Loading...
12-04-17 Town Council Packet Rhonda Coxon From: Oscar <oscar@stoneandtile.com> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 12:55 PM To: council Subject: Fwd: Phase 2 aqua center Oscar Echegaray Begin forwarded message: From:oscar@stoneandtile.com Date: December 4, 2017 at 2:53:44 PM EST To: cford@tosv.com Cc: council@tosc.com Subject: Phase 2 aqua center As the owner of Capitol Peak unit 3403 in Base Village Phase 1, we were promised an Aqua facility in writing by the developer. It has yet to be delivered.We ask that the Planning Commission and Town Council hold the developer to the commitment made during the 2015 PUD amendment discussion. It has been a decade of waiting. In Phase 2 Limelight/Lumin will have a pool.Viceroy has a pool. Hayden and Capitol Peak will be without a pool, a critical amenity. We are depending upon the Planning Commission with Town Council concurrence to rectify this gross inequality. It is noteworthy that 14 projects were used to justify the Base Village $48M BVMetro#2 debt in 2006 that is the sole responsibility of the BVMetro#2 owners which are nearly all residential owners at a cost of$1.5M in taxes each year. Some financial swizzling has happened but what is quite clear is of the 14 projects, The only project not completed is the promised Aqua Center. Hayden and Capitol Peak owners are willing to settle for a pool rather than the promised Aqua Center but we need it to see that pool in Phase 2 and not in some distant future unscheduled phase of the development.Thank you in advance for your support for the Base Village owners that have kept this development alive and preserved so that the current developers can deliver on the promises made to Snowmass so long ago. With respect, Oscar Echegaray Stone&Tile Concepts 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd. Suite 300 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone 305.594.9822 Fax 305.594.9957 oscar@stoneandtile.com www.stoneandtile.com 1 Rhonda Coxon From: Fred Ilfeld <filfeld@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 10:25 AM To: council Subject: Pool for Hayden and Capitol Peak units Dear Town Council members: As the owner of 3205 and 3207 in Base Village Phase 1, I was promised an Aqua Center facility in writing by the developer. It has yet to be delivered. We ask that the Planning Commission and Town Council hold the developer to the commitment made during the 2015 PUD amendment discussion. We have waited for a decade! In Phase 2 Limelight/Lumin will have a pool. Viceroy has a pool. Hayden and Capitol Peak will be without a pool, a critical amenity. We are depending upon the Planning Commission with Town Council concurrence to rectify this gross inequality. It is noteworthy that 14 projects were used to justify the Base Village$48M BVMetro#2 debt in 2006 that is the sole responsibility of the BVMetro #2 owners which are nearly all residential owners at a cost of$1.5M in taxes each year. Some financial swizzling has happened but what is quite clear is of the 14 projects,the only project not completed is the promised Aqua Center. Hayden and Capitol Peak owners are willing to settle for a pool rather than the promised Aqua Center but we need it to see that pool in Phase 2 and not in some distant future unscheduled phase of the development. Thank you in advance for your support for the Base Village owners that have kept this development alive and preserved so that the current developers can deliver on the promises made to Snowmass so long ago. Yours very truly, Fred Ilfeld,Jr. Fred Ilfeld MD P.O. Box 2160, Olympic Valley, CA 96146 phone and text- (530)448-6060 email- FILFELD@GMAIL.COM 1 Rhonda Coxon From: Patricia Jayne Keefer <pjkeefer@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2017 5:37 AM To: council; Clint Kinney; Rhonda Coxon;John Dresser;Julie Ann Woods Subject: Enclave and Building 6 Comments Attachments: Public Comment Enclave Dec 4 .docx; Public Comment B6 Dec 4 .docx Please see the attached two Public Comments 1. for the Enclave PUD 2. for the Base Village Building 6 potential tenants and business operations Both comments focus on aligning benefits received with expneses. Thank you in advance for your consideration of these remarks. Wishing You Blue Skies and TailwindsTM, Pat Patricia Jayne (Pat) Keefer A reluctant, but by necessity, Base Village Activist Base Village Liaison for Capitol Peak HOA Board, Hayden HOA Board Base Village Liaison for Viceroy/Assay Hill Residential HOA Board Member Round the World Air Race Gold Medalist- 24 days TM of Tailwinds.com • 1 Public Comment Dec 4 Enclave For the record Pat Keefer - 90 Carriage Way - a reluctant, but by necessity, Base Village Activist and Liaison for Base Village HOAs and residential owners. This means that while you hear from me, I am also representing: • The President and Vice President of Hayden HOA Board • The President, Vice President, Treasurer and Secretary of the Capitol Peak HOA Board • The Residential Member of the Viceroy HOA Board These Board members represent 100% of the Base Village Residential Owners. We are concerned that the new Enclave conference space, shown on page 34 of 223 in the packet, will take meeting business away from the already money-losing Base Village Conference Center. As Residential Owners, we are taxed to help pay for the Base Village Conference Center losses. If the Enclave commercial meeting spaces is designated as a commercial property and pays Base Village Metro #1 taxes and Base Village company Assessments, then we're OK with the additional meeting space. Here are the relevant elements that point to this solution: 1. The Enclave website's first sentence touts its proximity to Base Village as a benefit and yet, Enclave property owners pay nothing to support Base Village amenities. 