HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20090601MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: April Barker, Stormwater Manager, Engineering
THRU: Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director
Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
DATE OF MEMO: May 29, 2009
MEETING DATE: June 1, 2009 Work Session
RE: Stormwater System Development Fee Policy for Repairs
and Aspen Skiing Company's (Ski Co) Appeal for Relief
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests that Council approve the policy regarding how
stormwater system development fees are applied. in cases of repair.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council requested to hear Ski Co's appeal at the February
24, 2009, Council Work Session. Council then requested that a policy be drafted to address
situations of repair.
BACKGROUND: The stormwater system development fee is defined and codified in the City
of Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 25.18. A system development fee of $2.88 per square foot of
total impervious area is assessed against all properties that develop or redevelop more than 500
square feet of impervious area. This fee was implemented in 2007.
Ski Co was required to pay $48,758 in April 2008 for redevelopment of Gondola plaza. The
work in this area removed and replaced 15,810 square feet of impervious area and added 1,120
square feet of new impervious area.
In January, Ski Co sent a letter to the City Manager requesting relief from the system
development fee, stating that the Gondola Plaza work was done as a roof repair. The City
Attorney researched City Code and determined there is no appeal process in place for the
Stormwater System Development Fee section of the Code, so Council heard Ski Co's and staff s
comments during a March Council Work Session. Staff explained that the gondola plaza work
was in excess of a roof repair because additional impervious area was added. However, Council
was interested in how the system development fee applies to all "repairs" including re -roofing.
Council directed staff to develop a policy for this and to determine the answer to Ski Co's appeal
based on that policy.
DISCUSSION: Staff researched guiding documents for development and redevelopment for
definitions of different types of work, such as repairs, replacements, alterations, and additions.
Page 1
The best definitions are in the International Building Code (IBC) and the International Existing
Building Code (IEBC) which defines "repairs" as:
Repair: The restoration to good or sound condition of any part of an existing building
for the purpose of maintenance.
The IEBC goes on to add that "Repairs... include the patching or restoration of materials,
elements, equipment, or fixtures for the purpose of maintaining such materials, elements,
equipment, or fixtures in good or sound condition." Anything beyond this definition is consider
an "alteration." Alterations are defined in three levels as follows:
Alteration Level 1: The removal and replacement or the covering of existing materials,
elements, equipment, or fixtures using new materials, elements, equipment or fixtures that serve
the same purpose.
Alteration Level 2: The reconfiguration of space, the addition or elimination of any door
or window, the reconfiguration or extension of any system, or the installation of any additional
equipment.
Alteration Level 3: The work area exceeds 50 percent of the aggregate area of the
building.
Based on this information, staff would like to adopt the following policy statement:
"Repairs and Level 1 Alterations, as defined in the International Existing Building
Code, are exempt from the stormwater system development fee."
Staff feels that this policy would allow for property owners to repair damages incurred due to
acts of nature as well as accidental damages. Re -roofs would be covered by this policy. Repairs
to design would most likely not be covered by this policy. For example, a basement floods
regularly because the grading is incorrectly sloped toward the foundation rather than away. In
order to repair this problem, re -grading and installation of drains or piping system most likely
would be required which would fall into the category of Alteration Level 2 due to the
reconfiguring of space, extension of system, and installation of additional equipment.
Based on the preferred policy statement and requirements for the stormwater system
development fee in the Code, Ski Co would not be refunded the stormwater system development
fee they paid in April 2008 because of the following:
1. The work done at Gondola Plaza included level changes, changes and additions to the
layout of the plaza area, and changes the steps accessing the plaza. This work is
classified under Alterations Level 2 and potential even Alterations Level 3.
2. Approximately 1,120 square feet of impervious area was added and 15,810 square feet of
impervious area was redeveloped during the work done at Gondola Plaza, which meets
both criteria set forth in the Code (though only one criteria must be met) for application
of the stormwater system development fee.
Page 2
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Potentially less stormwater system development fees will
be collected; therefore less funding might be available for capital projects planned for improving
the stormwater system.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff requests that Council approve the policy regarding how
stormwater system development fees are applied in cases of repair.
