Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.Obermeyer Place.0004.2004.ASLUa. City of Aspen Community Development Dept. CASE NUMBER 0004.2004.ASLU PARCELID# 06/04/04 CASE NAME PUD Amendment PROJECT ADDRESS 0 Rio Grande Place PLANNER Chris Bendon CASE DESCRIPTION Amendment to Allowed Heights of Building REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION 06/04/04 CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION Reso 06 -2004 ADMIN ACTION BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED 08/04/04 BY D DRISCOLL MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Community Development Director FROM: Chris Bendon, Senior Long Range Planner W RE: Obermeyer Place PUD Amendment — Height Public Hearing DATE: February 3, 2004 � �� V NOTE: Due to scheduled case re Jiwsthe public hearing and reviewbf this item will be opened and continued to noon Wednesday, February 4th at City Hall. The staff presentation and hearing will occur on Wednesday. SUMMARY: The Obenneyer Place PUD was approved April 14, 2003, pursuant to Ordinance 18, 2003, after a yearlong COWOP process. During the COWOP process, the Task Force Team reviewed many design iterations, each with certain physical, policy, and financial implications. The project is located between Concept 600 and Rio Grande Place. The height of structures within the project was a significant issue throughout the process and was finally established at 35 feet, with certain exceptions noted. (Please reference pages 7 & 8 of Ordinance 18 for the approved dimensions.) At the time of approvals, the project architects had advanced the design to a conceptual level only — less advanced than is typically seen in a planning review but understandable considering the intense iterative nature of the COWOP process and the complexity of the project. It was understood at the time by all parties that design was very preliminary and would continue to evolve as the design progressed. Insubstantial modifications have taken place as the project has moved through schematic design, design development, and into construction drawings. Exact building locations, footprints, landscape amenities, architectural details, etc. have been modified. No changes in the general design or program have taken place and the changes are entirely within the project's approvals. In fact, considering the conceptual level of design during the COWOP review, the design is surprisingly similar to the drawing set from last April. During the COWOP process, the height discussion primarily focused on views from public spaces. Views from Rio Grande Park towards the pass and from the skateboard park and John Denver Sanctuary to Aspen Mountain were the focus of the Task Force Team. These are not regulated views but were seen as public amenities to be protected. Project neighbors were also concerned about views from their Obermeyer Amendment Memo Page I properties — the Concept 600 building north to Red Mountain and the Moore /Van Deusen house in Oklahoma Flats south and west to Aspen Mountain. Early direction of the Task Force Team encouraged the building upwards while the view concerns eventually prevailed resulting in a commitment to observe the 35 -foot height limit of the SCI Zone District. The portions of building #1 and #3 exceeding the height limitation are highlighted on the drawing set and range from approximately 14 to 16 inches over the 35 -foot limit (within a 2 -inch tolerance). An elevator enclosure on building #5 extends above the 35 -foot limit by approximately 3 feet. The approval ordinance permits elevator enclosures to extend above the 35 -foot limit if setback 10 feet from the building's fayade. This elevator is located on the edge of the building and not setback from the fagade. The applicant will erect a height pole demonstrating the height of the north edge of building #3 (a request of the neighbors). The height pole will be installed sometime Friday and remain in place until the hearing. Staff views the changes to the height of buildings #1 and 93 and the elevator enclosure much in the same vein as other changes that have occurred as the design progressed — a function of knowing more about the building now than prior to advancing through schematic design, design development, and into construction drawings. Staff believes the height adjustments have a negligible impact on views from public spaces. The increases in height, themselves, are minimal and the facades with additional height are primarily oriented internally to the project. Also, the increased heights are primarily located away from property boundaries. The SCI Zone District permits 0 -foot setbacks (on all sides) and the impact of exceeding the limit on a fagade along the property boundary would be greater than the same increase along a fagade that is setback from the property boundary. Elevator shafts are normally permitted to exceed City height limits by 5 feet, without a mandatory setback. The requested elevator enclosure would be permitted, as a matter of right, if it were not for the restricting language of the ordinance. Due to the location of the elevator enclosure within the project, staff believes the additional 3 feet is acceptable. Lastly, the project incorporates flat roofs on all buildings except the center, one -story building which looks to incorporate some pitched, architectural elements. Flat roofs have much less of an impact than pitched roofs which are measured at the midpoint rather than the absolute height measurement of a flat roof. Staff believes the project, even with the requested height adjustments, represents less of a view impact than the physical potential of this property and that the adjustments have a negligible impact on views from public spaces around the property. Staff believes the applicable criteria have been met and recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission adopt Resolution No. approving the Obermeyer Place PUD Amendment. Obermeyer Amendment Memo Page 2 APPLICANT: Obermeyer Redevelopment Company represented by Dwayne Romero, Director of Development for Obermeyer Place, Tim Belinski, CFO Sport Obermeyer, and Bob Schiller of Cottle Graybeal Yaw Architects. LOCATION: All parcels of land between Rio Grande Place and East Bleeker Street and adjoining East Bleeker Street between Spring Street and Rio Grande Place, plus East Bleeker Street right -of -way between Rio Grande Place and Spring Street. CURRENT LAND USE: Light industrial uses, residential, municipal impound lot, and right -of -way. ENTITLED LAND USE (ALREADY APPROVED): Light industrial (SCI) uses — 38,977 s.f. minimum. (39,050 currently planned) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) — 900 s.f. maximum (82' ) s.f. planned) Medical Office — 9,450 s.f. maximum. (8,723 planned) Affordable Housing — 21 units, 25 to 42 bedrooms. (35 bedrooms planned) Free - Market Housing — 21 units, 70 bedrooms maximum (57 bedrooms planned) Parking'— 149 minimum allocated spaces (198 planned, including unallocated) PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Height adjustments to portions of building #1 and #3 and for an elevator enclosure located on building #5. PREVIOUS ACTION: The project was entitled through the COWOP process. P &Z was represented by Ruth Kruger and Roger Haneman. The COWOP process was concluded with adoption of the ordinance and amendments to the project are subject to the standard PUD amendment process. The full Planning and Zoning Commission has not reviewed this project, or this amendment request, before. REVIEW PROCEDURE: PUD Minor Amendment. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the project at a public hearing after considering a recommendation made by the Community Development Director. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff has summarized comments above. Review criteria and staff comments to each are attached. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Resolution No._, Series of 2004, approving an amendment to the Obermeyer Place PUD." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Review Criteria and Staff Comments Exhibit B — City Council Ordinance 18, 2003. Exhibit C — Amendment request and drawings Obermeyer Amendment Memo Page 3 RESOLUTION NO._ (SERIES OF 2004) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AMENDING THE PERMITTED HEIGHTS OF BUILDINGS WITHIN THE OBERMEYER PLACE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, ON LANDS DESCRIBED HEREIN IN THE VICINITY OF THE 500 AND 600 BLOCKS OF EAST BLEEKER STREET, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, pursuant to Ordinance Number 18, Series of 2003, approved the Obermeyer Place COWOP (Convenience and Welfare of the Public) redevelopment of certain real property (hereinafter the "Project ") owned by Obermeyer Place Holding Company, LLC and Klaus T. Obermeyer, George Murphy, Robert Zupancis (subsequently conveyed to the City of Aspen), Gailen Smith, Pitkin County, and the City of Aspen, and successors and assigns, for the purpose of providing service - oriented commercial space, surface and underground parking (for both public and private needs)„ free- market housing, deed restricted housing, and pedestrian linkages between the river and the City core. WHEREAS, the Project includes all land between East Bleeker Street and Rio Grande Place, all land bordering East Sleeker Street between Spring Street and Rio Grande Place, and portions of Rio Grande Park, more precisely described as: a tract of land in the East Aspen Townsite Addition, according to the plat thereof recorded as Document No. 108453 of the records of Pitkin County, identified as Parcel No. 2737.073.24.003 according to the Pitkin County Assessor and known as 540 East Main Street, Gignoux -Lynch Subdivision Lots 1 and 2, Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9, Block 20, East Aspen Addition, Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 Rio Grande Subdivision, a tract of land