2. PUD submission comments that no additional transit facilities are required at Enclave expense because there will be a new bus stop on Wood Road. This bus stop is being paid for by Base Village without contribution from The Enclave 3. PUD submission comments that no additional sidewalk at Enclave expense is required. Again, a Wood Road heated sidewalk across from The Enclave is being paid for by Base Village without contribution from Enclave. 4. In the Base Village PUD, The Enclave required an extra wide heated pedestrian walkway be designed and provided to link The Enclave with Base Village. This is a fourth example where Base Village will be paying for facilities, in this case, specifically and solely designed at Enclave request, where Enclave reaps the benefit but pays none of the expenses. We are looking for Town Council to require The Enclave to financially support the facilities where they are reaping benefit by requiring the requested Enclave conference space to be subject to the fees and taxes of Base Village as the meeting space will directly compete with Base Village Conference center and therefore will directly diminish the Base Village conference center revenues. For your reference the current commercial property Base Village Company annual assessment is $0.75 psf. For the Enclave commercial meeting space, the quarterly invoices would be $153. Based on other commercial space Base Village the estimated Metro #1 taxes would be about $ 23 psf. Base Village residential owners pay about a quarter of a million dollars a year to fund the Base Village Conference Center, Base Village Garage and Base Village Transit Center losses. This is in addition to paying over $1.5 million in taxes to fund Base Village construction debt. Thank you in advance for supporting financial responsibility for expenses when benefits are received. With Respect, Pat Keefer Reluctant Base Village Activist Public Comment Dec 4 Building 6 For the record Pat Keefer - 90 Carriage Way - a reluctant, but by necessity, Base Village Activist and Liaison for Base Village HOAs and residential owners. This means that while you hear from me, I am also representing: • The President and Vice President of Hayden HOA Board • The President, Vice President, Treasurer and Secretary of the Capitol Peak HOA Board • The Residential Member of the Viceroy HOA Board These Board members represent 100% of the Base Village Residential Owners. Base Village residential owners remain concern that the town keeps touting that they will bring vitality to Base Village with building 6 without paying anything to support Base Village facilities they plan to use in a financial manner— such as the Plaza. Page 195 of 223 talks about the 14 years of free CAMs. It may be free to the town, but it will be paid for by Base Village Phase 2 owners. This is about $100,000 of lost revenue to the Base Village Company and will be paid for by Base Village Phase 2 owners. This is addition to the lost estimated quarter of a million dollars in annual tax revenues to Base Village Commercial Metro #1 Tax district due to the tax-exempt nature of a municipal building. As Town Council deliberates on tenants for Building 6, if a tenant is a for-profit company or if private parties are hosted, then we ask that those entities be responsible for the normal Base Village fees and taxes in the following manner. If a tenant such as Aspen Brewing Company occupies a portion of Building 6 then that portion of the building should be subject to GID and Base Village Metro #1 49.5 mill levied taxes as well as the $0.75 psf Base Village Company assessment fee and other taxes and fees as may be levied. If a private party is held at retail rates as described in the NeXus application, then that function should pay a fee to Base Village Company and the tax districts equivalent to 1/365 times the number of days used of the annual taxes and fees for the portion of the building they use. An analogous instance of this approach is how airports collect a fee from car rental companies which is passed through to the person renting the vehicle. We are looking for Town Council to treat Base Village property owners equitably from a financial view and require Building 6 tenants and private party space used to financially support the facilities where they are reaping benefit by requiring Building 6 tenants and private party space to be subject to the fees and taxes of Base Village as the meeting space will compete with Base Village venues. For your reference the current commercial property Base Village Company annual assessment is $0.75 psf. For 1000 sq ft of commercial