PROPOSED MOTION: Move to approve policy regarding how stormwater system
development fees are applied in cases of repair.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Page 3 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Stephen Ellsperman, Parks and Open Space Director
TIIRU: Jeff Woods, Manager Parks and Recreation y
DATE OF MEMO: May 28, 2009
MEETING DATE: June 2, 2009
RE: City of Aspen Park, Trails, and Open Space Naming Policy
CC:
Steve Barwick, City Manager
CC:
Randy Ready, Asst. City Manager
CC:
John Worcester, City Attorney
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The City of Aspen Parks and Recreation Department is
requesting approval of a recommended policy when naming or renaming various properties
owned by the City of Aspen, including parks, trails, and open space.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
- March, 2009: At a regularly scheduled work -session, City Council reviewed and
discussed a request for the renaming of the Yellow Brick Park, managed by the City of
Aspen Parks and Recreation Department. City Council directed staff to draft a naming
policy for their review and approval in order to provide a consistent mechanism to
review requests for naming or renaming of facilities managed by the Department.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Aspen Parks and Recreation Department has not had an official naming or
renaming policy for the parks, trails, and open space facilities that it manages. In the past,
facilities that have had naming needs have been presented to City Council for discussion and
approval individually. In most cases, the facility names have been approved with much
discussion and with no clear guidance from an official policy. The Department has a number
of facilities which are currently slated for naming needs, in addition to recent requests that
have come from citizens suggesting or requesting certain name changes or requests.
Page 1
DISCUSSION: In order to draft a policy for naming or renaming facilities that the City of
Aspen Parks and Recreation Department manages, staff embarked upon an extensive review of
other municipalities and governmental organizations policies. In all, staff reviewed over
twenty (20) individual organization's policies to understand clearly how other governmental
entities accomplished naming facilities that they manage. Research and analysis of these
organization's policies revealed that there is a broad spectrum of policies related to facility
naming, however, some definitive themes emerged from the information. In addition to the
review of other organizations facilities, staff reviewed the current names of the facilities that
the Department manages to understand trends in the naming distinction of those facilities.
These exercises were extremely helpful in drafting a policy for naming and renaming of
facilities managed by the Parks and Recreation Department.
Staff recommends the following policy when naming or renaming various properties owned
and managed by the City of Aspen Parks and Recreation Department:
City of Aspen Parks and Recreation Department Draft Naming Policy
Naming priorities would be ranked and stated below:
1. Geographic or common usage identification
2. Place or event of historical or cultural significance
3. Natural or geological features
4. A deceased individual/family that has made a significant land contribution to the City of
Aspen, when naming has been stipulated as a condition of the donation.
5. A person who has played a large part in protecting a particular parcel of land for public
benefit and has been deceased at least five (5) years.
Name changes to parks, trails, and open space are generally discouraged, unless the present
name causes confusion due to locations of properties with similar names. Renaming creates
expense and confusion given the necessity for changing and updating signs, maps, brochures,
website information, contact information, police and fire department personnel, and any other
venue of information dissemination.
Any citizen or staff member may submit a written recommendation for the naming or renaming
of a property to the City of Aspen Parks and Recreation Department. The City of Aspen Parks
and Recreation Department will assess the appropriateness of this recommendation based upon
the above ranking policy and will then present the request and recommendations to the City of
Aspen City Council it's review and potential approval.
Page 2 of 3
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The financial and budget impacts related to the approval
of the draft naming policy are not considered to be significant. The installation of signs and
updating of Parks and Recreation Department information is a cost which is currently budgeted
into current operations.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Parks and Recreation Department staff recommend the
approval of the Draft City of Aspen Parks and Recreation Department Naming Policy
ALTERNATIVES: There are a number of alternatives that could be included in the official
naming draft policy presented to City Council. These could include, but are not limited to,
changes or modifications in the ranking order for naming, changes or modifications to the
specific stipulations in the ranking order, or additions to the policy. Staff intends to discuss
potential alternatives the City Council would like to explore at the worksession.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council
FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
RE: Council Work Session — 625 E. Main Street Height
DATE OF MEMO: May 29, 2009
MEETING DATE: June 1, 2009
SUMMARY:
City Council asked staff to research height compliance of the 625 East Main Street project (a.k.a.