identified as Parcel No. 2737.073.00.040 according to the Pitkin County Assessor and known as 600 East Bleeker Street, a tract of land identified as Parcel No. 2737.073.00.041 according to the Pitkin County Assessor and known as 530 East Bleeker Street, that portion of East Bleeker Street right -of -way between Spring Street and Rio Grande Place, that portion of Rio Grande Park owned by the City of Aspen accommodating and affected by the Pitkin County recycling operation and snow melting facility, that portion of Rio Grande Place right -of -way between and including its two intersections with East Bleeker Street, and a parcel of land owned by Pitkin County known as Rio Grande Subdivision Lot #5, all located within the City of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the Project's privately owned properties are now owned or represented by the Obermeyer Redevelopment Company; and, WHEREAS, the Obermeyer Redevelopment Company has requested an amendment to the approvals granted pursuant to Ordinance 18, Series of 2003, to permit additional height on portions of buildings within the Project; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance 18, Series of 2003, amendments to the Project shall be reviewed according to the procedures for amending a Planned Unit Development, Chapter 26.445 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code; and, P &Z Resolution No. _ Series of 2004. Page I WHEREAS, according to said Chapter, the Planning and Zoning Commission is authorized to review and approve, approve with conditions, or deny amendments to a Planned Unit Development, during a public hearing, found by the Community Development Director to be generally consistent with the original approvals; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has found the requested amendments to be generally consistent with the original approvals; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director reviewed the requested amendment according to the standards and criteria for approving an amendment to a Final PUD Development Plan and recommended the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the request; and, WHEREAS, at a duly noticed regular meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on February 3, and continued to February 4h at noon, the Commission reviewed and considered the amendment request according to the applicable provisions of Chapter 26.445 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and accepted and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, finding that the amendment request meets or exceeds all applicable review standards and criteria, approved the amendment request by a to (_-_) vote. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section 1: Permitted Building Heights The permitted maximum height of buildings within the Obermeyer Place Planned Unit Development are amended as follows: • The height limit for Building 91, also known as The Crescent Building, shall be no more than 36'4" (thirty -six feet and four inches) along the eastern edge of the building. • The height limit for Building #3, also know as the Spring Street Building, shall be no more than 36'6" (thirty -six feet and six inches) along the southwest portion of the building and no more than 36'4" (thirty -six feet and four inches) along the north portion of the building. • The elevator enclosure along the southwest edge of Building #5 shall be permitted to exceed the height limit, as allowed in Ordinance 18, Series 2003, except with no fagade setback requirement. Note: An additional potential two -inch adjustment above the applicant's request has been factored into the above permitted heights. P &Z Resolution No.—, Series of 2004. Page 2 All locations of the height adjustments and building number references shall be those locations and references depicted on the drawing set submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for the February 4`" meeting, incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: PUD Plans Reference This Resolution shall be referenced and the specific locations and extent of the height adjustments shall be depicted on the Final PUD Plans. Section 3: Extent of Amendment This Resolution shall not affect other portions of Ordinance 18, Series of 2003, except as noted herein. Section 4: All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, or the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. Section 5: 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 skull not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 6: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Resolution, to record a copy of this Resolution in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. APPROVED by the Commission during a public hearing on February 4`h, 2004. APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk P &Z Resolution No. Series of 2004. Page 3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Jasmine Tygre, Chair Exhibit 74 Obermeyer Amendment Staff Comments: Planned Unit Development — Section 26.445 Review Standards: Planned Unit Development A development application for Conceptual, Final, Consolidated Conceptual and Final, or Minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues associated with Conceptual Reviews and properties eligible for Minor PUD Review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application, and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this title. A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: Staff believes this amended development plan remains consistent with the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). The AACP sets forth a series of policies and goals according to topic areas. In relation to Growth Management goals, this project addresses the desire to house a "critical mass" of people within the social context of Aspen. The development is within the Aspen Community Growth Boundary. And, the proposed development furthers a desire for economic diversity and transit and pedestrian- friendly development. The proposed development addresses a policy of the Transportation section that encourages compact, mixed -use development in patterns that enable travel by non - motorized means. Staff believes the proposed development is supported by a philosophy of the Housing section of the AACP, which reads as follows: Development of affordable housing within the traditional Townsite should be encouraged so as to protect our open and rural lands. Infill projects within the Townsite can preserve and enhance our sense of community, our economic viability, and our partnership with the environment. When employees have the ability to live close to where they work, their reliance on the automobile lessens and they have greater opportunities to become part of the town's social fabric. Another philosophy stated in the Housing section states: The private sector must be encouraged financially and morally to solving the problem. Policies of the Housing section reflect a desire for housing to happen within the city limit so as to "emphasize good city form." And, a policy addresses a previously mentioned Staff Comments Page 1 philosophy of private sector development. Goals of the Housing section addressed through this development include 1) development within the urban growth boundary for the purpose of good city form; 2) cooperation between the public and private sectors; and, 3) encouraging development of affordable housing by the private sector. Staff further believes that all of the criteria of the Interim Citizen Housing Plan are met through this development. Specifically, the site is with the metro area and within walking distance of the downtown of Aspen, in close proximity to transit, within a contained area where utilities and service do not need to be extended, does not create a fundamental change of the immediate area between rural, suburban, and urban typologies, promotes the use of mass transit and provides the ability for area residents to reduce convenience trips with the automobile, continues to be visually compatible with the surrounding context, represents an optimal density for the site with little reasonable ability to develop additional units, is of a good quality in design, includes efficiencies in the building plans, disrupts no significant natural or scenic feature of the site, and is not expected to have any significant unmitigated fiscal impact on the community. The Service Commercial Industrial (SCI) zone district is vital in maintaining a proper commercial business profile in the Aspen area. The zone district was established in 1971 to preserve a healthy commercial profile and protect Aspen's light industrial areas from gentrification and conversion to non - service uses. It comprises approximately six (6) percent of the City's commercial land. Maintaining a balance of commercial business types allows local- serving businesses (which pay far less rent than tourist - serving businesses) to remain in proximity to the population they serve. This, in turn, prevents overburdening of transportation infrastructure and helps maintain a certain community character and sense of place - both important goals of the AACP. The project reflects the goals and objectives of the Infill Report - the result of a long range planning effort sponsored by the City of Aspen to encourage greater use of urbanized lands as opposed to an outward expansion of the urban area. The project uses urban land in a more efficient manner and incorporates a variety of uses, provides much needed affordable housing opportunities, and provides additional parking to serve as remote parking for future infill residential projects. It is this type of mixed -use and attractive architecture that was envisioned in the Infill Report. The project complies with the City's ongoing Civic Master Planning effort - a long range planning project of the City identifying future uses of land within and north of Aspen's