 81612 GUBSER NICHOLAS J PO BOX 870 ASPEN, CO 81612 HATCHER HUGH S 205 E DURANT AVE APT 2E ASPEN, CO 81611 HORTON KAREN JANE TRUST 588 S PONTIAC WAY DENVER, CO 80224 IAVARONE GIANFRANCO & RITA 341 ORIENTA AVE MAMORONECK, NY 10543 IMREM SUE GORDON TRUSTEE 219 E LAKE SHORE DR #5D CHICAGO, IL 60611 KAPLAN BARBARA 3076 EDGEWOOD RD PEPPER PIKE, OH 44124 KEITH JOHN III 300 PUPPY SMITH ST #203 -230 ASPEN, CO 81611 LACY ROANE M JR PO BOX 367 WACO, TX 76703 -0367 T Twnlea3 laad Ase3 jo} jaded peal 09L5 3MdW31 any esn ®09L5 @AH3AVn � i I laauC oinnnsu1 eai w i clan inns dmn A113AV- O'D-008 -L uolpna}sul,p woriGane•MMM aillna; el zellnsuoD LARRABEE DONALD C JR 411 LAKEWOOD CIR #A110 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80910 LIFT ONE CONDOMINIUM ASSOC 131 E DURANT AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 LEATHERMAN ROBERT D PO BOX 11930 ASPEN, CO 81612 LIFT ONE LLC 72.40% 24 LINDENWOOD LN LITTLETON, CO 80127 luawa6aeg:) ap s'" ®09 L5 ®A83AV JIjege6 al zasg!Nt salad g selpe; sauanblq LEVY HELEN JOAN TRUST 421 WARWICK RD KENILWORTH, IL 60043 -1145 LIMELITE REDEVELOPMENT LLC C/O GENERAL MANAGEMENT 1201 GALAPAGO ST #101 DENVER, CO 80204 LOCHHEAD RAYMOND R & EMILIE M LORING PETER & ELIZABETH S MACDONALD KENNETH HUGH REV 200 SHERWOOD RD LORING WOLCOTT & COOLIDGE OFFICE TRUST PASO ROBLES, CA 93446 230 CONGRESS ST 44 W HANNUM BOSTON, MA 02110 SAGINAW, MI 48602 MAGES LAWRENCE M & MARY K 84% MARCUS ANN H MARK KENNETH A 216 LINDEN AVE WILMETTE, IL 60091 C/O S MARCUS 117 N MONARCH ST #01 200 PANTIGO RD ASPEN, CO 81611 EAST HAMPTON, NY 11937 MCCONNELL THOMAS W & KAY L MCKENZIE BART B & PAIGE PARAVANO MESSNER CHRISTIAN 3814 OAKHILLS 4840 30TH ST NORTH 3111 BEL AIR DR APT 202 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48301 ARLINGTON, VA 22207 -2716 LAS VEGAS, NV 89109 MILLER R GREG MOUNTAIN CHALET ENTERPRISES INC MULKEY DAVID A DR PO BOX 4577 333 E DURANT AVE TRUSTEE ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 2860 AUGUSTA DR LAS VEGAS, NV 89109 NELSON ARLENE NEWMAN KERRY J & RICKI R ONEAL PROPERTIES LLC 119 E COOPER ST #6 617 PRINCE DR 8100 E CAMELBACK RD #31 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEWBURGH, IN 47630 SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85251 -2773 PROP LLC SMITH SMITH PATRICK A PAY ERIC GEOFFREY PHILLIPS B R 360 I, 119 E COOPER AVE APT 12 311 S ASPEN ST #1 BIRMINGHAM, INGHA BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 MI 48 ASPEN, CO 81611 -1772 ASPEN, CO 81611 PIECE OF THE PIE LLC PINES LODGE CONDO ASSOC PINES LODGE DEVELOPMENT LLC PO BOX 2492 152 E DURANT AVE 2353 IRVINE AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 PITNER N KATHRYN POPKIN PHILIP G PRASAD REV TRUST PO BOX 11930 PO BOX 7956 3776 W 3700 N ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 DARLINGTON, ID 83255 T T am ;ea ;la jo; jaded peal ®09Ls®M3Adn m i iaaue ueninnem aae p R] ®09Ls31v1dW1oxjaAVasD -_- __ A83AV- 09-008-1. uol w;sul,p '*�., ; 4p s 009L5 GAN3AV;laege6 al zaslll ;n woxAme•mmm alllna; el za ;InsuoD � salad g salve; saganf l ;� PRODINGER IRMA PURVIS ROBERT K & CAROLYN K RINGSBY GRAY PO BOX 1245 PO BOX 3089 PO BOX 1292 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 HAIKU, HI 96708 ROARING FORK PROPERTIES C/O HOWARD A WILL JR 5055 26TH AVE ROCKFORD, IL 61109 RUMSEY DANIEL W 13700 MARINA POINTE DR #512 MARINA DL REY, CA 90292 -9259 