Stage III) currently under construction. This request was based on a citizen complaint. This
work session is an information update only and is not a hearing to revoke or amend a
development order. City Council is not being asked to take action.
Staff reviewed the building permit application and the information presented to City Council
during the approval hearings. Staff found the building permit (which is currently active)
consistent with the representations made to City Council. The project is in compliance with the
approvals.
BACKGROUND:
The redevelopment proposal at 625 East Main Street was the subject of numerous public
hearings with both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. The property is
located in the Commercial (C-1) zone district. In late 2006 and early 2007, City Council
reviewed the project for Subdivision approval. (The project is not a PUD, in which heights and
other dimensions are negotiated.)
The Application was originally made on April 17, 2006. The application was to demolish the
Stage III Movie Theater and replace it with underground parking and storage, new commercial
and office space, four (4) affordable housing units, and five (5) free-market residential units.
The application was reviewed at the Planning and Zoning Commission on August 15, 2006 and
September 5, 2006. The project was approved at the Planning and Zoning Commission on
September 5, 2006.
The project had first reading at City Council on October 10, 2006 and second reading on
November 27, 2006. The project was continued from November 27, 2006 to January 22, 2007
and then again to February 12, 2007. The project received final approval from City Council on
February 12, 2007.
Soon thereafter, the project was submitted for building permit review. This review includes
reviews for zoning compliance and compliance with conditions of entitlement, including City
Council approvals. The project was found in compliance and a building permit was issued. The
Page 1 of 4
project is currently under construction, although temporarily on hold (for reasons not associated
with this height question).
During the public comment portion of the regular March 23, 2009, City Council meeting, a
number of members of the public raised concerns about the height and the Applicant's
representations of height of the stairwells and elevator. Council directed staff to report back
during a work session.
There appears to be two issues which are interrelated — decks and height. Staff went through the
history of the two issues to understand the changes. Below is a summary of staff findings.
DECKS: The project was originally conceived with a series of private roof decks accessible only
to the owners of the free-market residences directly below each deck. The decks were accessed
through private stairs and a common stair located in the middle of the roof. The private decks
were not proposed to be accessible to other users or tenants of the building, including
commercial tenants or affordable housing residents.
During the City Council review, which residents could access which roof deck was discussed at
length. In order to satisfy the `compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan' review
criterion, the applicant amended the roof decks to provide one common deck accessible to all
residents and users within the building. ,
The revision provided an elevator and common stairs in a similar location as the previous plans.
A second stair was added to the western side of the roof to accommodate occupancy standards of
the building code. The project was approved with language requiring the Applicant to build the
elevator shaft and other mechanical equipment "at the lowest possible height required by the
Building Department while still complying with all height restrictions in the zone district and
Land Use Code."
After land use approvals are granted, technical revisions are commonplace as a proposed
building moves from a design development level to a construction drawing set. This represents a
significant portion of staff's workload. There are technical aspects of buildings that are not
reasonable to expect an applicant to fully design for entitlement review, especially when
conceptual aspects of the building are still being changed. As long as the changes are reasonably
necessary to address technical issues and within the limitations of the zone district and the
approvals, staff deals with the changes administratively.
Upon review of the building permit plans for this project, it became clear that the stairs needed to
be fully enclosed and the plans were modified accordingly. The modifications were reviewed by
staff and were considered limited in scope and the minimum necessary to comply with the
building code requirements. The revisions did not exceed the height limitations set forth in the
approvals and achieve the representations made to Council — namely that the decks would be
common space for all building tenants.
HEIGHT: Also to address the `compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan' review
criterion, the Applicant revised the height of the building and presented a revised Main Street
elevation to City Council during the final hearing. Although the site is essentially flat, the east
Page 2 of 4
side of the property is approximately 12 - 15 inches lower than the west side. The building
elevation represented to City Council represented a uniform false datum across the site and did
not represent the undulating topography of the street.