commercial core housing much of the community's municipal, quasi - municipal, and cultural facilities. The project area (called SCI East in the plan) was identified as an appropriate area for improved SCI, residential, and parking uses through a redevelopment of lands in five ownerships (Obermeyer, Bass, Murphy, Smith, and the City). The project fulfills and exceeds the original public opportunities of a joint redevelopment identified in the May 2001 Phase One Report. Staff Comments Page 2 The Economic Sustainability Committee (an adjunct of the AACP) recommended the City support infill SCI development in their final report and recommendations presented to the City. This report recommended (recommendation #3) "ensuring that SCI facilities are retained and expanded through infill wherever possible..." [infill is a term used to describe the development and redevelopment of currently underutilized urban land.] Action item number 7 (of 20) states: "Retain and expand SCI facilities wherever possible to help counter downvalley economic leakage, and provide needed goods and services to Aspen residents and visitors." The report also recommended improvement to commercial infrastructure including exploring public /private partnerships for additional and more convenient parking - an essential element of the Obermeyer Project. Lastly, the height amendments permit a traditional flat -roof building. The requested height could have been achieved through manipulating pitched roof planes and measuring at the midpoint of those pitches, potentially creating an odd development aesthetic. The traditional development pattern is much preferred to a technical solution potentially compromising the integrity of the design. Staff believes the height amendment request is in compliance with the AACP. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The area is a highly mixed -use area with civic, institutional, commercial, recreational, cultural non - profit, retail, office, residential, and industrial land uses. The proposed project compliments this mix of uses and adds important infrastructure to the area - pedestrian connections and parking. Because the height amendment request is minimal and will have a negligible impact on views from public spaces, staff does not consider the amendment request to change the project's compatibility with the surrounding uses. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The amendment does not compromise the rights or abilities of surrounding properties. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding: Growth Management allotment have been granted (Ordinance 18, 2003) and the amendment has no growth management implications. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: Staff Comments Page 3 The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man -made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man -made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Staff Finding: The amended dimensional provisions that are being contemplated are compatible with these influences on the property. The increased height of portions of the project is expected to have a very negligible change on views from public places and a minor affect on views within the project. The height being considered is compatible with the surrounding area and is expected to "fit -in" with adjacent buildings. The area contains an eclectic mix of lands uses, buildings sizes, and architectural styles. The proposal responds to this mix as well as could be expected and provides logical building masses, architectural typologies, and pedestrian connections with fitting vistas within and of the project from public areas. There are no significant natural or man -made hazards that would complicate or direct development on this site. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: Staff believes that the scale, massing, and site coverage are appropriate for the character of this area. The existing site (and the current recycling center) has very little aesthetic value and detracts from the park edge. Improvement of this area was a primary goal of the COWOP Task Force Team. The amended height of the buildings remains appropriate for development this close to the commercial core of town and permits an urban typology appropriate for mixed use buildings. Staff Comments Page 4 3. The appropriate number of off - street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non - residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and /or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. Staff Finding: No changes to the parking are proposed and this criteria has no applicability to the amendment request. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. 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 Staff Comments Page 5 constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. Staff Finding: No infrastructure constraints or natural hazards have been identified and the amendment does not affect the project density. The project density is in compliance with the SCI District. Staff does not consider criteria 4, 5, and 6 to be applicable to this amendment request. 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. Staff Finding: There are no significant features of the site that should be preserved. In fact, the site should be developed as the site's greatest asset to the community is as a high - density development thereby minimizing the relative impacts to the natural environment on a per residence basis. The amendment request does not change the site design and staff believes this criterion is met. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Staff Finding: Historically affected by rail apparatus, the site borders but is not part of the traditional downtown grid of streets and public spaces. A confused and disorganized pedestrian movement pattern has resulted to and through the property. The proposal assembles desired pedestrian movements and provides a logical network supporting those Staff Comments Page 6 movements, substantially benefiting connections between downtown and the river corridor and residents within the project. The proposal orients buildings along several pedestrian corridors with commercial storefronts and residential uses above. Auto- oriented commercial uses are along Rio Grande Place and within the parking garage. This proposed orientation meets this criterion and is the result of significant COWOP Task Force Team efforts on the design of the project. The amendment does not affect the basic urban design of this project. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Staff Finding: The amendment does no affect emergency and service access. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. Staff Finding: The application includes a significant amount of pedestrian amenity with the provision of a sidewalk connecting the existing walkways and a proposed ramp connection to Main Street. Disabled access has been incorporated throughout the project. The applicant will be required to meet all requirements of the Building Code including those related to handicapped access. The amendment for the elevator shaft will provide disabled access to another level of the project, arguable improving the project's accessibility. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Finding: The amendment does not affect drainage plans for the property. 7. For non - residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programatic functions associated with the use. Staff Finding: Service delivery and auto - oriented businesses have been designed into the project. No formal programmed functions are expected. However, outdoor seating areas have been incorporated near the neighborhood commercial space as well as decks and planting areas within the residential neighborhood. The amendment request does not affect these areas. 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 Staff Comments Page 7 quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man -made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding: The landscape plan represents an appropriate and desirable treatment of public and semi- public spaces suitable for the character of the project and of the area. The amendment request does not change the landscape plan and staff believes this criteria is not applicable to the amendment request. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard is to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall 1. be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. Staff Finding: The character of the architecture does relate to its intended use appropriately. The building will be a mixed -use building within an eclectic area containing a wide range of various land uses and architectural styles. Surrounding the property are several architectural typologies from various periods of the town's past. The proposed buildings within the project use massing, projections, and materials reflective of building styles in the vicinity. Staff believes this architectural typology to be appropriate for this site and for the intended use. The amendment request does not change the architectural vocabulary of the project and staff believes this criterion is met. 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. Staff Comments Page 8 3. accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Finding: The proposal does take advantage of solar access while also addressing issues of too much solar gain - an issue with large urban projects - by incorporating vegetation between buildings and on the roof of the center building. This approach will help moderate heating and cooling needs and minimize mechanical requirements for such purposes (while also providing visual relief). Storage of snow and snow shedding issues are adequately addressed. The amendment request does not alter the heating /cooling or ice shedding aspects of the project. E Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up- lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Finding: The applicant has indicated that the outdoor lighting will be in compliance with the City's Outdoor Lighting regulations. No amendments to the lighting program have been requested. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. Staff Comments Page 9 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Staff Finding: No changes to commons areas within the project have been proposed and staff does not consider this criterion to be applicable to the amendment request. K Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Finding: Adequate infrastructure exists to serve this project. The amendment request is not expected to affect utility infrastructure and staff believes this criterion is met. L 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: 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. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. Staff Comments Page 10 Staff Finding: This parcel has adequate access. According to the traffic report for this project, the surrounding roads and intersections have sufficient capacity to accommodate this development and no road upgrades or intersection improvements will be necessary as a result of this development. The amendment request does not change the access or trip generation for this project. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: A trail along the western boundary of the Concept 600 building has been traditionally used to access the alley way and Rio Grande Park (including the illegal use of the Murphy property as a cut - through). This desire line has been replicated with the proposal with an ADA compliant and made more generous with an easement along the city -owned 540 Main property (former Zupancis property). The amendment request does not change the project's pedestrian connections. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. Staff Finding: No streets are proposed and the adjacent street is already in public ownership. No change to this is proposed. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. Staff Finding: The amendment does not affect entryway features of the project. J. Phasing of Development Plan. Staff Finding: Only one phase has been proposed and the phasing criteria only apply to multi -phase projects. Staff Comments Page 1 1 s\ OBERMEYER PLACE PROJECT NARRATIVE AND DESCRIPTION For Planning & Zoning Commission Height Review 2/4/04 01/26/04 by Bob Schiller, CGY Architects, Ltd. The Obermeyer Place Project was designed through the City's COWOP process and approved in Ordinance No 18, Series of 2003. The Developer /Applicant is currently completing construction documents and other worked aimed at starting construction in April of this year. At this time the Applicant has requested an amendment to the approval ordinance to allow three limited areas of the project to exceed the stated limit on building height. 1. Project Description: The Developer of the Obermeyer Place Project is Obermeyer Redevelopment Company, an entity established by Klaus Obermeyer, longtime Aspen resident and founder of Sport Obermeyer, a successful outerwear manufacturer first located on this site nearly 40 years ago. The project site includes approximately 99,000 sf. (2.27 acres) of land within the City of Aspen. The buildings themselves are to be located on land currently owned by the Obermeyer family as well as two lots currently owned by others which will be transferred prior to the start of construction. Four `sliver' parcels owned by the City are adjacent to the property and will be utilized for parking, access and other purposes under use agreements to be executed between the Developer and the City. The existing Sleeker Street Right of Way has been vacated and the land that comprised it allocated according to statute and agreement with the City. The attached Site Plan illustrates the overall layout of the project and is consistent with that which was illustrated at the time of Ordinance Approval. In order to accomplish the project the existing buildings will be removed. The project comprises two below -grade parking levels, an on -grade plaza (at approximately the same elevation as existing grade), and five above -grade buildings, varying in height from 1 to 3 stories. The project will provide approximately 40,000 sf of commercial space (replacing existing at a 1:1 ratio), 9000 sf of Medical Office Building space, 21 Deed Restricted residential units and 21 Free Market Residential units, surface parking for approximately 35 cars /trucks, and below grade parking for approximately 165 cars /trucks. •.. ►� .� 2. 3. The following are key contact persons for this project. Developer: Architect: Planning/Landscape: Geotechnical Engineer: Mechanical and Electrical Eng'g: Structural Engineering: Survey : Civil Engineering and drainage: General Contractor: Drawings attached: Dwayne Romero, Director of Development, Obermeyer Place 970 - 920 -6681 Tim Belinski, CFO, Sport Obermeyer, 920 -6597 Bob Schiller, Cottle Graybeal Yaw Architects, 927 -4925 Terry Stone, DSW, 1- 303 - 623 -3465 Dan Hardin, HP Geotech, 945 -7988 Dan Koelliker, Beaudin- Ganze, 970 - 949 -6108 Hannes Spaeh, Monroe & Newell, 970- 949 -7768 Mark Beckler, Sopris Engineering, 704 -0311 Mark Butler, Sopris Engineering, 704 -0311 Bruce Gentry, R. A. Nelson, 970 - 618 -7555 1 Site plan with over - height areas highlighted. 2 Bldg. elevations with over - height areas highlighted. 3 Roof plans with over - height areas highlighted. 4 View Angle studies ST -1 through ST -4, as provided to Cone. 600 and OK Flats For the meeting on 2/4 we will provide these same drawings at large format 4. Comparison of actual design quantities to allowable per ordinance. Attached spreadsheet demonstrates that the project meets the area requirements of the Ordinance. 5. Proposed Amendment to height limits: Throughout the COWOP process, the height of the Obermeyer Place Project was a significant issue, and one that the Applicant took very much to heart. Early in the process, there was strong sentiment from much of the COWOP Task Force that this project, in order to provide the public benefits it does and in order to keep desirable space within the existing core rather than increasing the tendency toward sprawl, could ore even should exceed the 35' height limit imposed by the underlying SCI zoning. Later in the COWOP process it became clear that a large height increase was unacceptable to the overall community and the project design was significantly revised to fit within three stories. While it seemed even then that some moderate increase in height would have been acceptable to the COWOP Task Force and perhaps even to Council, the Applicant voluntarily proposed to attempt to abide by the 35' figure. On several occasions when this was discussed in front of both COWOP and Council, representatives of the Applicant were careful to state that this would be a difficult challenge and that we might well ask later for some small exceptions to the 35' height limit in limited areas. This is exactly what we are doing today. The proposed building designs have resulted from careful balancing of building facade features and massing, existing topography, structural depth requirements, mechanical systems space requirements, and interior ceiling height constraints, among other factors. We believe that they represent a desirable public face, in keeping with the rest of the City of Aspen. We further believe that the height exceptions we are proposing will have a very minor impact on sightlines or view planes of any of our neighbors. In the interests of disclosure and consideration, we have met on several occasions with those neighbors and reviewed the proposed exceptions with them. The proposed exceptions are illustrated on the attached drawings and may be described as follows: At Bldg. #1, to be known as The Crescent Building, there is an area approximately 40 feet long with a height beginning at the 35' limit and reaching a maximum height of 36' -1- 5/8" above existing grade. At the Southwest comer of Building #3, to be know as the Spring Street Building, there is an area approximately 26'4" long with a height beginning at the 35' limit and reaching a maximum height of 36' -4" above existing grade. At the North end of Building #3, to be know as the Spring Street Building, there is an area which wraps around several corners, with a height beginning at the 35' limit and reaching a maximum height of 36' -2" above existing grade. (Please note that although the heights stated are based upon detailed construction documents, due to normal construction tolerances they should be considered accurate to within + - 2 "). '✓ In all, out of a total of approximately 1120 linear feet of project perimeter (the outer facades which are visible to neighbors and could potentially affect their view planes, approximately 611inear feet (or 5 %) are in excess of 35' above existing grade. The majority of the proposed exceptions are on facades which face into the center of the project, and so do not affect view planes or sightlines of anyone but the occupants of Obermeyer Place Project. The attached View Angle Studies were prepared for and presented to the neighbors in recent meetings. They demonstrate that the difference between the currently approved height and the proposed heights does not translate into significant impacts. Summary The Obermeyer Place Project as designed fulfills the promise of the COWOP process and the enabling Ordinance. The minor amendment requested herein will allow the project to move forward to completion while having only very minor impact on neighbors or the community. We look forward to meeting with you and discussing these issues, as well as the overall project. end t ,� _ 5 �I om( e A4 etc�Civ�olS a W� 4J.,.