SCHUMACHER JUDY M 0115 GLEN EAGLES DR ASPEN, CO 81611 SHEFFER BARBARA & DOUGLAS PO BOX 250 ASPEN, CO 81612 SKY BLUE LLC 27.60% 5743 CORSA AVE # 101 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91362 SOUTH POINT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 205 E DURANT AVE #2F ASPEN, CO 81611 STAPLETON DAVID W 206 E DEAN ST #2A ASPEN, CO 81611 STEINER DONALD R BUCKHEAD GRAND 3338 PEACHTREE RD #3307 ATLANTA, GA 30326 SZYMANSKI WILLIAM R & LYNNE E 2220 E SILVER PALM RD BOCA RATON, FL 33432 ROBLES ENRIQUE ALVAREZ ALVAREZ CRISTINA MONTES URALES 350 LOMAS CHAPULTEPEC MEXICO DF MEXICO, 11000 SCHAPIRO MARC & PATRICIA 1685 TAMARAC DR GOLDEN, CO 80401 SCULL JAMES E PO BOX 2051 ASPEN, CO 81612 SHENNAN MELISSA 822 LANE LORRAINE LAKE FOREST, IL 60045 -1643 SLT ASPEN DEAN STREET LLC C/O EPROPERTY TAX DEPT 206 PO BOX 4900 SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85261 -4900 SOUTHPOINT - SUMNER CORP 4828 FORT SUMNER DR BETHESDA, MD 20816 STARK RENEE A 205 E DURANT AVE APT 1D ASPEN, CO 81611 -3813 STITT ELIZABETH WILES IRREV TRUST 1450 SILVERKING DR ASPEN, CO 81611 TAROCH HOLDINGS LTD C/O PATRICK D MCALLISTER PC 315 E HYMAN AVE #305 ASPEN, CO 81611 -2909 ROSS[ ELAYNE R 700 LITE AVE #710 ASPEN, CO 81611 SCHAYER CHARLES M III 588 S PONTIAC WAY DENVER, CO 80224 SHAW ROBERT W 5208 A PERSHING AVE FORT WORTH, TX 76107 SILVERKAN MARC A& MARILYN L 937 DALE RD MEADOWBROOK, PA 19046 SOUTH POINT CONDO LLC 150 N MARKET WICHITA, KS 67202 SPAULDING RICHARD W THOMPSON ELEANOR M PO BOX 278 CONCORD, MA 01742 -0278 STARWOOD VACATION OWNERSHIP C/O JOAN LAND ACCT MGR 9002 SAN MARCO CT ORLANDO, FL 32819 SULLIVAN JOHN B TRUST 1300 E REUSCH RD ELIZABETH, IL 61028 THALBERG KATHERINE C/O BROOKE ANDERSON 3131 CONNECTICUT AVE NW #2801 WASHINGTON, DC 20008 1 ®09LS� j�dn Tain ;eaj load Ase3ao; aadedpaej 009L531VIdW31 ®AanyasD AN3Atl OD 008 L uoluna ;sul,p ivawa6jey3 ap s✓\ ®0965 ®A83AV }laege6 al zasllan • wo » m tjane mm apina; el zallnsuo:) v salad a salhe; sauanblx3 THREE REEDS LLC TOWNE PLACE OF ASPEN CONDO TYDEN FAMILY FARMS PTNP 2224 VIA SEVILLE RD NW ASSOC INC 1730 IROQUOIS TR ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87104 -3096 C/O ASPEN LODGING COMPANY 747 S GALENA ST HASTINGS, MI 49058 ASPEN, CO 81611 VANDER WALL DEAN ROBERT & BEVERLYJ PO BOX 189 LONE PINE, CA 93545 WEINGLASS LEONARD PO BOX 11509 ASPEN, CO 81612 W ITEK ROBERT J & RONA R 225 S MONARCH #G103 ASPEN, CO 81611 WOW LIFT ONE LLC C/O WARSTLER ROBERT T 3225 ELK CANYON CIR SEDALIA, CO 80135 -8573 T 1 ®09Ls® 3Atj VANTONGEREN HAROLD V & LIDIA M 2000 E 12TH AVE BOX 8 DENVER, CO 80206 WHITE JALEH THICKMAN DAVID 152 E DURANT AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 -1737 WOODING MERRITT B PO BOX 339 HOPE, NJ 07844 WUGALTERJOEL 716 BISHOPS LODGE RD SANTE FE, NM 87501 -1127 VENTER HENDRIK JOHANNES PO BOX 11979 ASPEN, CO 81612 WICHMANN VICTORIA BOX 4388 ASPEN, CO 81612 WOODSON TATJANA REV TRUST PO BOX 125 TETON VILLAGE, WY 83025 PRR Taan;eaj load tse3 ao; jaded paaj 009L5 31VIdW31 ®A+any asD linaucuen,nncin99C RECEPTION #: 555408,12/31/2008 at 11:45:24 AM, 1 OF 8, R $41.