Staff requested the building permit submission show the height of the proposal using both the
false datum shown in the public hearings and the topography of the right-of-way. Staff checked
the heights demonstrated in the building permit against the heights that were represented during
the hearings and found the proposal to be in compliance. The proposed building was also in
compliance with height limitations of the zone district when compared with the sloping
topography.
During the review of the building permit, the City Engineer requested the land owner lower the
elevation of the main street entrance by 4 inches and flatten the adjacent sidewalk cross grades.
This improves accessibility and lessens winter icing problems. The applicant was
accommodating and amended the plans. This had no effect on the building height within the
context of the surrounding properties.
It is important to note that because this project is not a PUD, it is subject to the same regulations
as all other non-PUD properties in the Cl Zone District. This requires compliance with the zone
district height limitations and building standards just like any other property in the Cl Zone
District.
It is also important to note that modifications to sidewalk cross slopes or roof insulation systems
are commonplace, especially downtown where drainage and accessibility issues are of
heightened importance. For example, the sidewalks along the south side of City Hall were
recently redone to better accommodate drainage and roof improvements were accomplished to
address snow shedding issues. These roof improvements and new sidewalk grades and cross
slopes did not require lowering City Hall.
The Stage III approval was written to allow a certain amount of flexibility in the roof
configuration to ensure that the building met all applicable building codes while also meeting the
height regulations in the Land Use Code and providing for common access to the roof deck.
This is not uncommon but especially important in a situation, like with this project, where last
minute design changes are being presented. Staff believes the project is in compliance with the
approvals, the representations made during the approval process, and with the land use and
building codes.
RELATED INFORMATION:
An outcome of the land use moratorium of 2005 and 2006 was an entirely new set of regulations
for commercial buildings — Commercial Design Review. These were not in place for the Stage
III review. Previously, and in this case, applications for subdivision provided very little dialogue
on the aesthetics of a building. Instead, subdivision review was primarily limited to technical
aspects of the City's ability to serve the development with basic infrastructure. The code now
provides a full review of the scale, massing, orientation, architecture, etc, of each proposal. This
gives the Community a much better ability to talk about the character of proposed development.
Page 3 of 4
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A — Drawings from February 12, 2007, City Council Hearing (final hearing)
EXHIBIT B — Drawings from Building permit Set
EXHIBIT C — Roof over Datum Height Plan
EXHIBIT D — Letters from Jim Smith
Page 4 of 4
-1" @) FRONT
NGEPT 600
-10" @, BACK
HERS EXCEED NOTED ROOF HEIGHTS)
I- COOPER AVE
r
__ ROOF LEVEL
®MAIN 3T.
34'-0' ® ALLEY
3rd FLOOR LEVEL
and FLOOR LEVE. L jti
.13'-O' lr
I5[ FLOOR LEVEL _
t O'-$
BASEMENT LEVEL J�_
- 15'-10' lr
REEN GRID ROOF
.ENED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
C
LOBBY
GREEN GRID ROOF
GREEN GRID ROOF
SCREENED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
MECHANICAL
vl
k
U nY, IIIJV� -n
r
_IIRE'C.. y♦�i WY
MECHANICAL
LOBBY
u EQUIPMEM
MECHANICAL EOUIPMEM
STAIR 3
NOTE:
ownns r�wn� To.
199.1V'
�99%-B�= 1913 Ma'
April 16, 2009
L�
Dear Aspen City Council Members,
In the March 23, 2009 City Council meeting, I expressed my concerns about apparent violations of Ordinance 41,
Series 2006 - the approval Ordinance for the redevelopment of Stage 3 at 625 E. Main. What brought this matter to
my attention was the unexpected appearance of a structure for the central stairway that projects above the projects'
roof line. After discussion with City Staff, it became apparent that changes were made after the Ordinance approval
and two rooftop stairway enclosures were added to the building.