- 1440 i 1-, D►di„atnc� 0 OBERMEYER PLACE PROJECT 1/26/04 RAS,CGYA COMPARISON OF ACTUAL DESIGN QUANTITIES TO ALLOWABLE PER ORDINANCE Areas are per cur ay fluctuate slightly in final submission Category Ordinance requirement Current Actual Off - street parking SCI and NC commercial uses 1.5/1000 = 60 60 OK Medical Offices 3/1000 = 27 27 OK Affordable Residential 21 21 OK Free Market Residential 21 21 OK City of Aspen use 20 20 OK Extra (Unallocated) 31 to 41 49 OK Building Areas Total GSF 265,000 max. 236,228 OK SCI Net Leasable 38,977 sf. min. 39,050 OK NC Net Leasable 900 sf max. 823 sf. OK MOB Net Leasable 9450 sf. max. 8723 OK Affordable Residential Units 21 21 OK Affordable Residential bdrms. 25 to 42 35 OK Affordable Res. net liveable sf. 14950 to 16,445 15,966 OK Free Market Res. Units 21 21 OK Free Market Bdrms. Not to Exceed 70 57 OK Free mMarket RE Net Liveable 157,750 sf max. 1 55,395 OK padmin/approvals /02129- ordinance comp- 012604.x1s 9 !VrfzwlyAo��� 6 w-4T W Imp- & I N m m cc LLI A` � M �W ?a WO m m W 4' a migmeo 5sgoo m :3A�_ • mg ay0 ®W S SO 4, 0 X f� V 4- � 3s � X oC O � O �— V Q1 O d v Q A 99 <9> -- Ib ` L7 gb -t L5 �y 1 i 4 Z •M O$ C Z) LLI Y�y `r , °�' ¢ U Z0] a m gN ^1 w R_ dV WO Y a $h g 3 0 lit1 2 6. 36°' 1R°° m oo m m g Z 2p Da c yuw N Q' 0 a d - (drl z - Q� rl 9 1 4 I K� m� �B Y Z •N a� 09 yy e E 2 CJ a W O Z T1 r �. tl" O o f7g e • d vm W � 2 m u Z[1 e y^ $mm £ori� i°n�l� �m •B d'() WO �w o �tl £ M @ s qGPD! W z r .. p Mi N. u95 °'^ mz�nm°p A ..E O mQ f1y�O U Mnrvm9� ni° n° E Ts co Da Q61 ® o o v 07 � V 0 %40 .r.LU Q'. \ lr at � I X ----- - - - - -- - -- ------- - - - - -- - 1 I ' I I a I 1 y s - - - 1 ' ' I I I I ' I r l r I r I r I P —I � I Q t ; A•.LI .0-.CI d O Q M i U P OY y M .___----- r r All I I o i I I )L I I I 1 II V 4 L___J O 2 r-- - - - - -- p4 y N • rl I r O i r �t \ r b 11 r I 1 � I I 'RI 0 �O I. {t•.t i 671 O I 11 gn 971d bT 69 9'S J�Jn r J �Ir:_ N a $ a /� A y� 9 a 0/ o C.7g amd �mry W g m" Z d " M e �R'8$•om gWWnv s �ci WO YV' om ^ ° ^^ 8c4 ^� ffi O.J n i i DLL .� sr a od hod $ w do W 2 JO QV0]Ir o _ g a a� w W &Z J W � QQN Q D rl gig N 11 ------------ I m Z z - -- _m J J WJ WW Nr n 'I wl X w laW��l �W.�W9W mF l 0 J b A 4 �mo ®gig ` I 7. L�ak�� -r da $3O� I e I I� .w I� w �a IZ a 11 I 4 e a� W . `�S mN nF ° °aw O 3 NP '. e2 C6 W C° U V <a�3sa n_ w $ W °c W R LLI m5 y O (/djJ a.°�ba umin.�W Od QV 8 C,3 e £ � 4 �Z N ® > 50 m 0 2 / x/1 / y I I / / I � / / I � • �If, I i 2 JI J J J ❑ y @ , /gip V ----------------- I I - ii--- - - - - -- I'L I w T �U® i I Q I I I I J � e ~ n P ^q J J J J S� 0 m V a� 1 1 N o a � ul 7 m Za a oa Emryui wm m W LLI M 09 �j �.0 9rpo A oo zmpo 0 8P'o0 ® W� dJ ..3iS w O Q,' `$s Pm wa�P Sz °g�-a a m y0 ® r qa W �O 6A2 s Od aU coop mIt O(J a � �d- n) rr— to 1 to S 5 bL fs„ a 0 I I TIIII � � I I I / / /// I � •w -,n I I° AV Cdr / x J w ED 9 W / Q ' 7 0 ED `s wl 4 4 a ----------------- - --i .I zm� a� w 0 ME C\� cw{�a�.ii.,aall'' r-I tag8 °Rs ; =o a am V L% 33 33 Eli z 0 Y 1 '' V-- 1111mirl _T_ � �liallasasa�ai3l�ii� i SC rM I Y _ O � I ' � I 11 s 1-6 N •' 1 m F 1U 3 � I Q •i 0 ? F m 0 k9 N 4ag � j 0?tq Ae @ faLa Z LLI IL z z 8 • ioo5 a v a m w X10 N4 i O Q F4 C N\ v VMS! � O U O? pm: m i U O Na m O i i• '� i M m N m ec §i J � � O G e o- ©'� 0 o-: 5 © • U O oq s: '� NE YI i P Y tl1 >a o oq U n N C o- O i I ,O (�rO �Mr o 0 G` i �Iliiilsislti111lli�i � i ��IQ =:aa as aaaaaa3a �9�'�! F W F\ N O �e �e R U F >e 5� Z O � o N e aA a nuns asraia _ ®C fCfL 1I1I::11111 II §i J � � O G e o- ©'� 0 o-: 5 © • U O oq s: '� NE YI i P Y tl1 >a o oq U n N C o- O i I ,O (�rO �Mr o 0 G` i �Iliiilsislti111lli�i � i ��IQ =:aa as aaaaaa3a �9�'�! F W F\ N O �e �e R U F >e 5� Z O � o N e aA a (G6I I ■ice ion Ian�li:� T IGa�I Im I II` IG@ I I� I ) II I�' I III II II IIIIII I! IIPI ., � ■jll'Icalil I B uo�IIIIII�IIWI�inii Ir1] IvowlIII Icmll On IIa =ii �01 'llay III � -� �M Ir [li ICst•7i IJ Fm-1 I ol Y I l asp � � IIIIII I l� la_z� ■� Irnll I®MI,...�: IBM, (G6I I ■ice ion Ian�li:� T IGa�I Im I II` IG@ I I� I ) II I�' I III II II IIIIII I! IIPI ., � ■jll'Icalil I B uo�IIIIII�IIWI�inii I I IIY�11141&IWI �® OR �G �� � -� �M [li ICst•7i IJ Fm-1 I ol Y I l asp ®I■o IM an: on IG ■III la_z� ■� G BE I low - YI, I Q I ®'�I I I� �NpiNIIONI IIIIII�II�I� mil _ � � la�l !I I ®� ®" In ■� ICI I X11 . I C (G6I I ■ice ion Ian�li:� T IGa�I Im I II` IG@ I I� I ) II I�' I III II II IIIIII I! IIPI ., � ■jll'Icalil I B uo�IIIIII�IIWI�inii I I IIY�11141&IWI _ IJ Fm-1 I I I Y I II, I CI] 15111� IM an: on raw IIII IG11 I Qty■ I I I I _ IJ Fm-1 I I I Y I II, I CI] a ➢8 Q G raw - YI, I Q IYlnllur I mil _ low ■I IG 17 2 / ••, � !` ■; . ■ :.! |�• t .3- C) . ° c : . N A @r r r 7 ƒ ! }" | §) ,;!| ■ | \ Illill g vo8 � _ 4r- - MONSOON i } � � i , m i § \r %> %> A � y ¢> )} m _ �!! � )) \! Jr- � \ \� ]! lu ial �I �III�IIIIIIIIIIII IIII�IIIIII ? Ili' IIIIIIVI�II" �� '- I JHudl I�al ■l l wil Ism Fill al I�z3 31 Inns SI II➢:3 ELF--i-41- n I 111111 II■ m� 1111111I�`II�I I��� 'in I .' y I�esl IwaI 111�II11111�I11 X1111111111111111111111111 milli 0 �$oo m5 wo s oa aciaE: a mswa UE0 411 &f} O z E y IEw 1 rLL _ o m w ; O w O w TM , , , 5 ! O x 06 n Q N may. F � T z rol) o oy o° N 0=1 d N NO N m A 2s J Q 1'J w • w 3;D m A W • X21 JZ �m x o w} f �a W o od LL Z H a om 0m °f c° :mgwa �Vmm pO °say mz pO [m°'a ice^ NO N m A 2s J Q 1'J w • w 3;D m A W • X21 JZ �m x o w} f �a W o od LL Z H a Q Ltl2 a Lu 0:0 WO W >y3 mga NO WHO OM WU �o §w 0pjw LL m >ozd° a w um 0p� %2Tnf6 wU=W f bfx0 7 _O b J Z W ' ` Y u V¢l J LL Z H Q Ltl2 a ,^ E ggF E < Y zoo WO „� 3t]g :, LL erg„ �m m9 5 YY W < m (p'� mai^o 0o m °dam 3rF $ m� 0 a W 3o m W ~Y o s & WSWa � mm� :fig N O > � >cno Y e ---------- ------------------- m . a , a1 W; f � a a 1 i 4 i F i t Y Y 1 i I t 1 i � 5 9 d W i � t � #u bt f t C ' � f a W ' , r wo , 9 i �g` f3�6 v t Z ! s x c �~ 0 z WOU Z4 U Q 5 1 f S z it 1 � ' 1 t e Z a s _ i t 0 a IL � Y Y 1 O a i t O i f 1 Q e W i (J) —J i i i 1 ,,.. m Z= Y I l � • 1 1 s s v 3 f i Y W °a V J I- 4 z rFLL A J B W m �e Q w N �Q r 3D u1 J J U. Q0 {- Z5 w0 >z w u� L_ U �z 8 w U 0 0 J z Q _W LL ~' 00 0 c 0— N W� J J } 3 ww > (Wi U�� Z ~ LL Q Z pt WoNu > _ W mo(- Z w�Ty RLL waW< Q N 7 W OWU� z1:< Z NLLma m } O Q j W W N N W Z $ W J Q W r N m N N 0ZWdiZ tN QQF W TLuD . U 0 _ = W 5-?r3� e i m . a , a1 W; t � a a 1 i 4 i W °a V J I- 4 z rFLL A J B W m �e Q w N �Q r 3D u1 J J U. Q0 {- Z5 w0 >z w u� L_ U �z 8 w U 0 0 J z Q _W LL ~' 00 0 c 0— N W� J J } 3 ww > (Wi U�� Z ~ LL Q Z pt WoNu > _ W mo(- Z w�Ty RLL waW< Q N 7 W OWU� z1:< Z NLLma m } O Q j W W N N W Z $ W J Q W r N m N N 0ZWdiZ tN QQF W TLuD . U 0 _ = W 5-?r3� LLI !,!* LL, 2 �; § i §§ ! §§ ;t ■ |) ) | §$K| ! LLI ° §§ is 06- .lam ;��.oa !, - ■, ! s . o §�!� | Q ��MI & � ® - - -•— — . __ . .._7- - -• - -; — -- All. —.. � � � Ml � W |W ) M .. / W\o { �pal p � rL ! ; B � 4 Rh & ) � L d m k � i i | \ 0 .M \!i> ■ § ; § ■ § |` -§ k ;§` E ■ U, 2 u � � • !! ■ »: ! &|| ■, ■_- !� ■�r| I m 5 O o � .,n, |; ; ■ ;, „ §;; !� |§ ;, , o a 410 N � � A � : o §} ■ § kg� LL > &§ § ! �! /§[\a ( / ) E »S ±§ k � U. LL 2 2M \Lu k } , � q z ( \ � § � ) / ( \ (V a k \ ] k. m � $ \ | ! ! ! � \ | ! � | ! y \�\§ qm n §!,§ . |§a } § �N� �- � __ /n1 rr ____ ���, ���- cam-- -t` � �� __ SAN.29.2004 6:40PM COTTLE GRAYBEAL YAW NO.508 P.2i2 .ti chrisWolaapen.co.us,11:20 AM 01/29/2004 -0700, Obermeyer Place Project To: chrisb®ciaspen,co.us From: Bob Schiller <bschHler6cgyarchitects.com> Subject: Obermeyer Place Project Cc: Bee: Attached: Chris - Following our discussion yesterday, we have reviewed the height Of the MOB elevator enclosure, The tallest portion of that roof will reach 7834.5' elevation, The existing grade at that point is approx. 7896', so the ma)dmum height Is 38.5' above existing grade. This compares favorably with the Ordinance allowance of 5' over the 35' limit for elevators, not withstanding the question of whether this location satisfies the requirement that such elevators be 10' from the main building face. Thanks, RAS Printed for Bob Schiller cbschiller®cgyarohitects.com> January 14, 2004 Obermeyer Place Neighbors RECEIVED JAN 2 0 2004 ASPEN giJI 4G DEPARTMENT Re: Obermeyer Project Amendment Dear Neighbors: ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DFVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT The Obermeyer Redevelopment Company has requested an amendment of their Planned Unit Development approvals regarding the height of portions of proposed buildings within the project. The City Planning and Zoning Commission. an appointed volunteer regulatory board of the City, will be reviewing and voting on the amendment request. The public hearing has been advertised and noticed for February 3`d at 4:30 p.m. Due to other scheduled project reviews. the Commission will open and continue the hearing to Wednesday February 4`�' at noon in City Hall. The amendment request will be presented and public comments will be taken at the Wednesdav meeting. Please contact me if you have any questions about the amendment. 920.5072. Sincerely. C9 k* Chris Bendon, AICP Senior Planner City of Aspen 130 SM M GALE%A STRELT ASPEN, COLPRADO 81611 -1975 PHONE 970.920.51790 Fax 970.920.5439 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: OBERMEYER PLACE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT — PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 3, 2004, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, to consider an application submitted by the Obermeyer Redevelopment Company requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development Amendment to accommodate additional height on portions of proposed structures within the Obermeyer Place project to be developed along Rio Grande Place. The property is described as all land between East Bleeker Street and Rio Grande Place, all land bordering East Bleeker Street between Spring Street and Rio Grande Place, and portions of Rio Grande Park, more precisely described as: a tract of land in the East Aspen Townsite Addition, according to the plat thereof recorded as Document No. 108453 of the records of Pitkin County, identified as Parcel No. 2737.073.24.003 according to the Pitkin County Assessor and known as 540 East Main Street, Gignoux- Lynch Subdivision Lots 1 and 2, Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9, Block 20, East Aspen Addition, Lots 6, 7. 