Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.special.20060206 III THE CITY OF ASPEN February I, 2006 NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING At the request of Mayor Helen Klanderud, there will be a special City Council meeting Monday, February 6, 2006, at 5 p.m. meeting in the City Council Chambers, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado. The agenda for this meeting will be I. Ordinance # I, Series of 2006 - Limelite Final PUD Notices delivered to: Mayor Helen Klanderud Councilmembers Rachel Richards Torre J. E. DeVilbiss Jack Johnson City Manager Barwick City Attorney Worcester special.not 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET' ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 . PHONE 970.920.5000. FAX 970.920.5197 www.aspengov.com rrint~onRecydedPap~r MEMORANDUM TO: THRU: FROM: RE: Mayor Klanderud & City Council Chris Bendon, Community Development Director James Lindt, Senior Planner ~ L-- Second Reading of Ordinance No.1, Series of 2006- Limelight Lodge Final Planned Unit Development and Associated Land Use Reviews- Public Hearine:- Continued from 1/23 ~ DATE: February 6, 2006 PROJECT: LIMELIGHT LODGE REDEVELOPMENT REQUEST: The Applicants are reqnesting the appropriate land use approvals to redevelop the existing Limelite Lodge, Snl!wtlake Inn, and Deep Powder Properties, which would inclnde 1) a full demolition of the existing structures, 2) replacement with a lodge consisting of 125 rooms and 17 free market residential units. PROPOSED ZONING: Lodge Zone District with a PUD Overlay. LAND USE Final Planned Unit Development. Associated reqnests include Alley REQUESTS: Vacation, Rezoning to include a PUD Overlay, Subdivision, Wheeler Opera House View Plane Review, Commercial Design Standard Variances on the lodge building, and Growth Managemeut Review. STAFF Staff recommended that the City Council approve the ordiuance at the RECOMMENDATION: last meeting on 1/23. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Applicants, Limelite Inc and Limelite Redevelopment LLC, represented by Steve Szymanski, are requesting the appropriate land use approvals to redevelop the Limelite Lodge, Snowflake Inn, and Deep Powder Lodge properties into a traditional lodge consisting of 125 lodge rooms and seventeen (17) free market residential condominiums. LAND USE ACTIONS REQUESTED: The Applicants received conceptual PUD approval from City Council on August 9, 2005 as set forth in Resolution No. 50, Series of 2005 (attached as Exhibit "F" in the first reading packet). Therefore, the Applicants have applied for the following land use actions to entitle the redevelopment of the three (3) lodges located on the west side of South Monarch Street: . Final Planned Unit Development . Rezoning to include a PUD overlay on the site . Subdivision . Wheeler Mountain View Plane Review . Variances from Commercial Design Standards . Growth Management Review . Partial Alley Vacation The Applicants have requested and received consent from the Community Development Director to combine the review of all of the land use actions being requested pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.304.060(B)(1), Combined Reviews In allowing for the review of the land use requests to be combined, the Community Development Director made a finding that combining the review of the requested land use actions will ensure economy of time, expense, and clarity of the final decision on all of the land use actions being requested. Therefore, City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny all of the requested land use actions after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. BACKGROUND: At the last meeting on January 23'", City Council appeared to have many concerns about the proposed development plan and continued the review of the proposal. In continuing the review of the proposal, City Council asked the Applicants to look at amending the development plan to respond to the numerous concerns that were expressed by City Council. The Applicants have indicated to Staff that they are looking at the possibility of making changes to the development plan. However, given the short amount of time between the last meeting and this meeting, the Applicants were not able to provide a revised set of plans in the packet. Instead, the Applicants will present any changes that they make at the continued public hearing. ADDITIONAL REQUESTED INFORMATION: At the last hearing, there were a couple of requests for additional information from both Staff and the Applicants that are addressed in the following paragraphs. Additional Buildini!. Sections: Councilman Johnson asked for a north to south building section through the approved Dancing Bear development as it relates to the proposed development and a building section showing how the proposed development relates to the 210 E. Cooper multi-family housing complex.' The Applicants will provide these requested building sections at the continued public hearing since the proposed development may change since the last hearing. Tree Heii!.hts: Councilman Johnson also requested the information for the tree heights in the right-of-way along Cooper A venue in front of the existing Limelite South building. The Applicants have provided this information and it is attached as Exhibit "B". A !lev Pavini!.: Councilman Johnson requested that Staff provide discussion as to why the Dancing Bear Lodge across the alleyway from the southern portion of the proposed Limelight development was not required to pave the alleyway. In response to this request for information, Staff looked back at the Dancing Bear record of proceedings and land use casefile. Staff did not find any discussion at the City Council level about paving the alleyway during the Dancing Bear proceedings, but did find discussion at the Planning and Zoning Commission level (minutes are attached as Exhibit "C"). At the time the Dancing Bear was going through the review process, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) had been having discussions about whether it was appropriate to pave existing gravel alleys in the downtown area. The HPC at that time had concluded that they liked maintaining the gravel alleys that were in existence as a character preservation exercise. Related to the proposed Limelight development, the City Engineer believes that the level of additional traffic generated by the proposal that would be served by the alley would necessitate the paving of the alleyway so that it can be more easily plowed during the winter and so that dust would be suppressed when there is no snow on the ground. The Planning Staff agrees with the City Engineer's recommendation in this instance that the alley needs to be paved to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the proposal. Monarch Bulb-outs: Mayor Klanderud asked that Staff provide more detail on why the Planning and Zoning Commission did not like the corner bulb-outs (or elephant ears as they are sometimes described) along South Monarch Street. The Planning and Zoning Commission expressed that the bulb-outs were an unnecessary element of the streetscape that would not really further the pedestrian experience. It was also indicated that the bulb-outs would add an additional obstruction for motorists traveling in the area and are more appropriate for suburban development that does not have to respect the traditional City grid.. Conversely, Staff feels that the bulb-outs act as a traffic calming mechanism that slows motorists, thereby allowing easier ability for pedestrians to cross the street. Staff also believes that the bulb-outs tend to provide better visibility to pedestrians at the corners, which leads to less pedestrian/vehicle conflicts than you would find on a corner without bulb-outs. Dimensional ReQuirements: The proposed dimensional requirements for the plan reviewed by City Council on January 23rd are as follows (Dimensional Requirements required to be established from the underlying zoning through the PUD process are shaded): Dimensional Proposed Final Approved Underlying Zone Requirement PUD Dimensional Conceptual PUD District Requirements Dimensional Requirements Reuuirements Minimum Lot Size 6,000 SF 6,000 SF 6,000 SF Minimum Lot Width 60 Feet 60 Feet 60 Feet Minimum Front o Feet o Feet 10 Feet Yard Setback Minimum Side Yard o Feet o Feet 5 Feet Setback Minimum Rear Yard o Feet o Feet 10 Feet Setback Maximum Height Lodge: 46 Feet for Up to 46 Feet for Primary 38 feet for sloped roofs, Primary Roof Height, Roof Height, 50 Feet for 42 feet for flat roofs. 50 Feet for limited limited accent elements, accent elements, elevators, mechanical elevators, mechanical enc:losures,etc. enc:losures, etc. Residential: 42 Feet, measured from existing grade and 46 feet for elevator head enclosures, fireplace flues, and vent terminations. Minimum Percent 76% Maximum Site 75% Maximum Site 25% aDen SDace Coverage Coverage Allowable External 2.53:1 2.35:1 2.5:1 FAR Minimum Off-Street .4 Parking Spaces per .4 Parking Spaces per .5 Parking Spaces per Parking Lodge Unit Lodge Unit lodge bedroom 2 Parking Spaces per 2 Parking Spaces per I Parking Space per Residential Unit Residential Unit Residential Unit If the Applicants provide an amended proposal for Council's review at the hearing, Staff will have amended dimensional requirements available for Council's consideration at the hearing for inclusion in the proposed ordinance. ORDINANCE CHANGES: Staff has made a minor change to the proposed ordinance from the last meeting per the City Attorney's suggestion. The City Attorney requested that Staff add a section to the ordinance that specifies the legal description of the partial alley vacation that is requested and that provides the City's standard language related to vacating an alleyway, which requires the City Engineer to make corrections to the Official Map of the City and establishes that the alley vacation shall be vested pursuant to the applicable section of the Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.). The revised ordinance is attached as Exhibit "D". STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff has not received revised development plans that are different from those that were reviewed by City Council on January 23rd. The attached ordinance contains the dimensional requirements for the proposal that City Council considered at the January 23'" meeting. If changes to the development plans are presented at the hearing, Staff will be prepared to discuss the affordable housing implications of the changes and will have the dimensional requirement changes for Council to substitute into the proposed ordinance when considering a motion. As was stated at the January 23 '" meeting, Staff believes the project has the ability to further many of the community's lodging goals related to replenishing the tourist accommodations bed base with moderately sized units. Staff also feels that the changes that the Applicants made to their plans since the conceptual PUD approval was granted are consistent with the conditions of the conceptual approval. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously voted to approve Resolution No. 38, Series of 2005, recommending that City Council approve the Limelight Final PUD application and associated land use requests, finding that the application meets the review standards. However, as was described at the January 23'" meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission's support is contingent upon the Applicants reducing the overall height of the residential component of the development by between 10% and 15% from the plans that were reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. It should also be noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission did not support the corner bulb-outs along Monarch Street and that some of the Commissioners expressed concerns about the overall pattern of development in the City, but felt this application complied with the rules and review standards that the City currently has in place, contingent upon the height reduction requested by the Commission. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. I, Series of 2006, approving with conditions, the Limelight Final PUD and associated land use requests to construct 125 lodge rooms and 17 free market residential units on the Limelite Lodge, Deep Powder Lodge, Snowflake Inn properties, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado." ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A - REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS ON PROPOSAL REVIEWED ON 1/23 EXHIBIT B - MEMO ABOUT TREE HEIGHTS EXHIBIT C-- DANCING BEAR P & Z MINUTES ABOUT ALLEY PAVING EXHIBIT D-- REVISED ORDINANCE EXHIBIT E-LETTERS RECEIVED SINCE 1/23 MEETING EXHIBIT A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Review Criteria & Staff Findings In accordance with Section 26.445.050 of the Land Use Code, an application requesting conceptual PUD approval requires that the following review standards be met. A. General Requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding Staff feels that the proposal is consistent with and satisfies many of the lodging objectives established in the AACP. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development would aid in maintaining and adding to the City's inventory of moderately priced, short-term accommodations that have been severely declining over the past decade. Additionally, the properties subject to this application have been identified on the AACP's future land use map as being appropriate for lodging development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed lodge use is consistent with the character of uses in the immediate vicinity in that the properties are located in the Lodge District and many of the properties in the immediate area serve as short-term accommodations. Staff further feels that the moderately sized and presumably moderately priced units provide a good transition between the high end units in the Aspen Mountain Base area and the smaller, moderate lodging establishments located north of Durant A venue. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff finding Staff does not believe that the proposed request will adversely affect the future development of the surrounding properties. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 pun development plan review. Staff Finding As is described in the growth management implications section of this memorandum, the Applicants have proposed to mitigate for employee housing by providing one on-site affordable housing units, which would more than meet the mitigation requirements if City Council were to determine that an eight (8) employee credit from the lodge component of the development should be applied to the residential component of the proposed incentive lodge. That being said, the Applicants have applied for the appropriate growth management reviews in association with the final PUD application. Staff believes that sufficient growth management allotments exist for the proposed development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The fInal PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. 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. 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural and man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area .\"Uch 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 Staff feels that the proposed lodge use and associated free market residential development is compatible with that of the existing lodge and multi-family residential uses in the immediate vicinity. Additionally, Staff feels that the proposal preserves the important natural characteristics of the property in that many of the mature trees that exist on the site and adjacent to the site are to be preserved throughout the construction process. The Applicants have also proposed to improve the parking situation on the site and in the immediate vicinity by providing the proposed parking garages under both the lodge and residential portions of the development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity (!{ open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding The Applicants have proposed a maximum principal building height of forty-six (46) feet with a limited amount of accent elements that would top out at fifty (50) feet tall on the lodge building within the incentive lodge development. On the residential building, the Applicants are proposing to meet the maximum height limit for an incentive lodge in the Lodge Zone District. As was mentioned previously in the staff memorandum, the overall heights of the lodge PUD buildings approved in the immediate vicinity are primarily between 47 and 60 feet tall. The lodge PUD's that Staff is referring to include the St. Regis (lower 60's), the Mountain Chalet (51 feet), the Grand Aspen Hotel (46 feet), the approved Dancing Bear (46' 6"), and the Residences at Little Nell Conceptual PUD (47 feet). Therefore, StafI feels that the proposed height is consistent with that of other lodge PUD's in the immediate area. Additionally, Staff believes that the design included in the final PUD application is consistent with the conditions of the conceptual approval pertaining to height and massing that required the Applicants to look at reducing the height of the residential building to beneath the 42 feet as measured by the City Land Use Code. Staff also believes that the height and massing of the lodge building is consistent with the height and massing that was conceptually approved. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 The proposal calls for 125 lodging units and 17 free market residential units. The Applicants have proposed to provide fifty (50) parking spaces for the use of the lodge, which equates to a parking ratio of .4 parking spaces per lodging bedroom. Staff believes that the proposed parking ratio decreases the parking deficit on the parcels subject to the application. Staff feels that the parking proposed for the lodge is sufficient given the location of the development properties in close proximity to the Commercial Core, Rubey Park Transit Station, and the base of Aspen Mountain. Staff would recommend that the Applicants be required to provide a shuttle van and a fleet of bicycles for the convenience and use of guests to further promote alternatives to having a vehicle in town that requires a parking space. Staff is also recommending that the Applicants be required to market the transportation alternatives that Aspen has to possible visitors at the time of room bookings. The above recommendations have been included as conditions of approval in the proposed ordinance. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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. Staff Finding Staff believes that sufficient infrastructure capabilities exist to accommodate the proposed development. The adjacent public right-of-ways of South Monarch Street, East Cooper Avenue, and East Hyman Avenue are approximately seventy-five (75) foot right- of-ways and are already sufficient to accommodate the required fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance for the proposed development. The City of Aspen Fire Marshall, Streets Director, and a representative from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District have reviewed the proposal and have proposed conditions of approval to mitigate for any insufficiencies. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Spec(fically, 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 mudflow, 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 naturalfeatures of the site. Staff Finding Staff feels that the proposed site is suitable for development. The site IS already developed with existing lodge structures. Staff does believe that the proposed development will increase the amount of impervious surface on the sites; however, the City Engineer requires the Applicants to submit a drainage plan to ensure that the historic drainage rates will not be increased. In addition, Staff does not believe that the proposed development would enhance the possibility of mud flow, rock falls, or avalanche dangers. Staff also does not believe that the development will produce extensive negative impacts on the air quality within the City. Staff has proposed conditions of approval requiring transportation alternatives including a fleet of bicycles on-site for use by guests and employees and an airport shuttle service available to guests of the lodge. That being the case, the City Environmental Health Department has expressed that they are satisfied with the Applicants' PM-lO mitigation tactics. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Spec!flcally, 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 The Applicants are not requesting to increase the allowable density through the proposed PUD because no density requirement exists for lodge units in the underlying Lodge Zone District. Staff finds that this review standard is not applicable to the proposal. B. 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 ad;acent 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. Staff Finding The Applicants have proposed to preserve the many mature trees that exist along the south side of East Cooper A venue during the construction of the development. Additionally, the Applicants have proposed to save as many existing trees on the interior of the development site as possible. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve sign!flcant open spaces and vistas. Staff Finding There is only one building proposed on each of the two (2) development parcels. However, the site is located in the western extent of the designated Mountain View Plane from the Wheeler Opera House. For Staffs opinion as to whether the proposal meets the Wheeler Opera House Mountain View Plane Standards, please refer to the body of the staff memo for Staff s comments regarding the Wheeler Opera House View Plane issues. 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 Staff believes that the proposed application appropriately orients the structures towards the public right-of-ways that surround the development parcels to engage people's visual interest that are walking to the mall or other lodges in the area from the gondola plaza. Additionally, the facades of the lodge development are visually oriented towards Monarch St, East Cooper Avenue, and East Hyman Avenue. The facades of the residential development are primarily oriented towards South Monarch Street and East Cooper A venue. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposal situates access ways in a manner that allow for emergency vehicles to easily access the development parcels. In addition, the lodge development property is surrounded by seventy-five (75) foot public right-of-ways on the east, south, and north sides. The residential development property is surrounded by seventy-five (75) foot right-of-ways on the north, east, and west sides of the property. The Fire Marshall was consulted and believes that the proposal meets emergency access requirements with the conditions proposed in the attached ordinance. In order to satisfy the Fire Marshall's concerns about emergency access on the lodge building, the Applicants have put in a secondary emergency access to the parking garage that is located ofl' of the alleyway. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. Staff Finding The Applicants have consented to satisfying all pedestrian and accessibility requirements that exist. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposal does provide an increase in the amount of impervious land on the development parcels. The Applicants are required to submit a site drainage plan that has been designed in a manner that ensures that historic drainage rates will not be increased as a result of the proposed development. Staff has included a condition of ^.__,",",_~,,.,v.~v____...~~_.~.~~~_<,...-~~.,_..,_ approval in the attached ordinance requiring that the Applicants submit a drainage plan as part of the building permit application. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately de-signed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Finding The Applicants are not proposing to construct more than one structure on each of the development parcels. In addition, the Applicants have proposed a courtyard area as part of the lodge development that is to contain a swimming pool. This courtyard is to provide the recreational functions associated with the lodge use. Additionally, a terrace is proposed to be provided on the corner of South Monarch Street and East Cooper A venue that lodge guests can sit on an eat breakfast and drink coffee in good weather. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. 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 designed treatment of exterior spaces, preserving existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. Staff Finding The Parks Department is requiring that any proposed landscaping in the right-of-way be in compliance with the requirements for right-of-way landscaping that are set forth in the Municipal Code. The Parks Department has reviewed the proposed landscaping plan and believes that the species of vegetation proposed on-site are appropriate. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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. Staff Finding As was mentioned above, the Applicants have proposed to maintain the mature trees that exist along the south side of East Cooper Avenue. Staff feels that these trees are the most significant natural features on the site to be preserved. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding The Applicants have consented to following the recommendations of the City Forester in regards to protecting the mature trees to be preserved. That being the case, the City ""'"~~_'_.__.._ .____~ffl___'"'_____._~_,_w""',_____~_.__~_.....~~,_<."._... Forester has recommended that the Applicants install construction fencing around the drip line of any trees to be saved and to limit trenching for irrigation as much as possible. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Architectural Character: It is the purpose of this standard 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 .'paces 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 and 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 Please see Staffs comments related to the proposed massing in the response to PUD Review Standard B(2) above. 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 Finding The Applicants are considering geothermal, hydronic, and photovoltaic energy sources building HV AC purposes and for heating the pool/spa. Additionally, operable windows will be installed to allow for summer breezes to cool the units. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Accommodate the storage and shielding of snow, ice, and water in a safe an appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Finding The Applicants have proposed appropriate shielding of snow, ice, and water from the entrances to the lodge by providing awnings and canopies with snow guards over the entranceways. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Lighting: The purpose of this standard is 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 king to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding The Applicants are required to, and has consented to meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code for any exterior lighting that is proposed. Therefore, the proposed development will be lighted in a manner that will not provide direct glare on adjoining streets or property. The Applicants will be required to submit a detailed exterior lighting plan to the City Zoning Officer prior to building permit issuance. Staff believes that the Applicants' required compliance with the City Lighting Code ensures that the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standard.I' 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 Applicants have committed to meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code on the proposed development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area: ~f the proposed development includes a common park, open .Ipace, 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 .Ipace, 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. Staff Finding The Applicants are not proposing any common park or open space on the site. However, the Applicants are proposing the courtyard that is associated with the lodge development, which is to contain a recreational area with a swimming pool and sitting areas for hotel guests. The terrace area on the corner of East Cooper A venue and South Monarch Street will also provide visual relief from the built form on the site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 Finding The Applicants are not proposing any public common park or open space on the site. However, Staff has proposed a condition of approval that allows each residential owner access to the common open space within the residential portion of the development. Guests of the lodge will have access to the recreational facilities provided by the lodge development. Additionally, owners of the residential units will be afforded access to the lodge's amenities and common areas. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through 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 There is no proposed public open space or common park on the development parcels. However, provisions will be made in the PUD agreement to ensure the maintenance of the open space areas on both the parcel to contain the residential development and the parcel to contain the lodge development. Future development of any of the open areas would require review of a PUD amendment because this development is being reviewed as a site-specific development plan. Staff finds this criterion to be met. H. Utilities and Public Facilities: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose any 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. Staff Finding Staff believes that adequate public facilities exist to accommodate the proposal if the Applicants make the improvements required by the City Water Department and the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. Staff Finding The Applicants are required to upgrade sidewalk, curb, and gutter to meet the City Engineering Department's standards in conjunction with the proposed redevelopment. In addition, the Applicants will be required to mitigate for the existing trees to be removed trom the public right-of-way and install landscaping that meets the City's requirements. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Finding The Applicants are not proposing to install oversized utilities or public facilities and it is not anticipated that the Applicants will be required by the City to provide oversized utilities. StatI does not find this criterion to be applicable to this application. 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 and approved private road, a pedestrian way. or other area dedicated to public or private use. Staff Finding The Applicants have proposed to access the subgrade parking garage in the lodge development from East Hyman Avenue. During the conceptual PUD review it was determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council that E. Hyman is the most appropriate location to access the lodging building even though Staff had recommended that access be explored from the alleyway. The Applicants have proposed to access the underground parking garage in the residential development from the alleyway located directly south of the subject development parcel. This is the same alleyway in which the Dancing Bear Development has received approval to use in order to access their underground parking garage and that the Towne Place Condominiums use to access their existing parking. However, in reviewing the location of the proposed entry to the garage, it appears that the Applicants have located the entry in a manner that will not create traffic conflicts between vehicles entering and exiting the development and those utilizing the other parking accessed from this alley. Planning Staff, the City Engineer, and the Fire Marshall have reviewed the proposed means of vehicular access to the parking garages and believe that they are sufficient with the conditions that are proposed in the ordinance. Staff does not anticipate considerable queuing issues. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 finding Staff does not believe that the proposed vehicular access points and parking arrangement will create traffic congestion as was described in Staffs response to the previous criterion. Staff finds this criterion to be met. J. Phasing of Development Plan. The purpose of these criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. Staff Finding The Applicants are not proposing to phase the construction. However, Staff has proposed a condition of approval requiring that the Applicants obtain a certificate of occupancy on the lodge building prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy on any of the residential units. Staff finds this criterion to be met. REZONING REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, in reviewing an application for an amendment to the official zone district map, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider the following: I. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Staff Finding Staff feels that the proposed rezoning application in itself is not in conflict with the City Land Use Code. The proposed use of the property is as an incentive lodge, which is consistent with the allowed uses in the underlying Lodge (L) Zone District. The Applicants require rezoning simply to add a PUD overlay to the property. In addition, the Applicants have simultaneously proposed to establish the permitted dimensional requirements for the property through the PUD process in order to redevelop the property with an incentive lodge consisting of moderate lodge rooms. Staff believes this is consistent with the intent of the incentive lodge code language that is established in the land use code. Therefore, if the PUD is approved, the proposed dimensional requirements will be legal by virtue of obtaining approval of a site-specific development plan. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application to include a PUD overlay on the Limelight site is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. The future land use composite map that is included in the AACP establishes that the subject property is to be used as lodging or short-term accommodation, which is consistent with the incentive lodge use that is proposed. In addition, the subject property is located in close proximity to the amenities of the downtown core and the ski mountain as well as the transit center and is conducive to supporting the incentive lodge use of the property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with the surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding Staff feels that the proposed PUD overlay is compatible with the surrounding uses. Please see Staffs responses to the PUD review standards for Staffs finding on the compatibility of the proposed PUD with the surrounding land uses and developments. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding Staff does not believe that the proposed development will have a significant adverse effect on traffic generation and road safety. By reducing the parking deficit on the site, the traffic congestion in the area would be alleviated somewhat because patrons would not be circling the block in search of parking spaces as the application pointed out. In addition, the subject property is extremely close to the Rubey Park Transit Center, as well as, the commercial core, which is conducive to pedestrian travel. Furthermore, the property is within easy walking distance of Aspen Mountain and the ski lifts. This convenient location should provide for easy access to the amenities within the City and encourage the patrons of the Limelight to use other means of transportation while they are staying in Aspen. The Applicants have also proposed to market the ease and convenience of the public transportation system and the alternative transportation options available to guests at the time of room bookings. Staff feels that traffic generation and congestion will be kept to a minimal level because of all the traffic mitigation methods being required by the City. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Whether the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medicalfacilities. Staff Finding Staff does not believe that the proposal would exceed the existing capacity of public facilities. Staff has consulted the City Water and Electric Departments, and the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District and feels that for the most part, sufficient public facilities exist to accommodate the proposed development. Staff is requiring that the Applicants upgrade certain utilities and infrastructure related to the development as can be seen by reviewing the proposed conditions of approval. Staff finds this criterion to be met as long as the conditions of approval in the proposed ordinance are adhered to. 6. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning of the subject parcel to include a PUD Overlay will have a considerable adverse impact on the natural environment. The Applicants have proposed to mitigate for any additional vehicle trips generated, by methods deemed acceptable by the City Environmental Health Department. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character of the City of Aspen. Staff Finding Please see Staffs responses to the PUD review standards for compliance with the compatibility of the area and the community character of Aspen. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 8. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff finding Staff believes that there are changed conditions within the City of Aspen that support the proposed rezoning of the Limelight properties to include a PUD overlay. Rezoning the property to include a PUD overlay allows for the proposed incentive lodge development, which will help maintain 125 moderate, traditional lodge rooms within the City's lodging inventory. This development responds to the changed condition in the community that there has been a dramatic reduction in lodge beds over the past decade. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 9. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. Staff Finding Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning application in itself is in conflict with the public interest. Staff believes that the rezoning of the properties to include a PUD overlay will allow for the redevelopment of the properties as an incentive lodge that will maintain 125 moderate lodge units in the City's inventory, which Staff believes is in the public's interest to maintain Aspen as a viable resort community given the recent loss in short-term accommodations. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Subdivision Review Criteria & Staff Findings Section 26.480 ofthe City Land Use Code provides that development applications for Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements. A. General Requirements: I. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding Staff believes that many aspects of the proposed development are consistent with the Aspen Area Co~munity Plan. The sole reason that subdivision approval is required in this instance is because the Applicants are proposing an incentive lodge development that contains a residential component and a lodging component, which by definition is a subdivision under the City's land use code. Staff feels that subdividing the properties to allow for the multi-family residential units to be constructed within the proposed incentive lodge development is consistent with the intent of the incentive lodge code amendments that came about as a goal of the AACP. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Staff Finding Please see Staffs response to PUD review standards B(l)(a) and B(2). Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Staff Finding The sole reason that subdivision approval is required in this instance is because the Applicants are proposing an incentive lodge development that contains a residential component and a lodging component, which by definition is a subdivision under the City's land use code. Staff does not believe that the proposed subdivision of the property will adversely affect the future development of the surrounding areas. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed subdivision is in compliance with all the applicable requirements of the Land Use Code as long as the establishment of the dimensional requirements being proposed in the PUD section of this application are approved by City Council. Staff finds this criterion to be met as long as the PUD section of the application is approved in conjunction with this subdivision request. B. Suitability of Landfor Subdivision a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. Staff Finding The subject site is currently developed and is not located in an area of geological hazard that would put the inhabitants in of the proposed development at risk. In addition, staff does not believe that the proposal will require duplication or extension of public facilities. Staff finds these criteria to be met. C. Improvements. The improvements setforth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. Staff Finding The Applicants will be required to meet the applicable City Agency requirements for site improvements such as landscaping; sidewalk, curb, and gutter; and sewer line improvement. Staff believes that these criteria to be met. D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. StafIFinding The Applicants have concurrently applied for growth management review to develop an incentive lodge. Please see Staff s responses to the review standards for growth management review for an incentive lodge contained herein. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards setforth at Chapter 26.630. Staff Finding Staff has required a condition of approval that requires the applicable school land dedication fee to be paid by the Applicants prior to building permit issuance. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH-PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44-2001,92) Staff Finding The Applicants have concurrently applied for the required growth management review to construct an incentive lodge. Please see Staffs responses to the growth management review standards contained herein. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Mountain View Plane Review Criteria & Staff Findings No development shall be permitted within a mountain view plane unless it is determined that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided below. When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable building height otherwise provided for in this title, development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445 as a planned unit development, so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian space, and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height requirements, view plane height limitations. The Planning and Zoning Commission may exempt any developer from the above enumerated requirements whenever it is determined that the view plane does not so effect the parcel as to require application of PUD or that the effects of the view plane may be otherwise accommodated. When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane, and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re-open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane, and re-redevelopment to re-open the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall approve the development. Staff Finding Staff believes that a portion of the proposed development is located within the designated Wheeler View Plane as was discussed as part of the conceptual PUD at length. However, Staff feels that the Wheeler View Plane has already been infringed upon by several other structures that exist to the southwest of the proposed development such as the Lift One Condominiums and the South Point Condominiums. The Southpoint and Lift one condominiums are both three to four story buildings that are located on land that is at a higher elevation than the land on which this project is proposed and already impede on the designated view plane in much the same location where this project would impede on the view plane. That being said, Staff does believe that the proposal will further impede on the designated view plane to an extent, but that the portion of the view plane that will be further impacted is simply a stand of trees on the western extent of Aspen Mountain and is not the major focus of the designated view plane. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion to be met. ..__.._~,._-,--_.._",~- COMMERCIAL DESIGN VARIANCES REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS In reviewing a variance from the commercial design standards, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall grant a variance if the following review standards are satisfied: I. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial Design Standards or any deviation from the Standards provides a more-appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the Standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested Design Elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the Standards. 2. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial Design Standards, to the greatest extent practical. Amendments to the far;ade of the building may be required to comply with this section. Staff Finding The Applicants are requesting two variances from the Commercial Design Standards. First, the Applicants have requested a variance to allow for the vehicular access to the parking garage for the lodge building to provided from E. Hyman Avenue rather from the alleyway as the Commercial Design Standards require. During the conceptual PUD review, the Planning and Zoning Commission had significant discussions about the access for the lodging building and was determined that access from E. Hyman was more appropriate than access from the alleyway because of the traffic conflicts that would arise from guests maneuvering through the alley onto South Aspen Street, which is a major bus route. Therefore, Staff believes that proposed access is configured such that it provides a more appealing access configuration from a safety point of view. The second variance that the Applicants are requesting is from the requirement for pedestrian amenity. The Applicants are requesting that the pedestrian amenity requirements be reduced down to ] 0% as is allowed by the code since they are proposing to install corner bulb-outs along Monarch Street adjacent to both lodge and residential buildings to enhance the pedestrian streetscape along Monarch Street. Staff believes that the bulb-outs are of value to the community and warrants the requested reduction. The Applicants have further proposed to pay a cash-in-lieu fee for a large portion of the 10% requirement as is allowed by the code. Staff has included a condition of approval requiring the cash-in-lieu payment at the time of building permit submittal. StatT finds these criteria to be met. ............~"..'"""---..._---- GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR INCENTIVE LODGE REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470(C)(3), Incentive Lodge Development, in reviewing a growth management application for incentive lodge development, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider the following: a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the expansion, pursuant to Section 26.470.030(D), Annual Development Allotments. Staff Finding There are currently enough annual development allotments remammg for 2005 to accommodate the approval of the seventeen (17) residential allotments that are being sought by the Applicants. Currently, there are eleven (11) residential development allotments that have been approved and a total of thirty-seven that are allowed in a year. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding As was discussed in Staffs responses to the PUD review standards, Staff believes that the proposal satisfies many of the lodging goals established in the AACP by maintaining 125 moderate lodge rooms in the City's short-term accommodations inventory. Please see Staff response to the PUD review standards for more information on the application's compliance with this criterion. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c) The project contains a minimum of one lodge unit per five hundred (500) square feet of Lot Area and these lodge units average five hundred (500) square feet or less per unit. These two standards (the density standard and the unit-size standard) may be varied in some cases according to the limitations of the zone district in which the project is developed and still meet this criterion. (See zone district requirements.) Units developed in excess of those necessary to meet the Lot Area standard shall not be required to meet the average-size standard. For the expansion of a lodge which is not being demolished/redeveloped and which does not currently meet the Lot Area standard, only the average unit-size standard of the new units shall be required in order to meet this criterion. Projects not meeting the density or unit-size standard shall be reviewed pursuant to 26.470.040.C.2 - ExpansionlNew Commercial, Lodge, or Mixed Use Development. Staff Finding The proposed development contains one lodge unit per 515 square feet of lot area and average 489 square feet each. As is described in the application, the Applicants had to remove several lodge units during the conceptual PUD review at City Council's request to make the massing of the lodge building acceptable. The majority of the Council members indicated that removing the units was beneficial to the design and felt that it was appropriate to allow for the Applicants to still get the growth management and dimensional requirement incentives afforded to an incentive lodge. That being said Staff finds this criterion to be met if City Council grants relief from the density requirement in the associated PUD request. d) Associated free-market residential development, as permitted pursuant to the zone district in which the lodge is developed, shall be allocated on a unit basis and attributed to the annual development allotment. Each unit shall require the provision of affordable housing mitigation by one of the following methods: i) Providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or a Carriage House for each residential unit pursuant to Section 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses. The unit need not be detached or entirely above grade to meet this criterion. ii) Providing on-site or off-site Affordable Housing Units equal to 30% of the free-market residential units (on a unit basis). The affordable housing units shall be one-bedroom or larger and be provided as actual units (not as a cash-in-lieu payment). Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Section 26,470. 040. C. 7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. Provision of affordable housing mitigation via units outside of the City of Aspen shall require approval from City Council, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.D.2. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. iii) Paying an affordable housing cash-in-lieu fee normally associated with exempt single-family and duplex development, pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Notes: The City encourages the affordable housing units required for the free-market residential development to be associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. An efficiency or reduction in the number of employees required for a lodge component of a Incentive Lodge project may be approved as a credit towards the mitigation requirement for the free-market component of the project, pursuant to Section 26.470.050.A.I - Employee Generation. Staff Finding As was discussed in this memorandum, the Applicants believe that they should be afforded a credit of eight (8) full-time employees from the lodge component of the development applied to the required affordable housing mitigation for the residential component of the development due to the anticipated reduction in employees need to operate the new lodge related to the amount required to operate the existing lodges. That said, the Applicants have proposed to provide one on-site affordable housing unit after the credits are applied to the residential component. Staff has reviewed the proposed mitigation and believes that it is acceptable as long as an employee audit is conducted after 2 years of operations on the new lodge to determine that the new lodge indeed only requires 40 full-time employees to operate. If the audit shows that the new lodge requires more than the 40 FTEs to operate, the Applicants would be required to mitigate 30% of the full-time employees over 40 FTEs. The Housing Board reviewed the request and agreed with the Planning Staffs analysis. Staff finds this criterion to be met. e) Thirty (30) percent of the employees generated by the additional lodge, timeshare lodge, exempt timeshare units, and associated commercial development, according Section 26.470.050.A, Employee Generation Rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof. On-site affordable housing units shall be one-bedroom or larger units. Employee mitigation shall only be required for additional development and shall not be required for replacement development. The Planning and Zoning Commission may consider unique characteristics or efficiencies of the proposed operation and lower the mitigation requirements pursuant to Section 26.470.050.A.l - Employee Generation. Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470. 040. C.7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. Provision of affordable housing mitigation via units outside of the City of Aspen shall require approval from City Council, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.D.2. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. Staff Finding As has been discussed in this memorandum, the Applicants believe that there will be reduction in the number of FTEs needed to operate the new lodge due to the efficiency gains of the putting all the units into one building and having new, up-to-date equipment. Staff has included a condition about an employee audit as is discussed in Staff s response to the preceding standard. Staff finds this criterion to be met. f) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services. Staff Finding The City's utility agencies, the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the Fire Marshall, and other impacted agencies have reviewed the development proposal and believe that the public improvements required in the attached ordinance are necessary to mitigate the demand on the public infrastructure. Staff finds this criterion to be met if the conditions of approval are adhered to. GROWTH MANAGEMENT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS Section 26.470.040(C)(7), Affordable Housing, of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications must comply with the following standards and requirements. a. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the new units, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.C, Development Ceiling Levels. Staff Finding Affordable housing units do not have an annual allotment cap and the City's inventory of affordable housing still contains significantly less units than the development ceiling of 2,428 affordable housing units. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion to be met. b. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding Please see Staff s responses to the PUD criteria. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed affordable housing unit meets the requirements of the affordable housing guidelines, with the exception that the Housing Board has waived income and asset requirements. Staff finds this criterion to be met. d. Affordable Housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City of Aspen city limits. Units outside the city limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to 26.470.040 D.2. Provision of affordable housing through a cash-in-lieu payment shall be at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. Staff Finding The Applicants have proposed to provide one on-site affordable housing unit as employee housing mitigation as has been described throughout this memorandum. Staff finds this requirement to be met. e. The proposed units shall be deed restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. In the alternative, rental units may be provided if a legal instrument, in a form acceptable .to the City Attorney, ensures permanent affordability of the units. Staff Finding The Applicants has requested that the deed restricted unit be a Category 2 rental unit rather than a "for sale" unit. Staff has proposed a condition of approval requiring that the Applicants deed 1/1 Olh of 1 percent of an ownership interest in the affordable housing units to ensure that the units will remain affordable. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Page I of I Ex?l,'kJJ} \~I/ James Lindt From: Robin Schiller [rschiller@ccyarchitects.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 25,20062:13 PM To: James Lindt Subject: Limelight trees Attachments: SDOC1240.jpg; ATT11443.htm James - In the hearing Monday, Jack asked for specific hI. info on the existing spruce trees, and JE remarked that the numbers we showed on our exhibits differ from ones he claimed you had sent him. Attached is a copy of an e-mail I sent you back in November. The heights it stated, 64' for the tallest tree, 57 ' for the next taller, are the same as we marked on our exhibits. These heights were measured by putting a man in a borrowed cherry picker and dropping a tape to the ground. As such we believe they are sufficient for the purpose of stating that the trees are taller than a 42' buildng. Thank you, Robin 1/25/2006 Ex [,1 I'h II lie/I {~1~I)_r;:1-~iJ.~_-~:1i.~'i~'flT~r ('~ 8:,~~:(;I'i~tiS~~_f~ Q r/D'/II~~~IQ.r::L:JVJ~,X: 1! ~,) [vI '~I~, >:.~_1 fL? J D3. with the people prior to their arTi val Ftorn brochLlle~ and floor phms plus there would be staff to bring in the luggage. Johnson asked if the alley was stil1 dirt. Lindt replied that it was and the city has not adopted a policy at this time: HPC was opposerl to paving. Haas stated that the only condition tnat was given was to provide a concrete apron where the alley meets the sidewalk so that dirt wasn't tracked out of the alley. Brown said that they would be willing to enter into an improvement district for sidewalk, curb and gutter. Johnson stated that the study mentioned the exclusivity of the project. Brown replied that was fairly consistent with other timeshares for privacy and exclusivity was something many ofthe buyers wanted. Brown stated that the timeshare regulations demand non-exclusivity and rent out to the public; they were willing to conform to the rules and hopeful1y the market will be able to fill the units. Brown stated that it wasn't in their best interest to be non-exclusive; Snowmass and other areas did not have the ordinance that Aspen does. Johnson asked how lodge preservation was determined. Lindt replied that any property that has historically operated as a lodging establishment was eligible for the LP Overlay to prevent those properties from going over to a residential use or allow for expansion to bring back part of the bed base. Haas explained the conditions for rezoning to LP were to protect small lodges on properties historically used for lodge accommodations, to permit redevelopment to accommodate lodge and affordable housing uses, to encourage development which is compatible with the neighborhood in respect to the manner which has historically operated and to provide an incentive for existing lodges on site or adjacent properties. Haas said that everyone previously wanted to develop free-market townhomes on this property; the 23-unit lodge could convert to 3 townhomes with a use by right. Haas said that they were preserving a lodge use on this property. Johnson asked why the income asset restriction was waived for the employee housing. Ohlson replied that was for more flexibility for the lodge employees to be placed in those on-site housing units. Johnson said that there were several good faith efforts addressed for the LEAD, hybrid autos and bike fleet; he asked how the new owners would address these efforts. Lindt replied that it was addressed in condition #21 in Resolution #6 as part of their PM-lO mitigation plan. Johnson asked about the 25% open space requirement in relation to the project's 'r.. proximity to Wagner Park and the Cooper Street Mall as amenities. Haas replied that they have done a trade-off because of what someone typical1y thinks of as 6 bXtr I !rJ;') \~ 1/ ORDINANCE NO.1 (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE LIMELIGHT LODGE FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND ASSOCIATED LAND USE REVIEWS TO CONSTRUCT 125 LODGE ROOMS AND 17 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS ON THE LIMELITE LODGE, DEEP POWDER LODGE, AND SNOWFLAKE INN PROPERTIES, DESCRIBED. AS THE EASTERNMOST 10 FEET OF LOT C, LOTS D-I AND LOTS O-S, BLOCK 76, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, AND LOTS A-I, BLOCK 77, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2737-182-19-001 Parcel No. 2737-131-05-001 Parcel No. 2737-182-18-001 Parcel No. 2737-073-42-001 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Limelite Inc. and Limelite Redevelopment LLC, owners, represented by Steve Szymanski, requesting approval of a Final Planned Unit Development, Partial Alley Vacation, Rezoning, Subdivision, Wheeler Mountain View Plane Review, Residential Design Standards Variances, Commercial Design Standard Variances, and Growth Management Review, to construct 125 lodge units and seventeen (17) free market residential dwelling units on the properties described as the easternmost 10 feet of Lot C, Lots D-I and Lots O-S, Block 76, of the City and Townsite of Aspen and Lots A-I, Block 77, City and Townsite of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the subject properties contain approximately 64,000 total square feet and are located in the Lodge Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined in consultation with the Applicants that it would be appropriate for the review of all of the land use requests associated with the final PUD application to be combined with the review of the final PUD application to ensure clarity in the final decision pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.304.060(B)(l), Combined reviews; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445, Planned Unit Development, the City Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a Final Planned Unit Development request during a duly noticed public hearing after taking and considering comments from the general public, and recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission, Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 6, 2005, the Planning and Zoning Commission continued the review of the proposal to December 13, 2005; and, hereby rezones the Limelite Lodge, Deep Powder Lodge, and Snowflake Inn properties to include a PUD overlay. Section 3: Subdivision/PUD Plat and Ae:reement The Applicants shall record a subdivision agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480 within 180 days of approval. Additionally, a final SubdivisionlPUD Plan shall be recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office within 180 days of the final approval and shall include the following: a. A final plat meeting the requirements of the City Engineer and showing: easements, encroachment agreements and licenses (with the reception numbers) for physical improvements, and location of utility pedestals. b. An illustrative site plan of the project showing the proposed improvements, landscaping, parking, and the dimensional requirements as approved. c. A drawing representing the project's architectural character. d. A final grading and drainage plan. e. A final utility plan. Section 4: Buildine: Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final Ordinance and P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval from the Parks Department Director for off-site replacement or mitigation of any removed trees. The tree removal permit application shall be accompanied by a detailed landscape plan indicating which trees are to be removed and new plantings proposed on the site. e. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan and snow storage runoff plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 5- year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. 1'. A final construction management plan pursuant to the requirements described in Section 6 of this ordinance. g. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department. h. An excavation/stabilization plan prepared by a licensed Engineer. Section 5: Dimensional Requirements The dimensional requirements established in this PUD are as follows: Dimensional Approved PUD Requirement Dimensional Requirements Minimum Lot Size 6,000 SF Minimum Lot Width 60 Feet Minimum Front o Feet Yard Setback Minimum Side Yard o Feet Setback Minimum Rear Yard o Feet Setback Maximum Height Lodge: 46 Feet for Primary Roof Height, 50 Feet for limited accent elements, elevators, mechanical enclosures, etc. Residential: 42 Feet, measured from existing grade and 46 feet for elevator head enclosures, fireplace flues. and vent terminations. Minimum Percent 76% Maximum Site Ooen Soace Coverage Allowable External 2.42: I FAR Minimum Off-Street .4 Parking Spaces per Parking Lodge Unit 2 Parking Spaces per Residential Unit Section 6: Construction Manae:ement A construction management plan shall be submitted with the building permit application that meets the requirements of the current "Components of a Construction Management Plan" handout that is available in the City of Aspen Building Department. The construction management plan shall include at a minimum, a construction parking plan, a construction staging and phasing plan, a construction worker transportation plan, a plan for accepting major construction-related deliveries with estimated delivery schedule, the designation of haul routes, and an agreement with the City to participate with other neighboring developments under construction to limit the impacts of construction. This agreement shall be prepared by the developer and accepted by the Community Development Director. As part of the construction management plan, the developer shall agree to require all dump trucks hauling to and from the site to cover their loads and meet the emission requirements of the Colorado Smoking Vehicle Law. Any regulations regarding construction management that may be adopted by the City of Aspen prior to application for a building permit for this project shall be applicable. The construction management plan shall also include a fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed by the City Engineering Department that includes watering of disturbed areas (including haul routes, where necessary), perimeter silt fencing, as-needed cleaning of adjacent right-of-ways, and a representation that the City has the ability to request additional measures to prevent a nuisance during construction. A temporary encroachment license is required for use of the City's right-of-way for construction purposes. The Applicants shall not be allowed to close Monarch Street during construction except when doing utility work in Monarch Street and constructing corner bulb-outs. The Applicants shall coordinate with the Roaring Fork Transit Agency (RFTA) and the City to schedule a closure of Monarch Street. Street closures concurrent with significant public events in Wagner Park shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible. Additionally, the Applicants shall not be allowed to close off and use the western 10 feet of South Monarch Street for staging through the entirety of the construction process as was proposed in the application, but rather