The building's elevation view presented and approved by Council in 2007 is shown in the top drawing of the
attachment, Figure IA. After Council's approval, the design was changed to install two rooftop stairway enclosures,
resulting in the elevation view shown in the lower drawing of the attached, Figure 1 B, where the post -approval
enclosures are highlighted in red.
• During the three Council hearings on this project (11/27/06, 1/22/07, and 2/12/07), the applicant's renderings
showed a stairway in the center of the building that went to the roof; but the renderings never showed any rooftop
enclosure for the stairway. When questioned, the architect said the stairway was "open' - meaning there is a huge
hole in the roof with no protection for the stairway. Not only is the "open" stairway design impractical for a snow
environment, it is a violation of the International Building Codes: Section 1001.1, 1004.8 and 1007.2.
• In the Nov. 27, 2006 Council review of the project, the applicant specifically stated that he worked extensively
with the Building Department in designing the stairways to ensure that all aspects of the Budding Code were met.
How and why did the applicant miss the code requirements for the stairway enclosures until a year after approval if
the codes had been extensively researched?
• During the Feb. 12, 2007 Council hearing, the applicant showed a second stairway on the west side of the building
going from the ground floor to the roof. The applicant stated this was added to meet the building code. This
stairway was shown as "open" from the roof all the way down to the first floor! This "open" stairway again made
no sense - it would fill up with snow in the winter. The design was also in violation of the building code: it was
not enclosed.
• The roof deck has been described as a major component of the project. As a major component of the project, I
would expect the applicant to spend the time needed to get its design right and that it would not take two years of
design time to do so. Under repeated questioning by Council, the applicant assured Council that the only thing on
the roof taller than 4' was the elevator enclosure.
• The applicant's misrepresentation on the rooftop stairway enclosures should have consequences. For one, if the
applicant fails to fully abide by the terms of any of the conditions of approval, the City Council has the power to
revoke the project's development order. The applicant's persistent misrepresentation tainted the entire approval
process and should give the Council justification to revoke the project's development order.
Alternatively, Council may view the applicant's representations in support of the roof deck are untenable and
incomplete and choose to amend Section 11 of the Ordinance to disallow the roof deck. Council should further
compel the removal or modification of all structures or enclosures associated with the roof deck and the recently
added snow -melt on the rooftop deck. The western stairway housing has not been built, so removing it may be as
simple as a few strokes of a architect's pen. The central stairway housing, as currently built, is only roughed in and
it should be easier and less costly to remove it now than when the building is completed.
In my opinion, the least desirable outcome on this issue is for City Council agree to any recommendation that
essentially ignores these misrepresentations and omissions. That response would condone this action and send a clear
message to all future developers that misrepresentations and omissions made before P&Z and Council have no
consequences: they will be ignored. If that is the case, applicants will feel free to say and do whatever is needed to
get approval, knowing they can changes things later behind Council's back with no repercussions, part of a "don't ask
for permission, beg forgiveness, if caught" strategy.
Jim Smith, Aspen
�I> 11111 ENE.'1�!=�.
�plit®Ilni��P� [emuvi®1®N
mi
FA
INI
s � �
tJ
May 29, 2009
Aspen City Council Members,
I have identified two changes to the project at 625 East Main that I believe warrant Council's attention: the addition
of rooftop stairway enclosures and an increase in the building's height. I believe these changes are substantial, that
they could and should have been anticipated by the applicant and, therefore, should not have been approved without
Council review.
Rooftop Stairway Enclosures
The issue with the addition of rooftop -stairway enclosures was detailed in another, earlier document I prepared for
the April 23`d Council work session. To summarize, during the three Council sessions when the project was
originally reviewed, there was extensive discussion about the decks and the visual impacts of items and structures on
the roof. The language of Section 11 of the Approval Ordinance severely constrains what is allowed on the roof and
tries to minimize adverse visual impacts. During the final approval meeting, I told Council and the applicant that a
rooftop -stairway enclosure was needed for the one stairway that was in the drawing. I also showed them what the
roofline would look like once it was added. 'Be applicant/representative clearly said, "There is no housing for the
stairs. It is open." Now, without notice or review, stairway enclosures have been added to the two stairways to the
roof, all of which were always required by code — a code that is not new.