8, and 9 Rio Grande Subdivision. a tract of land identified as Parcel No. 2737.073.00.040 according to the Pitkin County Assessor and known as 600 East Bleeker Street. a tract of Land identified as Parcel No. 2737.073.00.041 according to the Pitkin County Assessor and known as 530 East Bleeker Street. that portion of East Bleeker Street right- of -wac between Sprinu, Street and Rio Grande Place, that portion of Rio Grande Park owned by the Citv of Aspen accommodating and affected by the Pitkin County recycling operation and snow melting facility, that portion of Rio Grande Place right- of -wav between and including its two intersections with East Bleeker Street, and a parcel of land owned by Pitkin County known as Rio Grande Subdivision Lot 45, all located within the City of Aspen. For further information, contact Chris Bendon at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920 -5072, clirisb,ci. aspen. co. us. s /Jasmine Tvgre, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on January 17 2004 City of Aspen Account r' \ j EXHIBIT February 1, 2004 We, who are residents in Oklahoma Flats, appreciated having the sighting pole (story pole) at the Obermeyer Place Project go up so we could better understand the impact of the 35 foot height limit on our view of Aspen Mountain from our area. We understand and accept the fact that the 35 ft. limit which was passed last April, 2003, will be upheld. However, we must object to the Obermeyer Variance that asks for any extra height, whatsoever, as our loss of view at 35 feet is dramatic! The proposed Building #3 at this point in time is merely on paper, whereas our view which has been of utmost importance to us for eight years is real. Obermeyer should make adjustments to stay within the 35 Ft. height limit, because inches do make a difference. And so does fairness. Our Sincerity, Page 1 of 2 \. ✓ X -Sent: 3 Feb 2004 17:19:20 GMT Reply -To: "Dan Ingalls" <dan @ingalls.us> w 1 From: "Dan Ingalls" <dan @ingalls.us> To: <chrisb @ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Obermeyer Project Height Variance Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:19:03 -0700 X- Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X- Processed -By: MX Firewall Rebuild vl.47 -1 X -MX -Spam: final= 0.0100000000; heur- 0.5000000000(800); stat= 0.0100000000; spamtraq = 0.5000000000(2004020202) X -MX- MAIL -FROM: <dan @ingalls.us> X -MX- SOURCE -IP: [209.228.32.135] X- MailScanner- Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X- MailScanner: Found to be clean Chris, Thank you for returning our call yesterday concerning the Obermeyer Project height variance. We want to be on the record as opposing any height variance. We are in Concept 600 unit #409, located right across the alley from the new proposed development. We were in Aspen last week and attended the Obermeyer open house. We believe their project is very attractive and will be a nice improvement to our neighborhood and Aspen. However, we believe that a height variance would set an undesirable precedent. A height variance would directly affect the views and values of all units in Concept 600. Sincerely, Dan and Alaine Ingalls 307 - 690 -7557 (Dan's cell phone) 303 - 690 -6289 (Foxfield, Colorado residence) Dan @)noalls.us AI_aine @In alg Is.us P.S. Ownership of Unit #409 is in Alaine's former name. If you have any questions, or wish to discuss our suggestions for mitigation measures, please feel free to contact us. file: //C: \DOCUME— 1 \chrisb \LOCALS I \Temp \eudl7.htm 2/3/2004 From Robert Mitchell, owner C -600 Unit 410 5934 Royal Lane, Suite 250 l6ekwlI Dallas, Texas 75230 FEe 0,1 2004 31 January 2004 R�Af �N (1' Lr S I1je✓i�an� �) C �Ip Dear fellow Concept 6 wners: jrn u ms Y914 cz� RE: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing now scheduled for noon on Wednesday 4 February 2004 at City Hall Thanks to those owners who have taken the time to study this matter and respond. Please let the Plan Commission know that you oppose the "... Development Amendment to accommodate additional height on portions of proposed structure..." requested by Obermeyer. The City of Aspen FAX is 970 - 920 -5439. The phone number of Chris Bendon, Senior Planner for the City of Aspen, is 970 - 920 -5090. The numbers for Don Shipp, the Aspen attorney who is representing some of us who cannot attend is: 888 -326- 7447; and his FAX is 970 - 927 -6633. As Kay and I will be out of touch while sailing from Nassau to Eleuthera when you get this, I am listing below a few of the knowledgeable owners who oppose the Obermeyer variance request for a higher building, for your information if you would like to discuss this with your neighbors. Ralph Doran, Unit 402, (cell 678 -575 -3234) who was C -600 President when over $10,000 in illegal fees was expended by C -600 to successfully oppose a similar height variance request across Main Street from us. Arlie Sherman, Unit 404, (480- 922 - 8167). Has called attorney Dan Shipp to represent him at the Wednesday hearing as he cannot come. Patsy Hicks, Unit 209, (808- 988 - 2279). One of our three residential Board Members who opposes the increased height (but not replacing our Board). She has tried to persuade the other Board Members to change their vote, and is actively supporting opposition to the variance. The owners of Unit 409, 970 - 925 -1225. They wonder why C -600's Board would support the increased height of Obermeyer's building without something in return. Briefly, the Obermeyer folks are advertising high ceilings and tall windows to support their $2 million dollar prices. Who is paying for their approximate 10' ceilings and higher sales price? You are, if you accept a taller building behind us than currently approved by the city. No one, and none of the correspondence to date, has shown this variance to be an advantage to C -600. Good judgment and common sense tells us to oppose money taken from our pockets to give Obermeyer a taller building and more profit. Would we had a president like past president, Ralph Doran, who protected us from this same sort of variance across Main Street — faithfully fulfilling his fiduciary duty to us. With very little time and work we've got two past presidents of C -600, those folks listed herein, and other owners who are opposed to the Obermeyer variance. I consider that were we given reasonable time (such as the legal notice time before a special or annual meeting) and proper legal notice by mail, the vast majority of residential owners would oppose a higher Obermeyer building. Those owners trusting in our current president's request for a straw vote from a few of us without proper notice and without any independent professional report, while parroting Obermeyer excuses, and voicing his personal opinion that "the variance request will slightly reduce the views of Red Mountain in a couple of spots" may regret it next year as they gaze up at whatever sky and mountain views remain, and remember they did nothing to keep themselves from being 20" deeper in a hole. Sincerely, MoberFMitchell Owner Unit 410 and a past president of C -600 Life Member American Society of Civil Engineers Encl: Form of proxy to send to Dan Shipp if you wish C January 15, 2004 To Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director We, who are directly affected by the building height in the Obermeyer Place project, wish to request sighting poles for the following area: The proposed building #3 along N. Spring St. in front of the Concept 600 building We want the poles to show the legal 35 ft. height, and also the proposed variance height of another 22 inches. We appreciate your help. Thank you, Diana Van Deusen ire- C/ 0 ,e�- Ed Van Deusen - 6 z 5 - q 344) �� J -cc ZS - Sbj� Debra Moore Gary Moore RECEIVED JAN 1 6 2004 BUILDING DEPb ATTACHMENT AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: y /�) ���y�� /j l f �jM�l%�CJ Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: /% / �Cf 200 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) 1, Cl L�l L6,71-, ]� L_ -� (-I / (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 fiftee (l 5) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached herko. 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 _ day of , 200_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26304.060(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 any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi - governmental agency that owns 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 has been available for public inspection in the planting agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. //6/gnature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged efore mei1this`j day of Dc- , 2003, by S 1 YYX� RE � NOT= MUNIT hTL- WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL OPMPf7T PUBLIC 4d'ARB4G NOTICE IS CJM that a public heating 13, 2003, at a L� will be on Tuesday. January My commission expires: t reetlng to begin ne 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen pistoling and 7,3E Comnds , ett Cities Rmmrs, City 11.11, 130 S. Gslom fit- , AsIree, M \ ( -� .........., •'• n swe. an.ppliestlm subalded by the Obermeyer - Redevelopment CMPnty requesting mpmval of Notary Public I.iH a Planned Chet Development Amendment to so- comnmdate addttlaW height unpoetlom d psa- posed strocinea wlthb the Obetmeyet Place , project to be developed along Poo Grande Place. The property is described sa all land between .... Pmmt Bleeker street and RAs Grande Place, all land ` C O,,— boreering Past Bleeker street between Spebg street and Rio Grande Platt, and portlmu of RID Grande Park. more precisely described = a tract .f land in the Pads Aspen 7bwnslte Addit on, tic- ATTACHMENTS ' cording to e plat thered recorded as Document th M. 108463 of the records of Pnkin County, MetH, Bed as Parcel No. 2737.073.24.003 according to the Pnk n c..nry Aaaesam ,nd known .a s4o COPY OF THE PUBLICATION East Main street. Glgnous yndn Subdivision Lob 1 and 2. Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9, Black 20, Pam Aspen Addlsna, Lots 6, 7, B, and 9 Ino GrmMe subdh4- UPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) ,ion, . tract of land identlBed as Parcel No. 2737. 073.00.040 according to the Pltkln Cooney Aasessur and m'o'an as 800 East ebeku Stese� a ,AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED tract of land Identified r Parcel No. 2737.073.00.041 according to the P[tldn County BYMAIL Assessor and known as S30 East Bleeker Street. that portion of Past sleeker Street Ngldo4wsy between spring Street and Rio Grande Place. that portion of Rio Gemde Park owned by the City Of Aspen accomnmdatleg sod affected by the Pltkin Cooney recycling operation and snow nidting W duty, tint pardon of Rio Grande Place rlglrto4 w.y between and bekdbg Its two Inlenectlone with Pmt Bkeher Street. and a pare.] of land owned by Pltkb County known as RAs Grande subd"ind fat gs, an located within the City d Aspen. Por further Fd. , eonbet Chris D ane an ne the City d, dty Devd^Pment peparinwm" I30 Aspen. CO (97d) 9205072, (.. by e4Npen mm). s/)eembe Tygre,Clnlr Aspen Planning and 7mdeg Commbabn Published In The Aspen Tknes on December 27. 2003.(1089) ATTACHMENT AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: vP �� �� ✓_ Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 200 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, \\ 0 vo' SQ.'S I _A LA Of � (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 fro 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 _ day of , 200_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. p Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in S ction 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 airy federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi - governmental agency that owns 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 Piticin 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) RETAIN FOR PERMANENT ISO= EXHIBIT J 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 has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. gnature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before m�thii b day oF. 200Y, by el A PLAPLACE PIN"U UNIT CE FLANN DUN HEARING . heatl.,& Y (jIPEN that a Public rag Tuesday February 3, 2004, M a meetlng begin at 4:30 p m. before the 'C PmxPlambig Zoning Commission, Sbter nelg' ,-.M Clty . 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, to co an aPPI ion submitted by the Ober. coyer °Retlesebpnttnt Company rarluce,ng ap- Proad at e Phaned Unit BeOelopment Amend men[ to acco%ntrtoda[e additlonal height on por -, dens If ProDOSed streeterea within the Obermey- 4 er Pyee pryect to be d -I.Ped along Me Grande Plate. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: Notary Public Qv`- ` •... The property h described as all land be- O C ��k U tweeo.Raid ; Beaker Street and Pit, Grande Place, 'y'; J di hKd baAerug. Fast Blakey Street between SDrug d Rb Street old Ru GraMe Plea. and Pouhoru (� Grade Pan15 more precisely described as: '•. a tract al kwd b e Fast •' Aspen Towmite Add4 ST. Tr "°^ g vht thereto recd clad a. ATTACHMENTS: Documea( No. d the records d Pitkin aa Cie rdi es Percel•No. 2737:073.24.003 oudieg [o, POgP County Aueeeor antl . COPY OF THE PUBLICATION Imorn a No s<.t,gaht scree. ca�dlre4.yMn Subdivuion Lna. `+gd 2.Lab `' $. and g, 9 Black Rise ,OGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) 20, Fast Aspen AdNtem Lots . 6.7.8, and 9 Rd Grande .Subdivi logy, a tvact of land iderttlBed as Parcel No. 2737.07,100,040 acc andbg in the POkln County I o- a � '� e SRS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED 2737.073.00.041 accang g to the Plllda Cnonty BY MAIL Aaxesor and known as S00 Fos! Bleaker Street, that Portbn It East Bleeiw Street r10, St way between Sluing Street. and Rio Grande Place, [hat portion of ft Grande Park owr,etl by the City of Aspen accomaopsiklg and allected by the PitNn County recycling apanatlon and snow melting h, cl4ty, that Portia[ d Rio Grade Puce rightof- w'ay bet —and. klelading ltd twd Intera ctlona with East Blang- Street, and a parcel a land Owned by PILM C(gnty, known as Poo Grande Subdb4alon "al *5, W located within the City of Aspen. contact Chris Bandon a�'` Aapen Community - DevdoPmeni ' 0epartmenL 130S. St.; Aspen, CO (970) 920507 � chrisbYSi ,<n i,n. ,,. s /Jgmir,e Tygre, Chair u 'wdzmwg Commssion Publ Aipnh Thais ne January 17, 2004. (1123). ATTACHMENT AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: EQ y4bWo �s b +D�n+w�t✓flc(w Aspen, ,,1CO1 aU SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: P-6 U69 I '3iAl , 2oo`t STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) 1, DW%r t jt1_ r-, LLOAUaD (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: fJ 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) Z ys 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 5) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the I(; day of 'SA�1J D�1 2004- , to and including the date and time of the public /hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. v Mailing 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 any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi - governmental agency that owns 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) RETAIN FOR PERMANEKT RECORD r ^� 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 has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all Asiness hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amend "'„ "`,YYYInt9a. T' Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 1_6_ day of 2004, by P"ae) ?ome(O WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL ��tCA C'O My Commission Expires, ���OSAq,% 0- My commission expires: n, guru 19 2005 .� :N / v �; A \G .op tary Pub � •. UBV,. r �r of coo ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY HAIL }, �� v� mss, %t�.��( � y y k 2 ■ju Smooth Feed Sheets TM AARON ROGER S & VIRGINIA A 45 BIRCHALL DR SCARSDALE, NY 10583 -0000 ARNOLD RICHARD S & KATHRYN J 1405 OAK FOREST DR ORMOND BEACH, FL 32174 -3407 BAYLESS GRANT J 7955 N 73RD ST LONGMONT, CO 80503 BOOHER ANDREA LYNN 709 E MAIN STREET #303 ASPEN, CO 81611 BULKELEY RICHARD C & JULIE J 801 JOY ST RED OAK, IA 51566 CD ASPEN PARTNERS LLC 112 N SPRING ST ASPEN. CO 81611 COULTER GAYLA W PO BOX L3 ASPEN, CO 81612 EISENSTAT ALBERT & CONSTANCE 358 WALSH RD ATHERTON,CA 94027 FALLIN PAT FINLEY 600 E MAIN ST #201 ASPEN, CO 81611 FOSTER MARTHA LEE LIVING TRUST 5000 COAKLEY BAY #N2 CHRISTIANSTED, VI 00820 -4561 ALESA HLDGS INTL LTD C/O RICHARD A KNEZEVICH 533 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 BAILEY MARCIA UNGREN 3215 TARRY HOLLOW DR AUSTIN, TX 78703 BECKWITH DAVID E QPRT C/O FOLEY & LARDNER 777 E WISCONSIN AVE MILWAUKEE, WI 53202 BORCHERTS ROBERT H AND BORCHERTS HOLDE H 1555 WASHTENAW ANN ARBOR, MI 48104 BULKELEY RICHARD C & JULIE J PO BOX 450 RED OAK, IA 51566 CITY OF ASPEN 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN. CO 81611 DAMERELL TRUST 8444 LIMONITE AVE RIVERSIDE, CA 92509 ELDEN RICHARD & GAIL M 2430 LAKEVIEW AVE - #115 CHICAGO, IL 60614 FICKE CLARK 15 W ARRELLAGA ST #3 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101 FRATERNAL ORDER OF EAGLES 700 E BLEEKER AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 w Use template for 51600 ARCHDIOCESE OF DENVER SAINT MARYS 1300 S STEELE ST DENVER, CO 80210 BAXTER DAVID A PO BOX 1112 CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 BERLIN JAMES & MADELINE L 1795 BROOKWOOD DR AKRON, OH 44313 -5070 BROUGH STEVE B BROUGH DEBORAH A 599 TROUT LK DR SANGER, CA 93657 CARISCH BROTHERS CARISCH THEATRES INC PO BOX 391 COLUMBUS, GA 31902 -0391 COPPOCK RICHARD P PO BOX 44 DEXTER, MI 48130 DORAN RALPH 2600 WOODWARD WAY ATLANTA, GA 30305 EMPHASYS SERVICES COMPANY 4400 N Al STE 1002 HUTCHINSON ISLAND, FL 34949 FLETCHER ALAINE S 17740 E HINSDALE AVE FOXFIELD. CO 80016 GERSCHEL CHRISTINE AUBALE PO BOX 2985 ASPEN, CO 81612 /�� AVERY® Address Labels Laser 51600 Smooth Feed Sheets TM Use template for 51600 GERSHMAN JOEL & ELAINE GOLDSTEIN BARRY J GREENBERG DEAN 120 N SPRING ST 950 S CHERRY #320 PO BOX 129 ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER, CO 80246 NEWPORT, MN 55055 HEYS MARIE L TRUSTEE HICKS GILBERT W & PATSY K HIGBIE FAMILY TRUST 2495 ADARE 3674 WOODLAWN TERRACE PL 729 E BLEEKER ST ANN ARBOR, MI 48104 HONOLULU, HI 96822 ASPEN, CO 81611 HOLLAND AND HART HOLTZ ABEL & FANA HUBBARD MICHAEL P DAVIDSON J W ATTN 169 E FLAGLER ST STE 1627 10503 SUNSET TERRACE PO BOX 8749 MIAMI, FL 33131 CLIVE, IA 50325 DENVER, CO 80201 HUNTER SQUARE LLC 90% HURST ROBERT J KALLENBERG JEFFREY D J 2900 LOS BALLINAS AVE 85 BROAD ST 30TH FLOOR 401 MARKET ST #500 SAN RAFAEL, CA 94903 NEW YORK, NY 10004 SHREVEPORT, LA 71101 KESSLER SEPP H & JANE LAMB DON Q JR LANCASTER JOHN L III 600 E MAIN ST #210 UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 901 MAIN ST STE 6000 ASPEN, CO 81611 5640 ELLIS AVE DALLAS, TX 75202 CHICAGO, IL 60637 LITTLE RIVER HOUSE LLLP MAESTRANZI BART MANN KATHLEEN A 99% C/O DENICE C REICH 1736 PARK RIDGE POINTE PO BOX 2057 1873 S BELLAIRE ST #700 PARK RIDGE, IL 60068 ASPEN, CO 81612 DENVER, CO 80222 MARASCO BERNARD J 6.1446% MARASCO EMILY A AK MEYER EMILY A MARCHETTI FAMILY LLC 1446% 320 DAKOTA DR 6. 