the Applicants can do so subject to a temporary encroachment license for periods of time not to exceed three (3) months. The Applicants shall also provide phone contact information for on-site project management to address construction impacts to: The City of Aspen, the 210 E. Cooper Condominiums, the Park Central Condominiums, the Park Central West Condominiums, and the Towne Place of Aspen Condominiums. Section 7: Pre-Construction Meetine: The Applicants shall conduct a pre-construction meeting with the City Community Development Staff prior to submittal for a building permit application. This meeting shall include the general contractor, the architect producing the construction drawings, the Community Development Engineer, a representative of the City Building Department, and the Community Development Department's case planner. Section 8: Fire Mitie:ation The Applicants shall install a fire sprinkler system and alarm system that meets the requirements of the Fire Marshall in both the residential and lodge developments. The water service line shall be sized appropriately to accommodate the required Fire Sprinkler System. The Applicants' design team shall meet with the Fire Marshall to formulate a plan for fighting fires in the below-grade parking garage structures prior to building permit submittal. Section 9: Water Department Requirements The Applicants shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. The Applicants shall also enter into a water service agreement with the City and complete a common service line agreement for the residential units. Each residential unit shall have an individual water meter but the Applicants will be required to pay only one tap fee for the residential unit building and one tap fee for the lodge building. Section 10: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Requirements The Applicants shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains) to ACSD lines shall be allowed. Oil and sand separators meeting the ACSD's requirements shall be installed in each of the parking garages. In addition, the driveway entrance drains shall drain to drywells and elevator shaft drains shall drain through an oil and sand separator. One tap to the main sanitary line is allowed for each of the buildings within the development. No soil nails shall be allowed in the public right-of-way above ACSD main sewer lines. The Applicants shall enter into a shared service line agreement. Glycol and snowmelt shall have containment areas approved by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. Section 11: Sewer Line Relocation The Applicants shall fund the relocation of the main sanitary sewer line that serves the Prospector Lodge. Section 12: Transformer Relocation The Applicants shall relocate the existing transformer onto their property. The location for the transformer shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to installation. The Applicants shall dedicate an easement to allow for City Utility Personnel to access the relocated transformer for maintenance purposes. Section 13: Growth Manae:ement Implications and Emplovee Housine: Mitie:ation The Applicants shall provide a I-bedroom affordable housing unit, deed restricted as a Category 2 rental unit to satisfy the affordable housing mitigation requirement of .5 affordable housing units (mitigation requirement calculated after providing an 8 FTE credit from the lodging component to the residential component of the incentive lodge development and based on the assumption that 40 FTEs will be needed to operate the new lodging component as is more fully described in Section 14 below). Income and asset restrictions from the Aspen/Pitkin Affordable Housing Guidelines shall be waived. The Applicants shall convey a 1/10 of I percent, undivided interest in the affordable housing unit to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy on any portion of the development. The Applicants shall file the deed restriction on the affordable housing unit in conjunction with filing a condominium plat for the property and prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on the affordable housing unit. .-.-.-_~--.._~._.~,_.~"...>_.,...""...~~~.~-~~...~~--- An employee audit on the lodge component of the development shall be conducted after two full fiscal years from the date of issuance of the certificate of occupancy to verify that only 40 FTEs are needed to operate the new lodge, pursuant to the following terms: a. The Applicants shall provide an up-to-date report on the current employees at the time of final plat. b. The Applicants shall retain an auditor and shall gain prior approval from the Housing Office Operations Manager for the selection of the auditor. c. The Applicants shall be fully responsible for all fees associated with retaining an auditor. d. The audit shall occur after two full fiscal years of operation. Section 14: Lode:e Emplovee Audit Should the housing audit referenced in Section 13 indicate that the new Limelight Lodge is employing more than the forty (40) full-time employees (the Limelite Lodge, Deep Powder Lodge, and Snowflake Inn to be demolished had 48 full-time employees prior to consolidating ownership, of which 8 FTEs shall be credited to the free-market residential component in order to lower its employee housing mitigation requirement to the .5 of an employee housing unit required in Section 13 above) that are anticipated to operate the new lodge, the Applicants shall return to the Housing Authority under the following terms: a. The Applicants shall provide deed restricted, affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof to mitigate for 30% of the additional employees above 40 full-time employees. b. The Applicants shall abide by the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines in effect at the time of the audit. c. The term employee shall include all full-time payroll and non-payroll employees generated by the application. Section 15: Deep Powder Relocation The Applicants shall pay $20,000.00 towards, schedule, and supervise the relocation of the two (2) oldest deep powder cabins to a site provided by the City. The landing site of the cabins shall be identified by the City in a timely manner to allow for the relocation of the cabins on or around May I, 2006, to accommodate the demolition plans of the Applicants. Section 16: Landscapine: The Applicants shall submit a detailed landscaping plan as part of the building permit application. This landscaping plan shall include a plan for right-of-way landscaping and irrigation without trenching under the roots of trees to be preserved to the extent possible. If trenching is necessary it shall be done by hand. The plan shall also include a parkway landscaping strip adjacent to all abutting public streets of at least five (S) feet in width. Appropriate street tree plantings are required along all streets adjacent to the property. The Applicants shall preserve the existing Cottonwood tree located on the corner of South Monarch Street and East Hyman Avenue and the large Cottonwood tree that exists between the Deep Powder Lodge and the Limelite South Building that were slated for removal in the conceptual PUD application. Additionally, the stand of large Spruce trees located to the north of the existing Limelite South Building shall be thinned for health and preserved. The Applicants shall also install tree saving construction fences around the drip line of any trees to be saved subject to the following provisions: a. The City Forester or his/ber designee must inspect this fence before any construction activities commence. b. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction equipment, construction backfill, foot or vehicular traffic shall be allowed within the drip line. The Applicants shall also remove the three (3) conifers located adjacent to the proposed parking garage entrance to the lodge building along East Hyman Avenue. A 2-year maintenance bond shall be secured by the Applicants for any trees to be preserved in which there will be planned excavation within or adjacent to their driplines. Section 17: Pedestrian Amenity The Pedestrian Amenity requirement is hereby reduced to 10% (approximately 3,700 square feet) of the site's square footage because the project will have a positive contribution to the pedestrian environment pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.4l2.060(B)(6), Pedestrian Amenity. Of the 10% pedestrian amenity requirement, the Applicants are proposing to provide pedestrian amenity for 1.5 % (approximately 550 square feet) of the site and pay cash-in-lieu for the remainder of the requirement. Therefore, the Applicants shall pay a cash-in-lieu of providing pedestrian amenity in the amount of $157,250.00 prior to building permit issuance. Section 18: PM-I0 Mitie:ation The Applicants shall execute the tollowing methods ofPM-1O mitigation: a. Sell the residential units with only one parking space per unit and require that purchasers of a unit be required to purchase a second space at an additional cost. b. Provide free RFTA bus passes to employees that live outside the City of Aspen. c. Advertising to potential guests that a personal or rental car is not necessary due to the extensive public transportation system. Section 19: Corner Bulb-Outs The corner bulb-outs shall contain tapered curb lines of 15 degrees leading into the corner bulb outs proposed in the South Monarch Street and East Hyman Avenue right-of-ways for snow plowing purposes. Additionally, a street width of 28 feet, from the face of curb to the face of curb, shall be maintained on South Monarch Street where the corner bulb-outs are proposed. '9L ){:lOll:IjO AUMA;lnU ~lIj UI sdn-){:lld ~jSUM PIJOS jlUlI{ OJ llU!pJ!nq ~llpol ~lIljo ~sn lOj l~pudUlO:l lISUlj U nmSU! nUlls SjUU:llldd\i ~lIl 'jU~U1jlud~a lIjlU~H IUjU~U1UOl!AUt[ ~lIj jO Sju~U1~lmb~l ~lIj Sj~~U1 jUlIj llu!Pl!nq lU!lu~P!S~l ~lIj lOj l~U!UjUO:l lISUlj joold-ajIJpJ!M. U nUjSU! nUlls sjuu:lljdd\i ~lIl S.J;JU!lllUO;) qSll.l.L aJ!lPI!M :SZ uo"aas 'llU!JlIllq 100pjnO '0~['~L~'9Z UO!paS apo:) ~SO puu"l OJ juunsmd SlU~U1~l!nba([ ~pO:) llU!Jqllq S AI:) ~lIj j~~U1 nUllS llU!jllllIJ lO!l~jX~ n\i llu"qll!'I.lOpalX3 :j7Z uo"aas 'UO!jU:lIJddu j!UIl~d llulPlmq jO ~U1!j ~lIj jU ~:lUld U! ~lnp~lI:lS aaj ~lIj llU!Sn l~:l!JJO llU!UOZ uads\i jO Aj!:) ~lIj Aq p~jUlmlU:l ~q nUllS S~~j uO!JU:l!P~P spUUllOOll:lS ~lIl '~pO:l ~sn pUUl ~lIj U! UO!S!A!pqns jO UO!JIU!PP allj lad sj!un IU!lU~P!S~l AllUIIJj-lllnUl ~lIj jO jU~U1dopA~p ~I[l lOj pallnbal SI lUAolddu UO!S!A!pqns ~snu:l~q 'UOIjU:lIpaa SpIITl"J {OOll:lS 'OS9'9Z UO!P~S ~po:) ~sO puu"l OJ juunsmd a:luunssI jlUll~d llu!Pl!nq jO ~U1!j ~lIj jU lusodold ~lIj uo p~SS~ssu ~q nUlls S~~d UOIjU:llp~a puu"l 1001l:lS saail UO"lla!paa pUll'} [ooqaS :fZ uo"aas 'uo!JU:lIJddu j!U1l~d llu!Pl!nq jO ~U1!l ~lIj jU ~:lUld U! ~lnp~lI:ls ~~j ~lIl llU!Sn l~:l!JJO llUlUOZ uads\i jO Aj!:) allj Aq p~julmlu:l ~q nUlls S~~d pudUlI jU~U1dolaA~a ){lUd ~lIl 'saad J;Jvdul[ JuaUldo/atlaa "JIAVJ 'OI9'9Z UOIP~S ~po:) asn puu"l OJ lUunsmd sa!jladOld p~rqns allj OJ p~ppu aq OJ sUloolpaq llU!llpOj ~lIj puu (SUlOOlp~q llU!snoll ~lquPlOjjU ~lIj llU!pnpu!l SUlOOlp~q lU!jU~P!S~l Mau allj lIjoq uo a:luunSSI jlUllad llUlPlmq jO aUl!J ~lIj jU p~ssassu aq nUlls saad J;JvaUl[ JuaUlaoptliJa lfAVJ saail pllawI luawao[;JAaa }[.I11d :ZZ uo"aas 'pajUall aq lIulIs sqm:l llUPUj-lIjlOU alll 'luu!U1qns UOIjU:l!lddu aOd jUllY allj U! uUld ~j1s allj uo p~P!d~p S! SU UOIjU:lOj allIUS allj AnU!jUUjSqns U! aq nUlls SUO!jU:lOl ){luMap!s alll 'p~:lUldal aq nUlls l~unll puu qlm nu jaaljS lI:l.!Uuow puu jaaljS u~ds\i lIjnos U~~Mj~q ~nU~A\i l~doo:) uo 'ju~U1dopA~p ~I[l jO uO!jlod AUU uo A:luudm:lo jO ~jU:l!j1jl~:l U jO ~:luunSS! OJ lO!ld juaUldol~A~p S!lIj OJ p~rqns Ajladold ~lIj jO nu OJ jU~:lUrpU AUM.-jO-jllll!l ~lIj U! p~PllljSUO:l ~q nUlls Sju~IU~l!nb~l Ull!S~P S,l~~U!llUt[ Aj!:) ~lIj llUlj~~IU l~unll puu 'qm:l '){]UM.aplS .Ia>>n9 pUll 'q.ln;) '1[[IlMap!s :IZ UO!paS 'jU~U1dOpA~P ~lIj jO jlUd AUU uo A:luudm:lo jO ~jU:lYljl~:l U jO ~:luunSSI OJ lO!ld ~pUIU ~q nUlls uo!pas s!l{j U! 1jJl0j j~S SjU~IU~AOldIUI ~lIj jO n\i . LL ){:lOll:I jO AUM.A~nU ~I[l ~Aud puu j~aljS lI:l.!Uuow 'S jO jJUlI jS~M ~lIj pllljSUO:l~l oSIU nUlls sjuU:lIJdd\i ~lIl '~nU~A \i UUIUAH .t[ jO JIUlI I[lnos ~lIj pllljSUO:l~l nUlls sjUU:lIJdd\i ~lIj '~nU~A \i UUIUAH .t[ puu ja~ljS u~ds\i 's jO l~UlO:l jsu~lIjnos ~lIj uo j~IUl laM~S UIl0jS ~lIj p~llnS~l puu ~nU~A \i uuwAH 't[ UI ad!d ~llUU!UlP UIl0jS M.~U U nUjsU! OJ A.mSS~:lau SI jI jI 'AnUUOljIpP\i 'j~~ljS lI:l.!UuoW puu j~aljS uads\i lIjnos OJ SMOIJ ~llUU!UlP ~lIj jllds puu j~aljS lI:llUUOW lIjnos pUU j~~ljS u~dS\i lIjnos UaaMj~q ~nU~A \i mdoo:) t[ PllljSUO:lal lJUlIS SjUU:l!ldd\i alll SluawaAo.lawI AllM-JO-lqllrn :OZ uo"aas Section 26: Food Service Facilities Food service plans meeting the requirements of the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department shall be submitted and approved prior to serving food and prior to obtaining a Colorado Food Service License. Section 27: Pool and Spas All design, installation, and maintenance of the pool and spa shall comply with the Colorado Department of Health's "Swimming Pool and Mineral Bath Regulations". The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District shall review and approve the drain size for the swimming pool facility prior to installation. Section 28: Development Timine: The Applicants shall obtain a certificate of occupancy on all the lodge component of the development prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy on any of the residential units within the development. A certificate of occupancy shall also be obtained on the affordable housing unit before or in conjunction with receiving a certificate of occupancy on the lodge component of the development. Section 29: AlIev Vacation The eastern 150 feet of the alleyway located in Block 76 of the City and Townsite of Aspen is hereby vacated subject to the following requirements: a. Ownership and title to the lands so vacated shall vest as provided in and by Section 43-2-302 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. b. The City Clerk is hereby directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. c. The City Engineer is hereby directed, upon adoption of this ordinance, to make all corrections necessary to the Official Map of the City of Aspen. d. The alley vacation is approved based on the finding that the vacation will not leave any adjoining lands without a means of access over an established public right-of-way connecting such lands to an established public street. Section 30: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the' ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 31: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 32: A public hearing on the ordinance was held on the 23rd day of January, 2006, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hal!, Aspen, Colorado and continued to the 6th day of February, 2006. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 9th day of January, 2006. Helen Kalin K1anderud, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved by a vote of _ to _ (_--.-J, this 6th day of February, 2006. Helen Kalin K1anderud, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: John P. Worcester, City Attorney . , 8fA\'b/f 1\[;11 January 15, 2006 City of Aspen Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, Co 81611 REC -"'-- . 1'" i';f "'. ,... ~,' " L...J JAN 2 5 2006 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT RE: Limelite Proposal I feel a responsibility, as a homeowner at 210 E. Cooper Avenue IE, to participate in the process and to advise the City of Aspen of how I feel and how the project impacts me. I have reviewed the Limelite proposal as it has evolved over the last year. I very much appreciate all the hard work the City of Aspen has put into this process. I feel my interests are being represented. The lodge itself will be an asset to the city, both from income standpoint, and aesthetically, as the existing property is decaying and becoming an eyesore. My extended family and I have stayed in both the Limelite and the Snowflake many times over the last thirty years. The old buildings are just worn out. It is time to replace the old property(s) with updated and more modem structures. The most recent renderings of the Monarch Street (east) elevation show a monolithic type profile that, while not "unattractive", does not add much in the way of architectural diversity/fiiendly appearance to the Aspen "scene". The lot seems burdened with too much building. When I walk from the Cooper Street pedestrian mall across Wagner Park toward the property and try to envision the new landscape, I feel a bit overwhelmed with the size of the project. There is a nostalgia about Aspen which I enjoy that is being displaced. I suspect some of this is inevitable. It is sad, nevertheless. I appreciate your efforts to keep the height at 42 feet. Something lower would be better. The height, by itself, will change the character of the block. I wish the City could exercise some control over proportions, character, and "flavor" of development. As much as the Paas family talks the talk about wanting to contribute to the community, economics is driving the project, not any pretense of aesthetics or pleasing design. It is sad that such an opportunity to shape the West side of Wagner Part for the next 30 years is passing us by while we haggle over setbacks, heights, access and egress, etc. The height issue is only one of my concerns. Even after the entire hullabaloo about height, zonings, etc., it seems that the City did not get a substantial increase in "hot beds". Have we lost sight of the "prime directive" here? I do think, however, that a consolidation of the "bed" issue from four parcels (Limelite, Snowflake, and the two lots comprising the Deep Powder Lodge) to one consolidated site on Monarch is progress in the planning issues in Aspen. Everything is a compromise and overall, I am satisfied with the proposal for the new "Limelight" Lodge as it will be renamed at the corner of Hyman and Monarch. This brings us to the structure on the northwest corner of Cooper and Monarch aka 17 "free market" condominiums. This process has been fraught with deceit by the developer, with some concern as to who the actual developer really is - the Paas family, or some guy from Denver - whether a partner or separate entity. A review of the credentials of Mr. Biehl reveals he could be either one or both. This distinction goes to the heart of the "free market" project and impacts me most directly as I have a ground level unit at 210 E. Cooper Avenue. I am unclear how one makes the connection between the "Lodge" property as owned by Limelite, Inc (Paas Family)and the Cooper Avenue "free market" Condominium project owned by Limelite Redevelopment, LLC (Jerry Biehl). The PUD concept and the way the developers have presented it (Condo Project is the economic engine) causes me consternation as to what they are really doing here. The complexity of ownership in the submission should require more disclosure of purpose. A deed of trust could have memorialized the agreements of the parties as expressed by Mr. Biehl at previous meetings. An ownership transfer, plus a deed of trust, as actually happened, short circuits due process in favor of Lime lite Redevelopment, LLC (Biehl). In the event of defauh on the agreements by Limelite, Inc. (paas Family), the developer becomes Limelite Redevelopment, LLC (Biehl) only as to the "free market" portion of the PUD. One must ask the question, in consideration of this PUD proposal, do the councillP & Z approvals, once considered, inure to the benefit of pntentially disparate parties, or do we have to relive this process with the separate and non-aligned owners again? What a tough position the City of Aspen is being put in. If the project(s), become two instead of one (PUD), certainly 42 feet cannot be a consideration. This point or position is most important going forward. It is only by looking forward, that we can evaluate consequences of real-time decisions. There are no "hot beds", commercial applications, etc., in this "mixed use" condo proposal. There is no pretense by the developer - (s?) that there is commonality within the PUD zoning. Will the condo owners share in the common areas of the main lodge? Will the "free market" condo association dues be offset by the income of the lodge? What tests can be applied to the project to assure the PUD designation is applicable in this proposal? This proposal seems a sham, whose sole purpose is to increase the condo square footage by raising the height of the project from the 28-foot residential restriction to a 42-foot limit that lodge mixed use zoning allows. I can find no reason to believe there is any commonality of purpose between the "lodge" project and the Cooper Avenue "free market" condos that would fit within the parameters of the PUD zoning. What happened to the "hot beds" mandate that promulgated the zoning initially? A "lock-of!" unit (no separate legal description or commercial access provision) in a 3,500 SF residential condo to accommodate a City zoning provision is surely a transparent proposal that has no enforceable and realizable "hot bed" benefit going forward. The developer has not proposed hotel units on the ground level, offered to legally segregate the "hot beds" lock-off units from the Condo units and in fact, is proposing just the opposite, in a race to fulfill the promise of an "economic engine" by insisting on a variance from 28 feet residential height to 42 feet mixed use height, while not proposing a viable mixed use component. On the basis that the City is not getting, at least from the "free market" project, a "hot bed" component, this part of the PUD does not qualify for the 42 feet zoning for lodging. To consider otherwise does not pass the test of reason. In fact, I can find no basis for PUD zoning as it applies to all 4 existing lots. Additionally, the proposal leaves some unclear gaps in the erasing oflot lines, alley vacation issues, setback requirements, etc. These issues are commonly known as variances. There are just too many here. The project is put forward in bad faith. They are not asking for minor issues, they are trying to transform the intent of the zoning laws - and without much humility, I might add. I have visited with the PaaslWoolery families on three occasions. They have been most gracious and solicitous. However, each time they have told me that the economic engine (free market units) is necessary for the economic success of the lodge itself. They have remonstrated, both to me and to the City, that they absolutely could not diminish the height of either project and still meet their lender's requirements as if their ability, or perhaps lack of ability, to fund the required equity, as if this issue, their issue, should somehow impact the neighbors and the city's approval process to their benefit. The argument is disingenuous at best. The "free market" project has gone from over 54 feet down to 43 feet, loping off nearly 5000 square feet of "penthouse" space and an attempt has been made to "step down" the Aspen/Cooper street comer elevation to accommodate councils' previous mandate/recommendations. The Paas family told me/us this was untenable 6 months ago. Today they are taking the position that a 10"10 to 15% reduction in height asked for at the most recent final Planning and Zoning meeting is "simply not possible". They continue to claim they would have to sell the entire project if they cannot have the needed square feet to sell. I know I speak for the majority of the owners of21O E. Cooper when I say that 43 feet in height is not in our best interest. This issue for most of us is quality of life. The improved value argument promoted by the developer is not unique to this developer and thus is not part of our formula. I also feel that a majority would support new residential development across the street that is reasonable and prudent. To the extent that the code for multi family residential buildings is now 28 feet, it seems that council/P & Z consideration of 42 feet for a project that envisions no "hot beds" on East Cooper Ave, is consideration of a project that does not deserve consideration. I hope I have expressed myself clearly here. What has become clear to me is that this project will get built in some form, whether or not the Paas family is prepared or has the ability, to fund it. The vultures are hovering and waiting to step in and fund the equity portion of the development. The somewhat opaque involvement of Mr. Biehl (the partner) testifies to this fact. Mr. Biehl is a sophisticated real estate investor who is generally known for his expertise in real estate development. I understand that the City of Aspen would like to accommodate the long standing relationship it has with the Paas family. However, when that accommodation comes at the expense of other relationships that are equally magnanimous, such as some of the residents at 210 E. Cooper, then the preference that might otherwise have been shown, needs to be re-evaluated to make the "right" decision for all parties. A 43+ ft "free market" condominium project on E. Cooper is not in keeping with the neighborhood. Its' fa~adelarchitectural appearance, as currently presented, is not compatible with the existing East Cooper Avenue residential improyements and certainly is a dramatic departure from the recent residential improvement upgrades along Aspen Street across the way from the subject property and those across from Koch Lumber Park, two blocks West. The "economic engine" reaches far too deeply into an existing residential area, and might be better limited to frontage along Monarch (half a block deep) only if it is to be considered at all. The west half of Cooper Avenue should continue to enjoy a residential atmosphere, and not be burdened by the proposed bastard building with an improvement square footlland area ratio that goes far beyond the pale of reason for enlightened land use planning (26,000 SF land mass vs 60,000 SF above grade improvement plus below grade parking). Where is the open space, or in Aspen, where is the affordable housing? This kind ofresidentiaVmulti-family planning abuse was abolished in the '60s. This proposal is driven by greed. It is an ominous sham on a residential neighborhood. I implore you - before you make your final recommendations, please take one last walk down Cooper Avenue from Monarch Street to South 1 sl Street (Koch Lumber Park). The public is not being served by this 43 foot proposal. This is just not the right project for this land parcel. 