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO RESOLUTION No. 3 (SERIES OF 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENCLOSING THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ON THE ROOFTOP OF THE DANCING BEAR LODGE LOCATED AT 411 SOUTH MONARCH STREET, LEGALLY KNOWN AS LOTS P, Q, R AND S, BLOCK 77, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Parcel Identification Number 2737 - 182 -19 -002 WHEREAS, Eben P. Clark of Klein, Cote and Edwards, LLC located at 201 North Mill Street, Suite 203, Aspen, Colorado on behalf of Dancing Bear Land, LLC, 210 North Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado, submitted a request, a Planned Unit Development Other Amendment and Commercial Design Review — Substantial Amendment dated September 23, 2008 to the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located at 411 S. Monarch Street, Aspen, the parcel is identified as parcel number 273718219002, and the legal description of the property is: THE DANCING BEAR LODGE ACCORDING TO THE FINAL PUD PLAN AND PLAT RECORDED JUNE 8, 2004 IN PLAT BOOK 69 AT PAGE 80 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 498443, IN THE RECORDS OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO and also known as Lots P, Q, R and S, Block 77, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado ( "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Planned Unit Development approval for the Property was originally t approved by the Aspen City Council in 2003 by Ordinance No. 29 Series of 2003, and the Dancing Bear Lodge Final PUD Plan and Plat is recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin County at Plat Book 69 Page 80, Reception No. 498443 (the "PUD "); and WHEREAS, the current request is to receive approval for a Planned Unit Development Other Amendment and Commercial Design Review — Substantial Amendment to amend the PUD to permit the enclosure of the spa mechanical equipment on the rooftop. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the application for a Planned Unit Development Other Amendment pursuant to Code section 26.445.100 (B) (PUD Other Amendments), and Commercial Design Review - Substantial amendment pursuant to Code section 26.412.080.13 (Review Procedures) under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on November 18, 2008; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the request; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO IN REGULAR MEETING ASSEMBLED, THAT: Section 1• The Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. A Planned Unit Development Other Amendment, and Commercial Design Review - Substantial Amendment application was initiated by: Eben P. Clark of Klein, Cote and Edwards, LLC located at 201 North Mill Street, Suite 203, Aspen, Colorado on behalf of Dancing Bear Lodge, 210 North Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado. B. Notice of the proposed Planned Unit Development Other amendment, and Commercial Design Review - Substantial Amendment has been provided to surrounding property 3 .R. published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a vested property right, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described roperty: 411 S. Monarch Street., City and Townsite of Aspen, CO, by Resolution No. 3LY Series of 2008, of the Aspen City Council. Section 8: The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval. Section 9• Zoning that is not part of the approved site - specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. Section 10: Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. Section 11: The establishment of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this development approval, the applicant shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing by the City. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on December 16, 2008 by a vote of 3 -2. APPROVED AS TO FROM: PL IG AND ZONING COMMISSION: I9 True, Assistant City Attorney rspamer, Nairper. "N, owners in accordance with Section 26- 304- 060(E)(3) of the Aspen Municipal Code. Evidence of such notice is on file with the City Clerk. Section 2• Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the Planned Unit Development Other amendment as requested and Commercial Design Review - Substantial Amendment application request for the property. The approval granted herein is conditioned on the following: A. The applicant shall meet all of the conditions of Ordinance No. 29. of Series 2003; however the applicant has approval to enclose the spa mechanical equipment on the top floor. The enclosure shall have the same fagade materials as the rest of the building. B. A change order shall be required to the existing building permit. C. The applicant shall extend the glass guard rail fagade north along the west edge of the building to the first roof break in the spa equipment enclosure. Section3• This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section4• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5• All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 6• The rights granted by the approval of this site - specific development plan shall remain vested for a period of three (3) years from the effective date of the approved development order. No later than fourteen (14) days following the final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be 3 ATTEST: e othian, Deputy City Clerk EXHIBIT A - Approved site plan and elevations LMO OQVHOIOJ'N3dSV '1S Q $ N i— & � � lie ,�� &$ HJNVNOW H1f10S L lb k O #I', # 19GOl MV38 JNIJNVG u :m g rwrc�y� < Ui 6o �� �o i r Im g Mca H J. aa £q ppOp' A-.L L R 5y a N�o s} Rz U yL1 Yjh w yya n Jm ��( L W �grLl �q[y •n 4 � WOy�O LL WLWu OF � RD❑ 0 O.Q LLI lL OO V4pp5l W1�' aW m��ZOO ��a• N \�� OW "' A ' U Z w YJ yy C wp w — d w 8Q2 alw a: s ' �'a Rm 8 1, 1-.. aa�� tL9LB OaVSO- tOJ'N3dSd '1S ° K)SYNOW H.Lnos Ltb "� !!!� E 3�aOl NV,, V39 JNIDNba } 0 LL-=J I I I LE � /I IV I II II II II a o II Z lip to :s wo��,ll, •,�� Q 1Ia u I hw �- .ft.,� W II II l7 L Q � o (X CL m Q ¢ m U i F S i 8 `A MO &s 11919 O4Vl101OJ 'N3dSb' '15 H7NdNOW Hinos LL4 ' 1 4 y� 1 IDOOl NV38 ONIDNbd ------ —IT w H Z �a Q_ Qm d I y I 3 a I �• I o < u 5 � OF y �i oLL I I I I I 1' 5 I I ------ —IT w H Z �a Q_ Qm DEVELOPMENT ORDER of the City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order ", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders ", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights ", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three -year vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific development plan as described below. Dancing Bear Land, LLC 411 S Monarch St, Aspen, CO 81611970- 925 -8700 Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number is Dancing Bear Land LLC 411 S Monarch St. Lots P, Q, R and S, Block 77, City and Townsite of Aspen, Parcel Number: 2735- 182 -19 -002 Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property Approval of a PUD Amendment - Other and Commercial Design Review allowing for the enclosing of the spa mechanical equipment area on the roof. Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and /or Attachment Describing Plan Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 34, Series of 2008 approved on 12/16/08 Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) December 28, 2008 Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) December 29, 2011 Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) Issued this 29`h day of December, 2008, by the City of Aspen Community n ll 11111; F2tBGM 111, 131E MEMORANDUM Planning and Zoning Commission Andrea Hingley, Planning Technician Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director DATE OF MEMO: December 11, 2008 MEETING DATE: December 16, 2008 RE: 411 S. Monarch Street — Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Commercial Design Review Continued from December 2, 2008 SUMMARY: At the December 2, 2008 hearing the applicant asked to continue the hearing until December 16, 2008 so that the members of the commission may take a site visit to see the location of the proposed equipment structure on the 3`d floor roof. The commission feels that a site visit would help put the enclosure into perspective regarding the height, massing and scale of the proposed structure. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As originally approved in the PUD, the mechanical area was located away from the 3`d floor parapet and railing and in a more central location on the roof. As noted in the November 18, 2008 memorandum, staff felt that the change in the location of the mechanical equipment could not be approved administratively, as there have been concerns about the prominence of a 4`h story on the building. The location of the mechanical equipment enclosure is closer to the edge of the 3`d floor than originally approved and staff cannot support the request. With that being said, the applicant has reduced the size of the structure further and the enclosure will assist in dampening sound. A further setback from the edge of the 3`d floor will assist in minimizing the impact of the structure. The Planning and Zoning Commission will need to weigh the intent of the original approval with the practical constraints presented to them in making a decision. Exhibit A — Staff Findings (Provided with 11/18/08 memo) Exhibit B — Meeting Minutes from Aspen City Council (Provided with 11/18/08 memo) Exhibit C — Application (Provided with 11/18/08 memo) Exhibit D — Revised Plans (provided with 12/2/08 memo) Exhibit E - Applicant Supplemental (provided with 12/2/08 memo) Page 1 of 1 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.070, ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: LtA 1 S c C�r, SIr Aspen, CO STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) _e 1, �°l -2l cl� E> «�,,f -e�� (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) or Section 26.306.010 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: / V Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days after final approval of a site specific development plan. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen no later than fifteen (15) days after an Interpretation has been rendered. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Signatur The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this Z% day of w fad 200 $ by1— �� «,/ -C�./ i Sunday, December 28, 2008 • AsF PUBLIC NOTICE OI DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific tlevelopment plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursu ant to the Land Use Corte of the City of Aspen antl Title 24, ANCIe 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, per teining to the following descnbetl property: 011 S. Monarch St, also known as the Dan, ing Bear, by the order of the Planning 8 Zoning Commission on December 16, 2006 the applicant received approval of an Other PUD Amendment and Commercial Design Review for the enclosure of the spa mechanical equipment on the rwl. For further information contact Andrea Ringley, at the City of Aspen Community Development Dept. 130 5, Galena St, Aspen, Colorado (970) 4242]9]. y City of Aspen Publishetl in the Aspen Times Weekly on Decem bar 28, 2008.(2]65865) WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: (SiCL� g 1 h QL 18 � Notary Public ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION ff LAURA MEYER My Commission Expires 0811012010 — _"rYwfn°' ..------ w......e_ r�r. -%+ .c � ,..,�...r-- �« „�.�.,�„�y�, ^' - o..wc..aw.,..411y I � r o .,,,t4 � �� �A_ } '� { 3pa� I ML9 OOVHOl0]'N3dSV $ � =? $' M 1S H:)I"OW H.LnOS L M a r O 3DGOI lIV39 DNIDNVG i i i 9 F I� O• T ri 3 1 O i It® i 3 ir, 11�111�4 I Q�I�� �IpYIFNIIp��l�l� i; .ii _I��Nlpl _Cmum, j i i i 9 F I� O• T ri 3 �i A a• �8 1[918 OOVSOlOOsN3s�$V '1SHm"owHunos llb >ii >A N��1 30aO1 W38 JNONVa a �4 71 � n-:g MU LL I I I I I I 1 w [ I I V wi 1 Ll1 t �� Opp■( � � v I 1 � ID- I 1 ID � �P6 :, H I 1v I • II 1 II d II I dow . II C III I 1 p- I I I� ] 7n, �I iZi yak , �III1�_�I�'IIII � � a i i 4q QR I I% 744x(xg§§■y F � w • w �C K v �I� W j X a W o A As 11918 ocrooiOa'N3dSV < RIB IN *.is HomvNOW Hlflos l it a z °-��� NI N d Q 3DC1O 21 38 J {R lilill d i R R RR 41 b'I I I I I I I II t4 a R I I i I it 1 I II I I � i I III I I jl I I ji I I li I p I i ii I i — Ali- - - - - -- Ir -- li I i' p i i ji I I It ji I i li i i II I t II I I jl I I II I I I it I II I II I I I. li I I p I I li I I li I I P I ' a 4 " i W X F m 0 W O J W m ad a Z a as U- ea Ila o a Kila axs = {t O oaa ^- t g€t ?t Q � 1 y E i n n °rr S fir �b 4 b r I ' I ,yyee o • i�; l b � iiEa� N ;k W�_1 .1 YYPP � #tiE LKiii i i Y3YYYY Y Y tq�Sd y 8 Nw ' YYPY Y Y P pp•1�p�p� YPPi KKK Y i Y P i YMOIN . J f1.. ac i s c PP Y Y Y u w w w K Y 8 r z Rill rat Ls ii W 1 1 IS u till, ol: tic 1.1 JJ 1. I EJ :if ILI Ej i IF is = jim if IT I z Rill rat Ls ii S 68� s LOW OCFYHOl0]'N3dSV as H:)syNOW H1f1OS il4 ��� ° Xc a 3DGO1 WIG DNONVO 6s = ' o [[ �t� Ill Z Fd r � U . e Z v a� A U lit NNq]] }o o Q _ > od a ¢ S _ 9 e 4 WIN arr- f 3 - � i • 3i adz UP i Oa 3 lox 6 •.g�5 jbffoa=.l3 o2 $ d�o nOp i� iid a`$� 2 Q el it Q p y K pp � t 9ES [ i SY� ° a,c I— $ W $a Q a Z w Z W sk Q X LL � g5 yyym 9 pwo r• a O �C IL �$� k e 'da:$ p�g�g O� (v� p fly I a3�� a� Wota S4uJ � pXryp� m yya g {�S a 4a S a x��23�5�8 o r �Z88 E <a000 i p d_c i va p YYYY m i LLLLL L L Sf[S[S [ [ Nt,Y�S� r ww •^ YYYY Y Y Y GiiY C G bwL• oww• �1 LL L a i ee[[e N a = a i 8N i LL �y N :i m K e S NIIAAAXP+1 glum MAc:i +N !{ W < alit l R ra o�aaaaea:: at5, N i v A ; JA UJ c3p8�ig {{; W398gge 8 J3 ' I $$ I! I 3 w (9 F Q � a x a Z w 06 � a A C7 P r+ .