1526 FOREST DR GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81503 21701 FLAMENCO GLENVIEW, IL 60025 MISSION VIEJO, CA 92692 MCCUTCHIN GENE P MCGAFFEY FAMILY & CO NO C MOORE GARY C & DEBRA J 14833 MIDWAY RD C/O JERE D MCGAFFEY ST SPRING ADDISON, TX 75001 777 E WISCONSIN AVE STE 3600 ASPEN, 233 N SPRI RI G ST MILWAUKEE, WI 53202 MURPHY GEORGE W OBERMEYER PLACE HOLDING CO LLC PFEIFER LINDA G & EUGENE M III PO BOX 4146 115 AABC 16300 CANTRELL RD ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72223 PITKIN COUNTY PITKIN COUNTY CAPTIAL LEASING R &R COMPANY 81.5662% 530 E MAIN ST STE 302 CORP 653 26 1/2 RD ASPEN, CO 81611 A COLORADO CORP GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 530 E MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 /1� AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® Smooth Feed Sheets TM REINGOLD ROBERT B INC 1187 COAST VILLAGE RD STE 1 -116 MONTECITO, CA 93108 ROSENFIELD LYNNE CARYN 709 E MAIN ST APT 203 ASPEN, CO 81611 -2059 SEID MEL 1104 DALE AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 SMITH GAILEN B PO BOX 241 SNOWMASS, CO 81654 STARMER MARY JOSEPHINE 6.1446% 12738 W 84TH DR ARVADA,CO 80001 VAN DEUSEN EDWARD BENJAMIN TRUSTEE VAN DEUSEN DIANA JEAN TRUSTEE 233 N SPRING ST ASPEN, CO 81611 WASKOW SUSAN A PO BOX 4975 ASPEN, CO 81612 III.Q\ RIVER PARK IN ASPEN CONDO ASSOC 730 E DURANT ASPEN, CO 81611 ROSS NEIL 100 S SPRING ST ASPEN, CO 81611 SHERMAN CAPITAL COMPANY 5840 E JOSHUA TREE LN PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253 SMITH JAMES F & N LINDSAY 6542 WESTCHESTER HOUSTON, TX 77005 STONE CATHY P & FRED B TRSTE 703 SUNSET DRIVE FAYETTEVILLE,AR 72701 VAN WALRAVEN EDWARD C 1% PO BOX 4913 ASPEN, CO 81612 Use template for 51600 RKJR PROPERTIES LTD 5954 ROYAL LANE SUITE 255 DALLAS, TX 75230 RYERSON PHOEBE MASSEY C/O LOREN RYERSON 501 WILLIAMS WAY ASPEN, CO 81611 SLADE STEVEN G 3900 ESSEX #101 HOUSTON, TX 77027 SQUIRES CARL E C/O WALTER R OBERMEYER 490 ASPEN OAK DR ASPEN, CO 81611 -2704 THRASHER EDWARD L JR 54967 TANGLEW OOD LA QUINTA, CA 92253 -4740 VIDAL C A C/O REAL ESTATE AFFILIATES PO BOX 2914 BASALT, CO 81621 5160® January 14. 2004 Obermeyer Place Neighbors Re: Obermeyer Project Amendment Dear Neighbors: ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPAK ENT The Obermeyer Redevelopment Company has requested an amendment of their Planned Unit Development approvals regarding the height of portions of proposed buildings within the project. The City Planning and Zoning Commission, an appointed volunteer regulatory board of the City, will be reviewing and voting on the amendment request. The public hearing has been advertised and noticed for February J`d at 4:1 0 p.m Due to other scheduled project reviews. the Commission will open and counnue the hearin <_ to Wednesdav February 4"' at noon in Citv Hall. The amendment request kill be presented and public comments will be taken at the Wednesday meetine. Please contact me if you have any questions about the amendment. 920.5072. Sincerely. 9 kt Chris Bendon. AICP Senior Planner City of Aspen BU SOLM GALE NA STRFET AIM%, COLOIWI 81611 -1975 PHONE 970.920.5090 FAX 970.920.5439 Ptlnad, n Reavded " "p ' PUBLIC NOTICE RE: OBERNIEYER PLACE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ANIEND:.MENT— PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday. February 3, 2004, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Room. City Halh 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, to consider an application submitted by the Obermeyer Redevelopment Company requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development Amendment to accommodate additional height on portions of proposed structures within the Obermeyer Place project to be developed along Rio .Grande Place. The property is described as all land between East Bleeker Street and Rio Grande Place, all land bordering East Bleeker Street between Spring Street and Rio Grande Place, and portions of Rio Grande Park, more precisely described as: a tract of land in the East Aspen Townsite Addition. according to the plat thereof recorded as Document No. 103153 of the rccords of Pitkin Count,.. identified as Parcel No. _737.073.24.00; according* to the Pitkin County Assessor and known as 540 East Main Street_ Gignous- Lynch Subdivision Lots 1 and 2. Lots b. 7. 3. and 9_ Brock 20_ East Aspen Addition. Lots 6, 7. S. and 9 Rio Grande SubdM lop, a tract or land identiLe as Plrce: No. A��: _ _ �u .__. ._ _ 'fl_iJ-tL :hat porticn �t __ '�ti: - 2g, . • e ^ :e �nr_ 'inc R JO l _ramCe Place DOC'_oP. JL R_o Grande Parli owned ,y :he C�.[ -, o Aspen accommodating and affected b %. the P_t'<:n Court recccling operation and snow me!" m,_a facility, that portion or Rio Grande Place r ght- of -wa.. between and including its wo intersections with East Bleeker Street, and a parcel of land owned bw Pitkin Counc< known as Rio Grande Subdivision Lot =5. all located within the City of A—k e For htrther information. contact Chris Bendon at the City- of Aspen Commurm% Development Department. 130 S. Galena St.. aspen, CO (970) 9 20 -50 -_. chxisb,dci.aspen.co.us. s /Jasmine Tvgre Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning, Commission Published in the Aspen Times on January 17. 1_004 City of Aspen Account CITY OF P 1EN GIS SALES 130 SOUTH GALLNA • ASPEN, CO 61611 970 920 -5453 GIS REVENUES ACCOUNT # 00160 - 00000 - 63465 Please make check payable to City of Aspen I i �h i M115 12326 Thank You MEMORANDUM TO: Tim Belinski, Obermeyer Redevelopment Company FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director COPY: Dwayne Romero, Obermeyer Redevelopment Company Don Carpenter, Obermeyer Redevelopment Company RE: Obermeyer Place PUD Amendment#4 DATE: November 21, 2006 M I have reviewed the provisions of Ordinance 18, Series of 2003 and Ordinance 18, Series of N m 2004 you wish to amend pursuant to Section 26.445.100, Amendment of a PUD Development � o a Order. The purpose of this amendment is to finalize various aspects of the project now that the project is near complete. All of the amendments you have identified are insubstantial and N consistent with the original approvals and with the criteria for insubstantial amendments. LO a m Accordingly, I am approving the amendments as described below: m 99W�o Ordinance No 18, Series of 2003 —Section 10: Replacement of Non-ConforminIZ Uses �>_ The spaces housing non-conforming uses within the project were programmed and developed oaccording to this provision of the entitlements. Based on slight construction variations in the z field, which are always expected, the exact square footage of non-conforming uses within the project is different that the limits established in the ordinance. The project still remains in conformance with the goals and objectives of this project regardless of this slight variation and there would be no public purpose served by removing the slight variations. Accordingly, 03 the total square footage of non-conforming uses shall be amended: From: Maximum of 5,197 square feet w To: Maximum of 5,300 square feet V Non-conforming uses are labeled on the First Supplemental Condominium Map recorded September 19, 2006, and recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder as Reception No. 528770. Ordinance No 18, Series of 2004—Section 1: Amended Project Dimensions A goal of the project was to maximize the space devoted to SCI uses (Service Commercial Industrial zoning). Therefore, the original ordinance specified a minimum amount of SCI square footage to be developed and the developer and project architect were directed to "find" and develop extra SCI space when possible above this minimum number. The extra SCI space would not trigger additional review or additional housing mitigation. The developer was able to develop this extra space. The project approvals now need to recognize this extra square footage and "finalize" the SCI space. In other words, the amount of SCI space cannot 1 A indefinitely expand without proper review and the applicable mitigation. Therefore, the SCI allowance for the project is hereby amended as follows: From: Minimum of 37,212 square feet net leasable To: Maximum of 49,389 square feet net leasable (includes conforming, nonconforming, and conditional uses) Part of the extra commercial space is in the form of additional mezzanine levels that may be developed by the individual commercial tenants within certain spaces. This mezzanine N m m allowance shall be considered a "right' that is assigned to the space and shall not require OD additional N 0 additional land use review or housing mitigation. These rights are specific to the identified d o units and cannot be transferred. Building permits and compliance with all building codes is mandatory. There are four (4) commercial condominium units, as shown below, which shall Ch LO 0- -m be allowed to construct a mezzanine level within their condominium units. The total allowable square footage differs from the area listed on the First Supplemental Condominium Map and this amendment shall prevail upon discrepancy. The individual owners of the commercial condominium units may choose to record an amendment to the condominium Y map of their unit after construction of the mezzanine. Filing of an amended condominium map shall be processed administratively by the City of Aspen. Y Address Condo Map Area Total Area Incl. Mezzanine •��a (SF) (SF) J -J 601 Rio Grande Place#101 3,564 5,189 _¢ 601 Rio Grande Place #102 707 1,434 601 Rio Grande Place#103 983 1,437 601 Rio Grande Place#121 834 1,449 �z A slight amendment to the amount of space devoted to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) uses within the project is necessary to recognize the manner in which the final unit layouts were developed. The allowable NC net leasable square footage shall be amended as follows: From: Maximum of 2,665 square feet+/- 5% To:Maximum of 2,900 square feet Development beyond the allowances described herein, whether it is mezzanine, SCI, NC, Residential, or otherwise, shall require additional land use review, as applicable at the time, and the applicable housing and/or other mitigations. Approval: I hereby approve the above-described amendments to the Obermeyer Place Subdivision and Planned Unit Development, finding the criteria for an insubstantial PUD amendment has been met. TV VD date�- �/C/Chris Bendon, A Community Development Director City of Aspen 2