Subsequent to the preparation of the above -mentioned document, Chris Bendon told me that when City Council
approved the deck in February 2007, Council also approved everything needed to install the decks, both items that
were disclosed and anything not disclosed to Council. This justification seems disingenuous given that 1) Council
members were very concerned about the affect the deck would have on the neighbors and their views, 2) Council
repeatedly questioned the applicant about what would be on the roof, and 3) Council included specific, restrictive
language in the Ordinance regarding the deck - language that did not include any approval of stairway enclosures.
The applicant should not be allowed to 1) state that there are no stairway enclosures, 2) then claim that the Code and
City required them to build enclosures, and 3) finally claim that the enclosures were unknowingly approved by
Council when they approved the decks.
Building Height
During the original Council sessions that reviewed and ultimately approved this project, there were extensive
discussions regarding the building's height. In the final set of plans that received Council's approval, the height of
the building was repeatedly stated to be 36'-6". (Attachment 1 provides Code definition of Building Height and
statements made by applicant). The building height was variously described to be the height along the front, Main
Street side of the building as well as the height above grade and/or the first floor. After approval, changes were
made such that the building height was increased and the height above the first floor is now 3T-2", an increase of 8"
from what was approved. Further, due to the downward slope on Main Street, the Code -defined building height
increases by an additional 18" along Main Street, to over 38' on the east end of the building.
The applicant is not fulfilling his commitment to install a project with a budding height of 36'- 6".
Recommendations
I believe that the project changes — the addition of stairway enclosures and increase in building height, coupled with
the misrepresentations of the building roofline height along Main Street are substantial and fully warrant the Council
review they are now receiving.
I recommend that this Council amend Section 11 of the ordinance to withdraw approval for the rooftop deck and
order the removal of all the associated components.
- Further, given that the building is taller than that represented to and approved by Council, I recommend that
Council order the project to reduce the building height to 36-6" above natural grade along Main Street, the
maximum building height originally approved.
Jim Smith
Attachment 1
Building Height for 625 E Main: February 12 2007 Council Approval Meeting
Code Definition for Height
Height, building. The height of a building shall be the maximum distance possible measured vertically
from natural grade at any point within the interior of the building; and from natural or finished grade
(whichever is lower) at any point around the perimeter of the building to the highest point or structure
within a vertical plane.
Statements by Applicants at February 12 2007 Approval Meeting
The roofline on Main Street is 36 '/2 feet
The dominant roof height is at 36'- 6" from the street
The building height is 36'/2 feet for most of the building
The building height is 36 '/2 feet along the front side of the building, 34 feet along the back (implying that
the height measurement is made vs. the street and alley)
The dominant roofline is 36 1/2 feet around the circumference of the building
The building above grade is 34 feet on the alley side, 36'- 6" on the front side.
Currently Approved Building
The building height as measured from the lowest natural grade point on the perimeter of the building, (the
NE corner), to the highest point on the vertical plane is 38'- 8", not 36'- 6".
Council Members,
In the April 23 Council meeting, I brought to your attention changes to the Stage 3 redevelopment project
that substantially and negatively altered the roofline profile of the building. After extensive research, more
changes were found. These changes, according to the Community Development Director, did not need
Council review because they were `insubstantial."
I disagree with the Director and my reasons are based on the Land Use Code and the Development Order.
The Land Use Code, Section 26.480.080, Amendment to Subdivision Development Order states:
An insubstantial amendment to an approved plat or between adjacent subdivision plats may be authorized
by the Community Development Director. An insubstantial amendment shall be limited to technical or
engineering considerations first discovered during actual development which could not reasonably be
anticipated during the approval process or any other minor change to a plat which the Community
Development Director finds has no effect on the conditions and representations limiting the approved plat.
The Subdivision Agreement, Section 3.19 regarding Material Representations states the following:
All material representations made by the Owner on record, whether in public hearings or in documentation
presented before City Council or the P&Z, shall be binding upon the Owner.