� U � z z < R Q 0 F e � 9 f p , UI F ; i •� + 4�� $ oil !i •i T 111111 HD1YXOM X11101 0 Q e ro Mr o p. [e ppk uZ 7G is ip t P P r 7 Z r i; s. r1 n1 4 F r Vie• ;t� < W � i E1� S 9 N ! es 1 ` •4` G O � �J��J�FF � �, ;�;n��� � �r h4;;;;N Jim i I i I I I � a v v 1 I � � 61 q ; W I . 1 I 1 I G I I I a 4 trl. I 1 I � a i i ) i i q I i I 1 �s I �+s issi wry ! ♦N +a� M ++1 ri ' +r �r! �+ W 5 R. A4 j lit 1 ei < a i w i ng6ltx aa.2:: ._- ._. _. - -.. ..._ ... � �i R I r I � I F'. Si, ., •_D. "� 111.; I I i ^ OR 6 i A T W °1 1'(61 .i I hf ` h) 1•�n) I T T b ' T I L �T i I _ I oof I. I j I ,Y YYY I Y � J I \ !e I •I�1 YI � - M I J i I m y 1 ;, II�w1Mn f i I i °1 1'(61 .i I hf ` h) 1•�n) I T I w All ell1 ►. - o ane�ee rl Z - i f.'�JI < JI NI NI � . %J< <• I I li m t`i� f' ❑ W g It . 1 334` 1 � i I II — I I w g�r�� t.A•. I per..... moor . - ��B�a I � I t " •IN II �M } JM t JN >} J,I t IN � JN t I y I <6 I a i 1i •Ili) �I I it �9 q' d ;nl P "s- f) NI P •1 1 a iF 1, P}�'ypij f) NI P •1 � 3 a A as 3Jf an � s ! �b 4I'III'r , I I �g I I I I Y N I lu T q I i Jy C G� � r (IIII QL) h S r � I i I ' I � � o I Q IIy !1 Y of I f�I a i 1 P ric 7) i. 0 "I tI 6 I d d d 3< Ir Y i � f � -_Y rW�•^u•r � � �F 1 Ji'1J[ Jn f Mr �9�Yj ' NI ' of «I 'I s z i • Z (la) 1 NI an Aaf JJ ' I I I I r� n EJ I T i i . rr r I 1 r4F r I Y I I..J 1 I I a ' I i r I I r• A L A (o, `III) a. ��saa MURIA _ low Mud � o- aaarrti: �' �.i�N� .,� i .r • sw.. 'f yX1 � Ai E p\ F n y I � � C uC_ f y r � 4 r � I I. I I I i ! (n) I I o i1� I' oo I I I a I : � I Z a, I 1 Y � I I ,7/ I 1 . (ol 1'(f% y r S I( ^) s Y Y t waSM an � wn (U) r i t Y 3 •� I � 1 ' I 9 � _ i I I tG iL.h I I � i I wn • wn wn r r I W a It s I II a Yr a' .J I I R I I I I l (-) •a I 1 • hl j (, 4• M! � / —III _ � `L 4.q I!'� Z � I I S • wo w� wn ( m � an � wn 1 wn { +n �w+l w+ Q`) ♦ ' CN} e f c () W acdaaea+_ Z I ti j am I I � I ' I Ia•�as11sL rs•II R! a Js .+�! 4 Nu e 77 It A I I I w ! - A ILI j I i NOW E{ A OIL _` _ . Z I ti j am I I � I ' I Ia•�as11sL rs•II R! a Js .+�! 4 Nu e 77 It A I I I w ! - A ILI j I 4 .(wl v q J. frj r w v R i • ' I 1 w I 4 .(wl v q J. frj r w v R S ' �_ •':' fill] °�� ilk 1 MUM All ( <� 'P1 ) 1 f ri iid o« ll I I , i I I d I I II I I , 1 i # I II UI I I I I' I I I_ II ' ln) I ..1 4: Y I :o) 'I .i(c) YY e t i 9' J a M �• tila I&M OCN"dOIM'N3dSY ii�j Us HOWYNOW HMOs &&i as dill 21 30001 lIV98 DNDNV(C11 I il 2 z U.1 w > o can U: LL z Ish if lit, 111 Ill, 141 1 R. of Sa fit] Iql logil 11 2 -1 -- ----- - ---- Ln ILI < AA .It r I t914 OOVHOlM *N9dSV 32 is's 39001 SV38 DNDNda � � � r r� ,NOLLDnUSNOJ H03 0311551, 03dWV1S 5531N0 N0LOQ1SNOJ H03 03511 39 HON N3NNVW ANV NI 037000Hd3H 10 ON 7VHS ONV '3'0Vd A AMdOdd 3H RV SONMVH0 3S3H1 waana f= WW" w�mt rv- - swnsas- x.- seoe \•wWxf- eras \��remzems\: It 'aw mra sr+osvan nva AS ON fV eo /sVso 1 s'z XML� OIltIW3HOS NOIMS dvynd 3LLLL onOa f•/' N•1p909 G'1�]dQC/ �1W991 ®098NOW@ ®' .s.�... mr< -�n ow r muzsoiy.n I ooz�o l ""M°°'ww 3 w�C J 12 W °3 s `�A = . N fop 2 4 tli 0 ui i z ciz 'Ord 0 v a�oN sv roa Ysy] id v 9606E ° "max i NCIN39B3HNNMHYW 3JVMJVd AVU VTdMJ BI/60 A9 ¢ AVR 0 r Zi W N o° W d0 N fV U) W W QW U- ca V 0 ui i z ciz 0 v r N N N N o2 y £ Ysy] id b b b Nay z aP ICII ¢ �( L ZCZC f aC N 0 m o m m 4 �Fpp�F �S � a Oo oa Be w HIM, 941;.w 19, 88�� zN1j>1� eee 1e® 2 9 _� uI s1 OR N O /II o1 U' $I: �W N �a nnN F� s J �JQQW� W N N Y R W OL �9 N UU� O� 5•C'+eWeetl 5.46xea �umtl i'aglrol Sd0'e'nI f� uwtl 1 �lmltlbVr -M'tl tlSNLgwM fAtl1 R•I'nN�% �ivn 67 A' I 3= Asa �a3 ��� 11918 (1OV2101Q7'N3dSV us H:)wyNOW Hinos ll4 i o > >�a> ��� a1 ae aaa��'�oa�a�^ g X a d 3JaOl NVIS JNIDN'da ®H 11M M 0 I I x� I I I I I • I I 0 I I I I I I I I I 0 I� ^ o nv — `` L ' pppp I � � I iXi I 4 I II ' III > II \ i p I III 'i I I __ �IIIII I II I _ C� ]i3• � — � I TI I 1 /ill Vn/ i` g I 11, II $I� / Y G II' *i —III ®•� _� �( 1% `\I Le g yL 3�-iu I I I i I ga 6 s f�1W G _ • .