food and beverage space, the quarterly invoices would be $187. Based on other commercial space Base Village the estimated Metro #1 taxes would be about $23 psf. Base Village residential owners pay about a quarter of a million dollars a year to fund the Base Village Conference Center, Base Village Garage and Base Village Transit Center losses. This is in addition to paying over $1.5 million in taxes to fund Base Village construction debt. Thank you for the consideration of these comments. With Respect, Pat Keefer Reluctant, but by necessity, Base Village Activist Rhonda Coxon From: Peter Simons <psimons99@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2017 11:07 AM To: Cindy Ford; council Cc: Patricia Jayne Keefer; Bruce Smith; Roget Kuhn Subject: Pool in phase 2 Dear Base Village Planning Commission and Town Council-- As the owner of Capitol Peaks A Unit 3208 in Base Village Phase 1, we were promised an Aqua facility in writing by the developer. It has yet to be delivered.We ask that the Planning Commission and Town Council hold the developer to the commitment made during the 2015 PUD amendment discussion.It has been a decade of waiting.In Phase 2 Limelight/Lumin will have a pool.Viceroy has a pool. Hayden and Capitol Peak will be without a pool, a critical amenity. We are depending upon the Planning Commission with Town Council concurrence to rectify this gross inequality. I urge you to take this action on behalf of us owners who have been here since Day One living through all the disruption and bearing the financial impact. The time is now to make things right. Peter Simons CP 3208 1 LAW OFFICES OF E. MICHAEL HOFFMAN, P.C. 200 EAST MAIN STREET P.O.Box EE ASPEN,COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE:(970)544-3442 FACSIMILE:(866)929-7870 E-MAIL:mhoffinan@emhlaw.net December 4, 2017 Mayor Markey Butler and Council Members Tom Goode, Bill Madsen, Alyssa Shenk and Bob Sirkus Town of Snowmass Village P. O. Box 5010 Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615 Re: Response to Various Communications of Erika S. Gibson and Lukas F. Van Arsdale of Balcomb & Green, P.C. in Opposition to the Land Use Application of The Enclave Association, Inc. Dear Mayor Butler and Council Members Goode,Madsen, Shenk and Sirkus; As you know, I represent The Enclave Association, Inc. (the"Association") in its current request to the Town of Snowmass Village for a Minor PUD Amendment for the Enclave Condominiums. This correspondence sets forth the Association's response to some of the extraordinarily long oral and written communications entered into the record in this matter by Erika S. Gibson and Lukas F. Van Arsdale of Balcomb & Green, P.C. ("Balcomb & Green") in opposition to the Association's application. At the threshold, it is important that the Town Council take note the Balcomb&Green has never identified who it represents. In their three or more letters to the Town, the law firm has stated that it represents "various Crestwood Condominium property owners." Early in the Association's interactions with Balcomb & Green, Mr. Van Arsdale informed us that he represented the owner of Crestwood Unit G-1120, an entity by the name of J&P Crestwood 1120 LLC ("JP Crestwood"). The identity of the law firm's clients is important because Balcomb&Green would lead us to believe that they represent a substantial segment of Crestwood owners. The evidence strongly suggests otherwise. 1. The Crestwood Association and the Vast Majority of its Owners Do Not Oppose the Enclave's Application. There are 136 units in the Crestwood project. Of those 136 units, only eight (a little less than 6%), including Balcomb & Green's client, lodged objections with the Town. Four owners of the 12 units in Building G and three of the 17 owners in Building H, filed an objection. Other than these eight letters or emails, no other opposition is found in the record. Mayor Butler and the Other Members of Town Council December 4, 2017 Page 3 that the roof forms for the building pod additions be lowered by approximately five feet or by roughly one-half story and/or by lowering or ramping down the slab elevation of the underground parking structure by a minimum of five feet to demonstrate that the roof forms on the building additions are no higher than elevation 8493. With this change, staff believed that the view from the first floor of Crestwood Building G would be "predominantly . . . over the roof forms of the proposed building pod additions as viewed . . . toward the Base Village site." On June 14, 2017, the planning staff received a supplemental addendum from the Enclave which fully satisfied staff's recommendation. The plans included with the supplemental addendum reflected design changes implemented by the Enclave which would reduce the maximum height of the building to no higher than elevation 8493. A copy of the plan included in the supplemental addendum is attached to this letter as Exhibit A. 3. The Planning Commission Found that the Revised Plan Has No Substantially Adverse Impact on the Neighborhood. The Enclave's revised plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its June 21 meeting. As reflected in its minutes from that meeting, the Planning