Rooftop Stairway Enclosures
One change in this project is the addition of about 25' of staircase enclosures, which is a substantial change
to the roofline profile. During the hearings, the roof decks were an especially contentious issue, and the
development order includes an entire section about what can go on the roof deck including the height of
plants and the size of planters.
Community Development says the enclosures had to be added to meet Code, implying that they are
"insubstantial changes," and that they did not required Council review. Referring to the Land Use Code
above: An insubstantial amendment shall be limited to technical or engineering considerations first
discovered during actual development which could not reasonably be anticipated during the approval
process ... It is difficult, if not impossible, to understand bow an award -winning architect who has
designed projects in Aspen for decades did not know that the code required these enclosures. With Aspen's
snowfall and winter weather, it's a stretch to say he and his firm did not reasonably anticipate the need to
enclose staircases.
Also, the argument that "the applicant could not reasonably anticipate the need for the staircase enclosures"
is not valid because, during an approval hearing, Jim Smith (who is not an architect) pointed out the need
for a stairwell enclosure on the stairwell shown on the architectural rendering. The architect immediately
responded to Jim's assertions by bluntly stating there was no need for an enclosure/housing and the
staircase would be open. They were told a closure was needed but ignored the input.
As the last resort, Community Development said that the housings were "unknowingly approved" by
Council members when they approved the rooftop deck. There is no reasonable support for this argument.
Building Height
Council members asked over and over about the height of the building. The applicant told Council the
building's primary roofline height would be 36'- 6" along Main Street. Now, the blueprints indicates the
height of the primary roofline along Main Street to be anywhere from this 36' and 6" at the northwestern
corner to 18" higher at the northeastern corner. Cormr munity Development says it is still under the height
that it "could' be under the Land Use Code, so there is no problem. There must be a problem if the roof
height changes that much. Because Main Street visibly slopes downward from west to east, any change
should have been anticipated by the applicant and should have been discussed with Council. It was not.
NOTE: When Obermeyer Place needed an increase in height — an increased of one inch to four inches over
a 16 foot span, all the occupants of Concept 600 were notified about the change and given the date of the
Council meeting to discuss and eventually approve this variance. Neither the applicants nor Community
Development notified any of the neighbors of the height change.
The "Green" Roof
The applicant said the roof deck would be "green." Thus, very little water would be added to the City's
drainage system. However, the applicant has added, post -approval, about 2,000 sq. ft. of snow -melt to the
deck in addition to several hundred more feet of snow -melt on the porches of the 3rd floor residences. This
addition did not have to be reviewed by Council; it can be approved by Community Development, which is
what happened. There appears to be a blatant misrepresentation of the deck as "green" because the snow -
melt system will substantially add to the building's carbon footprint and have a negative impact on the
City's drainage system. So much for the Canary Initiative!
Applicant's Level of Commitment
Throughout the Council review process, the applicant stated his commitment to the project, professed
sensitivity to Aspen's values, vowed to be responsive to input from Council and neighbors, and described
the project to be environmentally sensitive. What really happened? Work stopped in November, and
Aspen residents and visitors now have a massive hole and a concrete shaft as a view. There are mechanics'
liens against the developer, and he is trying to sell the property. Some neighbors were "blown off' if they
were not needed to further the interest of the project, and none of the neighbors was contacted about the
after -approval changes. The Canary Initiative has been ridiculed.
In Summary
It will never be determined if the undisclosed information was caused by the applicant's mistakes, omissions,
ignorance and/or misrepresentations. The fact that undisclosed information was later used to make and
justify substantial changes - specific and major changes that did not require further Council review — makes
me scratch my head in confusion..
The applicant did not give Council members all the facts and information it needed to make a fully informed
decision regarding a project's approval. Thus, there is sufficient reason to believe the vote would have been
different if Council had been made fully aware of what the end product would be.
Based on the arguments made in this docurnent and the fact that the prior Council may have voted differently
if its members had known all the facts about the project, I think this Council should revoke the development
order or, at the very least, not allow any of these changes. This would have the effect of forcing the
applicant to remove the deck from the building and forcing him to comply with the height in the
development order.
Sincerely,
Lindsay Smith