� II •t' DI a moll � II " I� Oil Vi 5 � ��, �� JL m €� �i it , •� 8 � g I -i7. - � Ago�.. a 4 - «9ts oavaoioo�r9asv ; I US FOWYNOw "mos of ��a� :� 3940121N38 9MDNda LOW OCFYSOI0J'N3dSV us Haswow H1f1OS L L4 ww> 3000121438 ONDNVO O.L ' � w f� N a Z F'1 e w C 201!1 y] Q Q - Q y } U gp ` M 8 f $$ yy tltltltl fa gg i gg f f: arrp p` �7�7,,,3'�e a pm! Wiz ¢t9 s�$° c$ � °.�d As IT �a 55 Q u. WW IL 3 w F 5 �g' a NO r v Q 4 y .,_ mis Lei ' 0 O�. `U.� �Gn�� 1111111111 L111' ifill �IIIIil11S ���n�ttt,tt� �nt�. —. - 1�_ . _- _.u:�ltlll MIME [t Oga.. !' ipi iiii I � :� t :✓ Yq ti — O L WE �, �_ I` © ■ oin � � II ��■� • 4 _ gas � L.I���I� MCA— L MO OW8010:)'N3dSV o 7,111 US Ha21VNOW Hlnos ll6 Q N 21 39401 38 9NDNVG d! � rr III v ! rm I II ' I!I illl II � I III qp r I I t I I p 3 ®� I I I I i I I I I I I !I I I II I I —I I I I I I I i I I J II ! --- !ice--- -�- --- -r- -- iipe_ -- 3€ li 6FL e9 ! Ir_ J -__ _- J--- - - - -`, -�r I / I III I I I 30001 . �r�r► r�rr��r�r��r�rr�rrr���r�� ►��wr�r�re1 'ti�� '•� 1 66 -I t fly lid_ , 9; I� C i ►♦ ry I c �• � 1 A I IIIIIUU.11lrll uruii S \ ( I' o �i Hat :::: .:.. H afff`of +Rl ___� 3t•tY •f •f Y�f �f+ff�• f Xv r■ ' +•r f .�•� off+ : +: •ef _X � a +e Ynii 1 rarrnn 11.10.11121 wi ii U- ws Y awi s aw.a'.1 11 i NIIIII� i LYff= eT:f: iw. i■ E• f e• Q•4 •e rill Emus @NA■ uses Erma se o our ■u■ ■wu■ mE3 [-- 4411 ww ww iw ww Mw mw IIIII!� ', be _ 9 a • .= w ., .. Z C9 CD rig oaaaaa Z��� LL g { Y, `5, ^�n ml�innull I I etv, NEW it etv, f 9, 111,.11111 � .y • " ��1�1111111111111111l1`� >!r p ' •; {;f, {,� lamunaunnu /1/ /a -nr•n! I ;�,��(,, •:�': ::�:i "Lijj jN Olfaill � `• "r •'�•�'�a���X4r974+'9R4� _--_ ' I la ➢frl� .ff,•�.p.�el __ Jj� a d •q.M. III 1� `'••2 {{ aN i�t' �•: •:!I+r �! F! wrP -fi C3 :tai, y�.1 :'�N x ♦. i� {jai a' M�G �6/ �LG /tl ��l�.V:��i �Y�'.. { 1 •-�:Le'.f;'Iww}peca.eagr. ;fl4.a a�wl�lml ,�, la RAH y� XY Ir• . , e•�.e., ,., ..., � 111111�II�I 19. �• � ,v- ....,.•�e�YQ,;Y�•�•y�•�i'lWN � /�9pp.'n r a - !!i!'.'.!ll�UgYfl�!!,YlgI. TTL`___ "ZZ:1� 1 w•j�, ! • f1a�i1T2YE1F�lImsC��� {,,_ •• � •• "11��.^ ��������yFdl 1��3������I��giieetiilC iY1 �+ eTS • + i �•1� r i Y• 1•a /G`,{ +,A•aa ease !r , 4 {. i 11^ 'I � 1_. I�i ::, • f XIS! {.�,� 1 �•.l I Ll 1 •:�faalt: a •{, 9I ` ■ ■ ✓�l — ■. r�1• lei ■li. :e�la.l�� ::: f:e ri a.. �f�a� �y � `�I•�1�.i ■i lal�b 1151 s:a•ii�r�.■ 03SPENRI; J ■■ _ _ i_•�e_f_•_I e+awn aiB+.�.�MN'a _17 -.. ..�� •_•-ecr•9 n11e1 gimmilmr�l�IiillEi .•.•.•. l RR ra HIIIII 1, i•{••• f• X.' lOt/ lO/ 11 /1Oli! /ln ! ■ laFRORi_.Iila ___ •����! {W{�a eft{ • = -. —rr •_ ,!1 e'PI�I/rr+s _.� : e � X� ■1.� 4Z �i1i{r ei� �— • � � •.– .1 –■/ ■.� ■ "�� 1911 "■ /��I � � ' !I ^!I�Sif'ho�LY■i ail■ .l' e■Iili� ,•••� - .I a sol, .. s �IluiJ ■•I llIIle��_i •.I�_IAi,�G!��las!'�• -'1� ■Air l�iloY�1A' Y t waf JOr..+R.ar��l�` J i iF t�C vsp'� ,•`` _� M kill Pit, ++��•11 ILI a� J '�) �•,, ti •r` 1' k 7 1 1 p j 1 i { S ". ". \'fin•. \'i' � 1 I .r` J a a .., i i � i • L_ m