Commission "held a consensus vote and agreed that the height of the proposed new building was acceptable and that the vacation of the easement that opened up a portion of their land changes the concept of their 100%build out." Those conclusions are reflected in the findings set forth in Section Two of Planning Commission Resolution No. 5, Series of 2017 (the Planning Commission"Resolution"). Section Two: Specific Findings related to core issues. For a Preliminary level of review, and subject to the Applicant implementing the recommendations to Town Council in Section Four of this resolution, the Planning Commission more specifically finds that: 1. Views. In accordance with Section 16A-4-340, Building design guidelines to preserve community character, under subsection (5) 'Views,' the Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the proposed building additions: a. The building additions, proposed under the 38 foot height limit per the proposed underling 'MF' zone district together with the further lowering of the building heights below elevation 8493 (per Applicant's Supplemental Addendum received June 14, 2017 as presented to Planning Commission on June 21, 2017), are sufficiently oriented to take advantage of views and view corridors, appropriately frames views, encloses open space buffering, and satisfactorily preserves (as "should" be addressed by the municipal code), Mayor Butler and the Other Members of Town Council December 4, 2017 Page 5 "The Comprehensive Plan contains an analysis of future buildout of single-family subdivisions and other developments within the Town limits. It identifies the maximum number of future lots/units and commercial/other space that may be developed within each subdivision,parcel or other development." The Snowmass Village Buildout Chart was derived utilizing facts known to the Planning Commission at the time the chart was first established. Even if that date was March 2010 (the date of the current Comprehensive Plan), the Planning Commission was not then aware that the ski lift easement for the Woodrun chair had been vacated in 2006. Prior to 2006 the area available for development on the Enclave site was limited to 3.65 acres, according to the Town's records. A one-acre enlargement represents an increase of more than 27%. Utilization of that additional area to assist the Enclave in the modernization of its physical plant is consistent with the goals of the Town for the Multifamily-Residential Comprehensively Planned Area (or "CPA"). Section 7.2 states that the "preferred plan for the Multifamily-Residential CPA area encourages and facilitates the revitalization and reinvestment of multifamily properties that are aging enough to require capital reserve expenditures." The Enclave's plans to use the "newly- found"real estate under the old Woodrun lift are consistent with this policy. A greater buildout may be approved if the Town Council finds that the PUD achieves one (1) or more of the purposes described in Subsection (c)(6), Community Purposes for PUDs, and the PUD complies with the other applicable provisions of this Subsection (c), General Restrictions, the standards of Section 16A-5-310, Review Standards, and any other applicable provisions of this Code. We believe the Enclave's application meets the sections of the Code cited above. The Planning Commission agreed. In regard to the achievement of Community Purposes, in Section 2, part 3. of its Resolution, the Planning Commission found that "the proposed community purpose of employee housing provisions beyond the mitigation requirement and the provision of a construction easement for the bus shelter and transit stop appear adequate."' No buildout may be permitted to exceed one hundred percent(100%) of the maximum number of future lots/units and commercial/other space listed for that subdivision, parcel or other development, [1] except that under unique and exceptional circumstances [2] where it can be sufficiently demonstrated by the applicant that the resulting development will, for good cause shown, exceed the PUD review criteria standards, a reconsideration and amendment of the future buildout analysis chart allocation for that subdivision, parcel or other development may be considered.2 The unique and exceptional circumstances which prompted the Enclave to file and prosecute its land use application were the addition of over an acre of developable land to its physical site and its desire to develop and sell that land to offset a portion of the cost of needed improvements to ' Emphasis supplied. 