611 .1>-" 111-J AABC Aspen, Colorado 81611 JAMES FRENCH FRENCH CAPITAL MANAGEMENT ATTORNEY at LAW Licensed in Colorado and Illinois Phone: 970-925-7115 Fax: 970-925-1972 E-Mail: ifrench260@aol.com January 28, 2006 To: Aspen City Council - Limelight Project - Meeting February 6, 2006 I present this letter as my final input into the approval process of the Limelight application. I thank you in advance for considering my position, and I commend the entire Council and P&Z for their exhaustive review of this application. I know your decision is a difficult one. Andrea Clark, my wife, and I have previously presented evidence, based upon extensive research and private legal counsel opinions, raising legal questions regarding the validity of the Limelight development package under the Aspen City Code, Aspen Planned Unit Development (PUD) rules and guidelines, and related documents. Besides my opposition to the project based upon the documentation we have already submitted, something else has troubled me throughout the entire review process before the P & Z, and City Council. It is the palpable disrespect and arrogance displayed by the developers and architects, when questioned about the details of the project. The rigid, inflexible responses regarding the suggestions to change elements proposed by Council and P & Z, is an example. To ignore the strong guidance from these review panels, and to return to Council with the same project manipulated with small changes, resonates with bad attitude. I believe the attitude of the Limelight developers from the beginning was that the City Council and the City of Aspen were vested in meeting the needs for preserving a "mid-priced" lodge. This remains a need no one disputes, and the Council should consider approval of any project that would legitimately fill that need, within the parameters of the Municipal Code Title 26. . NOTICE: PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL The information contained in this facsimile message contains private and confidential material and/or trade secret material intended for the sole use of the individual named above. If you are not the intended recipient listed above, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, duplication, or distribution of this information or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by telephone 970-925-7115 so that we can arrange for the return of this material at no cost to you. I made the statement before P&Z that, "The Limelight project is the wrong project proposed by the right people." The conduct and presentations by the developers over the past months forces me to change that statement. "The Limelight project is the wrong project proposed by SOME of the right people." 1. The true ownership of the North and South parcels was not discovered until documented evidence was presented to Council. The result of this revelation did not move the developers to full disclosure, only confirmation of the information discovered. We now know that there is additional information regarding ownership being withheld from Council. 2. The developers and architects have consistently claimed that they can build the free-market units to a height of 42 feet, "as a matter of right." Current rules and regulations actually restrict this type of free-market development to 28 feet. Unless all cross references are examined within various sections of the Code, Council and P & Z were dependent upon staff to confirm or deny this claim. 3. The developers are represented by a well respected law firm in Colorado. It is inconceivable to me that the developers are unaware of what they are entitled to build, "as a matter of right." Additionally, in researching Mr. Biehl's experience, we discovered that he is very well informed regarding the definitions of Mixed-Use, PUD, and zoning requirements. A Biehl project development from 2003, in the Denver area demonstrates his understanding. A summary of the zoning changes and description of the application is available on the internet. 4. The transparent attempt to have City Council amend the Code so that the Limelite application could meet some of the requirements in the Code, is an act of desperation, further demonstrating the resolve not to change anything in their project. I do not know the motivation behind Mr. Bendon's presentation of Ordinance 50 (2005), but the timing of the presentation suggests that desperation. Is this something Mr. Benton can bring before the Council on his own? 5. Among other descriptions, this project is being proposed as "an incentive lodge development". It is difficult to tell since the application picks and chooses language from every City document that appear to favor the application. Assuming this project might qualify as "an incentive lodge development", the language is clear in the Code that this means financial incentive The developers have refused to provide City Council with any financial information to justify the project based upon either the language, or intent, of the "incentive lodge" provision of the Code. In order to qualify for" incentive lodge development" as provided by the Code, the . NOTICE: PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL 2 The information contained in this facsimile message contains private and confidential material and/or trade secret material intended for the sole use of the individual named above. If you are not the intended recipient listed above, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, duplication, or distribution of this information or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by telephone 970-925-7115 so that we can arrange for the return of this material at no cost to you. developers should provide at least limited financial information to justify their position, and be eager to do so, in order to protect their rights if they qualify for the benefits of incentive lodge development. 6. How can a licensed architect make a "mistake", and design a project utilizing 3,000 square feet of property owned by the City (the alley) as if owned by the Limelite, and present the project as if it was already vacated? Architects and engineers pride themselves with accuracy and precision, but these 3,000 square feet obviously skew the representations and conclusions in the entire application. 7. The developers have made a very clever proposal that they claim exempts them from providing the amount of employee housing required by the Code. And, they propose an "employee audit" scheduled some two years down the road to somehow justify their current exemption. I submit to you that this is an unacceptable proposal that is subject to many inherent problems too numerous to state in this letter. Are they entitled to the exemption or are they are not, based on the language in the Code. If they are not entitled to the exemption right now, then one 600 sq. ft. employee housing does not satisfy their obligation. Incidentally, why would the new management business proposed by Paas, to be operated out of the hotel, be exempt from scrutiny as to actual employee generation? 8. If the developers are granted an exemption coupled with the "employee audit", it will set a precedent for every future development application. The result will be a total disregard of the intent of Aspen's employee housing program, and a significant conflict with the Aspen Area Community Plan. 9. Finally there a number of smaller instances of conduct by the development team that could be considered insignificant, but when observed together, increase my concerns regarding the development team. A. The architects presented a "shadowing study" to illustrate the effect of the proposed height of the free-market unit on the surrounding area. The only problem was that it was a study as of the middle of January and represented by Robin Schiller as the maximum shadowing effect, on the shortest day of the year. Even though everyone caught the misrepresentation, no attempt has been made to correct it. B. Ruth Kruger, a member of P&Z, asked Mr. Cottle why there was no scale model of the project, so that she and everyone else who had trouble visualizing it from pictures and drawings, could actually see how it looked. Mr. Cottle's response was to the effect that she wouldn't really gain anything from the model because you have to get on your knees to really appreciate what is going on, and that it . NOTICE: PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL 3 The information contained in this facsimile message contains private and confidential material and/or trade secret material intended for the sole use of the individual named above. If you are not the intended recipient listed above, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, duplication, or distribution of this information or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by telephone 970-925-7115 so that we can arrange for the return of this material at no cost to you. is very hard to get everything to scale, and that it really is a waste of time. The Code requires a model to be presented when the proiect is a "hiohlv visible" proiect. The application refers to the Limelite as having the potential for landmark status, and by its mass and height, a beacon, etc., as well as mentioning its "highly visible presence" many times throughout the application. C. Certain streets were represented as being 75 feet wide "right of ways" when in fact they are only 50 feet wide curb to curb, with the appropriate building setbacks to fulfill the Code definition, since right of way includes the grassy areas and sidewalks. D. The "story pole" for the South parcel was up for a total of four hours and that was last spring. "Out of sight, out of mind?" Only four homeowners were in residence at 210 Cooper on that day. Even though I continue to have many other concerns about the project, as it is proposed, I will drop my opposition to the project if the free-market units are limited to 28 feet in height, if only in front of 210 Cooper, and the building is scaled down accordingly. Otherwise, I will continue my opposition until my options are exhausted, including available legal remedies. James French Law Office/French Capital Management . NOTICE: PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL 4 The information contained in this facsimile message contains private and confidential material and/or trade secret material intended for the sole use of the individual named above. If you are not the intended recipient listed above, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, duplication, or distribution of this information or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. (fyou have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by telephone 970-925-7115 so that we can arrange for the return of this material at no cost to you. ~-,._,... ..... "" ASPEN CHIROPRACTIC CTR 714 633 2968 P.01 1-30-06 Aspen City Council Members and Mayor RE: Limelite development I am in full a9reement with Melissa Shennan that the project is just a big block wall, there is no architectual design that lends the property to fit into the atmosphere of the city or a visual design that is fitting for a mountain lodge and the surrounding landscape and flair of the town and the mountain community it represents 0 I also think you shOuld remind Mr. Pass of his ~tand against the Dancing Bear Lodge for height, when he stoted "thot the size and mass of the building would negotively affect the Limelite's ability to rent rooms." (SEE ATTACHED) I guess he forgets, it is like the pot calling the kettle black. The size and mass of this porject would not improve the streets that it is proposed to be built on, but would negatively affect the surrounding residents and businesses and be a big blob, not a building of charm and the feel of aspen. Thank you tiar)' Thedinga Hemet, CA / O' j . " f'~l",L. I !J '--' K January 31, 2006 Dear Aspen City Council To satisfy everyone in Aspen is an absq,\!,Ite impossibility. You are faced with challenges and dilemma 'Nt rYfQ~ of us, myself included, do not have the patience nor pers' ..t9 manage. The motives of maintain a busines 'ask that you give every the Limelight Lodge and his family on a personal ted to their hotel and to the .. t1f1ate to have small busi e character and sou \ I Yet as a long time Aspen busi ounce of consideration towar redevelo not kn basis, b Aspen c owners Ii Aspen eco 434 EAST COOPER AVENUE . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970) 925-7878 . FAX (970) 925-7825 February I, 2006 The Aspen City Council Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Honorable Aspen City Council: I am writing to express my support for Dale Paas and the Limelight project. I hope you approve it, but one concern is that you have made this applicant return, as I understand it, three times in order to seek approval for this project. Obviously, you have complete discretion on this project and if you choose to reject it after a full and fair hearing that is your right. However, for any Council, Commission, or Board to insist that an applicant come back again and again and again, is unfair. The merits of this project aside, the costs to an applicant are too high when time and time again they are forced to change the project in an effort to please one member or another in an effort to get approval. How many worthy projects will you never see if you set a precedent of high costs, lengthy meetings, and endless debate? The cost to the public is unacceptable too when your limited resources and time are wasted. This trend, of a never- ending approval process, is wrong. It is bad policy, and it is bad governance. I sincerely hope you will make an effort to address this issue in the future. With regards to Mr. Paas, and the Limelight, I truly believe this is the right project at the right time for Aspen. Mr. Paas simply wants to build a newer, more beautiful, successful, and economically viable hotel. How can that be bad for Aspen or our guests? For years Aspen's hotel "bed base" has continued to erode. I have heard a figure of over 155 beds lost in just the last few years, how many beds can Aspen afford to lose before we cease to be a viable, affordable, destination resort? If you do not approve the Limelight project Mr. Paas may sell his hotel and it will be knocked down and/or converted into a non- hotel use. Please consider that very real consequence before you again delay and/or deny this worthy project. I appreciate your time and consideration to the above, and I trust you will, ultimately, do the right thing. Respectfully yours, Tony Hershey Aspen, Colorado