2 Emphasis supplied. Mayor Butler and the Other Members of Town Council December 4, 2017 Page 7 Balcomb & Green pinned much of its criticism of the Enclave's application to the words "for good cause shown" in the Town's regulation. It invited the Town to use those words to inappropriately consider a variety of false, disparaging and spurious claims in its evaluation of the Enclave's application. Balcomb & Green asserted, among other things, that "the Enclave's infrastructure is dilapidated," the Enclave will fund its entire capital improvements project with the proceeds of the sale of units in the new building, and that the Enclave acted irresponsibly by not imposing special assessments to fully fund the cost of its modernization effort. None of these assertions are true. In the past year Enclave owners have paid over $2,000,000 in special assessments to cover the costs of the first phase of the modernization project. The owners will continue to pay additional special assessments to pay the substantial costs of modernization which exceed the net revenue achieved through the sale of the proposed new units. Balcomb & Green finally asserts that the Enclave's application is primarily self-serving. Of course the application is self-serving. The requests described in the application are designed to benefit the Enclave. No one would incur the costs and effort required to prosecute a land use application unless the benefits to his or her property outweighed those costs and that effort. The question is not who benefits from the application, but whether the application, taken as a whole, meets the requirements of the Town's Land Use Code. We believe, and the Planning Commission concurred,that the Enclave's application meets those requirements. We thank you for the time and effort you have spent in considering the Enclave's requests. Sincerely, E. Michael Hoffman 0. NM NMI ft WM s � ��_�M_P'fK7f" �``�'�kil C!._ 8493 � z O p TOP OF GRAVEL ROAD _ � !I'li I 1,` =—iaQJ H (UNDER GONDOLA) i�` .�® I E. EXISTING GRADE PROFILE „Mill I Q s v DRAWN AT SOUTH FACADE �I����II "�®�_ I—rilmir Dp — AOI �.:-�:_�.:__:® s Z 7 I=MMS .......,,_ s--. ..dam Z r W G E9GRADESECflON/ELEYATIOt : SOUTI-� LOOKING NORTH d im-ra" m - 0ce = --- -------- i - `s==----------- 1 (f1EEHE1PA , 1 '.....e., 8493 _F� �" --- -------------off - 8493' -�.- --- -+, TOP OF -- ------- - GRAVEL ROAD P3' \ Mayor Butler and the Other Members of Town Council December 4, 2017 Page 6 the existing condominium project. The Planning Commission found, and we agree, that the proposal exceeds the relevant PUD standards as follows: i. The proposed development is not within a Sensitive Wildlife Habitat area; ii. The proposed additions are located outside the Brush Creek Impact Zone; iii. The proposal does not affect the Ridgeline Protection Areas; iv. The proposed additions are not located on natural slopes greater than 30 percent; v. Water supply, sewage disposal (including relocation of a sewer line), and solid waste disposal are being acceptably addressed by the Applicant; vi. The Applicant will be coordinating with the Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District to create improved access to the development; vii. The Applicant has committed to providing a private utility easement including a construction easement for the planned bus shelter and transit stop along Wood Road; viii. Off-street parking is being increased beyond current approved PUD standards to improve the parking provision ratios per unit and per bedroom while yet acceptably below the Town standard as a result of the planned nearby transit stop,pedestrian connections and crosswalk; ix. Despite the proposed setback reductions, the buffer treatment along Wood Road will be enhanced with oversized plant material together with the tree removal and mitigation plan; x. Taking into consideration the proposed reduction of open space from 63.7 percent per the current PUD standards to 54.1 percent under the current proposal, it still satisfies the municipal code standards of 25 percent for properties zoned'MF'; xi. The Building design guidelines are being effectively implemented to preserve community and the proposed building additions are placed lower than the 38 feet height standards per the proposed'ME zone district for the site; xii. The required restricted housing of 1,014 square feet is being exceeded by 80 percent to 1,828 square feet under the current proposal, which also serves as an acceptable community purpose for the proposed variations according to the municipal code, and an additional restricted housing unit of 820 square feet has been offered to enhance the community purpose offerings, as presented by the Applicant at the Planning Commission meeting on August 16,2017.3 After the Planning Commission's review of the application, the Enclave further enhanced its proposal in regard to transportation impacts of the project by committing to implement a shared bicycle program within the condominium. Although the Enclave has refined its proposal to build employee housing since the Planning Commission meeting of August 16, 2017, the statistics set forth in the Planning Commission Resolution remain accurate. 3 Planning Commission Resolution, Section 2,part 2.b. Mayor Butler and the Other Members of Town Council December 4, 2017 Page 4 important sight lines, overlooks and landmarks as viewed from public roadways and other public spaces, and as viewed from neighboring developments. Overall, the proposed three-story building additions do not violate the municipal code's view impact provisions, also pursuant to the other reasons and findings noted below. b. [ c. The important long-distance sight lines and overlooks appears to not adversely impact framed or foreground views. d. The Applicant has made reasonable attempts to modify the design of the building additions to limit long-distance view impacts. e. An approximately 120-foot separation distance between the proposed building additions and the existing closest neighboring property to the south as proposed seems sufficient for a buffer, which assists in lessening the visual impacts. I. [ ] g. The piece of land to the west of the existing Enclave buildings became unencumbered when the Wood Run lift and easement was abandoned and extinguished and therefore qualifies as unique and exceptional circumstance. h. The Applicant has the right and ability to apply for and propose additional units as a result of the above noted unique and exceptional circumstance. i. To require absolutely no view impacts would set a precedent that would severely limit development within the Town. j. Many or most of the multi-family projects along ski trails are at minimum three stories within the Town, and the proposed building additions are therefore consistent with the character of the Town. k. The proximity of the proposed building additions, whether two or three stories in height, will be visible from the surrounding areas. Overall, there is a balancing test with view impacts relative to sites,buildings and the mountains. I. The existing embankment areas for the adjacent gondola ski back trail already causes view impacts from the closest adjacent property to the south but also lessens the visual impact of the proposed building additions. m. The adjacent Base Village entitled development is not considered a landmark but as a high density urban project with significant mass and scale. n. The Planning Commission must evaluate land use proposals and make findings and recommendations for the benefit of the entire community. We believe the Planning Commission's findings are fair and consistent with the letter and intent of the Town's Land Use Code. 4. Balcomb & Green's assertions regarding the language and intent of Code Section 16A-5- 300(c)(4) are false and misleading. Relevant provisions of Code Section 16A-5-300(c)(4) are shown in italics below. Mayor Butler and the Other Members of Town Council December 4, 2017 Page 2 In December of 2016 and January 2017,we discussed the project with, and provided drawings to, the Crestwood Board of Directors. In early March we first heard from Balcomb & Green regarding the application. On March 21, 2017, we met with Mr. Peter Dohr, who we understand is a principal of JP Crestwood, at his unit to address his concerns about the height of the new building. We also met with Robert Sinko, President and General Manager of the Crestwood Condominium Association, and Mr. Van Arsdale to discuss these impacts of the Enclave's application in the Crestwood's conference facility. Those meetings occurred on Tuesday, March 21, 2017, Friday,April 7, 2017 and Tuesday,April 11, 2017. As a direct result of those negotiations, the Enclave agreed to reduce the proposed total height of the new building by over five feet by physically dropping the building further into the hillside, reducing the slope of the roof and by reducing the height of the chimneys. In exchange for these commitments, the Crestwood association agreed not to oppose the Enclave's application by entering into the letter agreement which is found in the record. These reductions in height were apparently not sufficient to Balcomb&Green's client. Four days after our last meeting in the Crestwood conference room, on April 14, 2017, Balcomb & Green submitted the 11-page objection letter which is also found in the record. 2. The Enclave Further Changed its Design for the New Building to Comply with a Request of the Town's Planning Staff. Senior Planner Jim Wahlstrom included a detailed analysis of the visual impacts of the proposed new building in the Staff Analysis Report attached to the April 19, 2017 Planning Commission package for the Enclave application. Here is what Mr. Wahlstrom wrote about the potential visual impact of the building (as originally proposed)on existing development to the south: The worst-case grading change perspective appears to be along the northwest Wood Road site frontage. Here, the grade differential ranges from 8450 (near northwest corner of the existing parking lot) to approximately 8470 (under the gondola alignment). Bottom to top of site, this represents an approximate two-story difference over a horizontal distance of approximately 180 feet (a roughly 11 percent gradient, parallel to Wood Road), where the upper two levels of the additions would be visible from the ski back trail under the gondola. The grade under the gondola at this point, generally where the ski over bridge abutment is located, is higher than the adjacent area to the south (Crestwood side) of the ski- back trail under the gondola until it transitions to match grade farther uphill closer to where the west wing of the Enclave buildings is located. At this point, the upper story and/or roof forms of the proposed additions would be visible (depending on the view angle) from the lower level units on adjacent properties that are in line with the grading under the gondola alignment. To prevent "a substantially adverse effect on the neighborhood," as required by Section 16A-5- 390(b)of the Land Use Code, staff recommended