Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.604 W Main St.0003.2008__. _ _ __ ~73g~a„- ~f -A. (~ g56 ~ p Poi • Zoo 8 • ~,'sl-U 9b Ed[ Recwd NaWgate Fgrm Reports fume[ Tab Hey c ~' Manl Custom FieMe I Qclions I Fees I F~Start w stop the dock for this perm[ kub permits I ~or~Gms I Rwabn9 Flislwy cT ~ ~ Ppmi1 Type aslu ~ Aspen Land Use PemJt b 0003.2008.ASLU '. Qy ~ Address 604 W MAIN J Ad7Sute g CAy ASPEN State CO ZV 81611 J Ppmd lnlwmalxm ~. ~ Maser Paimit ~~ J RouFrq Queue aslu07 Appied 01115J2008 J i ~ ~ Project ~ Status pending Apgoved ~J '°.j., Desw~tion PbZ GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW Issued Foal SuGmtted ALAN RICHMAN 9261125 Cock Burning Days r 0 Expies 0109/2009 Last Name 609 WEST LLC ~~ Z~ Rrst Name ~- 604 W MAIN ST Phone [970J 9204899 ASPEN CO 81611 r Owner la Appicpit9 Lest Name 609 WEST LLC J Firel Name- 604 W MAIN ST ' Phone [970J 920-2699 Cusf it ,.,~ 25077 J ASPEN CO 61611 Last Name ~-~_~-- ZJ Fmst Name Phoro _ _. AsoenGddlbl Edd '.. Reaxd:2ol2 ~, , A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR THE ENLARGEMENT OF A HISTORIC LANDMARK AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT 604 WEST MAIN STREET, LOTS Q, R, AND S, BLOCK 24 CITY AND TOWNSTTE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL N0.2735-124-44-008. RESOLUTION NO. 15 (SERIES OF 2008) WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from 604 West LLC, owned and operated by Neil Karbank and represented by Alan Richman Planning Services and Stryker Brown Architects, requesting approval of Growth Management Review for the Enlazgement of a Historic Landmark for a Mixed Use Development and Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing to enlazge the historic landmazk by adding 2,975 of new net leasable commercial azea and an affordable housing unit; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant received Commercial Design Standazd approval from the Historic Preservation Commission on December 12, 2007; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant received Major Development Conceptual, Relocation and Demolition approval from the Historic Preservation Commission on December 12, 2007; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant was granted setback variances by the Historic Preservation Commission on December 12, 2007; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned MU (Mixed Use); and, WHEREAS, the subject property is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmazk Sites and Structures; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standazds, the Community Development Department recommended approval with conditions, of the ]and use requests; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 1, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No.15, Series of 2008, by a four to zero (4-0) vote, approving Growth Management Review: the Enlargement of a Historic Landmark for a Mixed Use Development and Growth Management Review: Affordable Housing, for the development of two new commercial buildings and an affordable housing unit consisting of a total of 4,335 square feet of net leasable area and approximately 1,200 square feet of affordable housing located on the property at 604 West Main Street, Lots Q, R, and S, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, P& Z Resolution #15, Series of 2008 Page 1 of 7 WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CTTY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1• Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves with conditions a Growth Management Review for the enlargement of a historic landmark for mixed use development and a Growth Management Review for the development of affordable housing for the property located at 604 West Main Street, Lots Q, R, and S, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO. The use mix and dimensional requirements shall comply with the MU zone district, as included in the chart below. Specific square footage requirements may be amended, pursuant to compliance with the MU zone district. 5Ir .. y Iw@@@- + .- ~ •~ 1WC 1 •• .. L di ~ h tlV ~ i@3 } b ~ . ' ~~g T. @ iIFB= K k-@C'~ ' ~N 9 t~ .. v i ~ ! ~ .k ~ w u~ ~ ~~`~~~,J 1 .~.m .~ ~ ~tl L9u 'JIY ~~ i @+~£'~. '] ' ' ~za:.(@.iih n ~ ~ 1''' .. ~.. of . :.: @"dK . __ } t34 3 .~ _..:. x N .p .~ _t .. J. Y t i c~i v .~ x .1:L.... ._ __ _ 3 2. .. r .._.! Minimum Lot 9,000 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft. Size Minimum Lot 90 ft. 30 ft. Width Minimum Lot 9,000 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft. Area/Dwellin Minimum Front 10 ft. 10 ft., which may be reduced to 5 R. pursuant Yard Setback to S ecial Review Section 26.430 Minimum Side 1 ft. (east side, HPC granted 6 ft. 8 in. (east side, corner) Yazd Setback variance) 5 ft. (west side) 5 ft. (west side) Minimum Rear 0 ft.(for Historic Barn and AHU, 5 ft. Yard Setback HPC granted variance) Maximum Height 25 ft or less 28 ft. for Commercial, which maybe increased to 32 ft. by Commercial Design Review 25 ft. for Residential Minimum Distance between 10 ft. 10 ft. Buildin son Lot Pedestrian Minimum of 35% 25% (pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public Amenit S ace Ameni Maximum A roximatel 7,800 or Maximum cumulative is 9,000 s . ft. or 1:1, P& Z Resolution #15, Series of 2008 Page 2 of 7 Section 2: Building Permit Aaalication The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the HPC conceptual and fmal Resolution and a copy of the P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval by HPC and P&Z printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department. d. Improvements to the right of way shall include new grass, imgation, and possibly the replacement of street trees, and shall be approved prior to building permit submittal. Improvements to the Main Street right of way will require over site by the City Forester. Detail root zones of trees in the right of way that may be impacted by the improvements. e. An excavation-stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), and drainage and spoils report pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The CMP shall include an identification of construction hauling routes, construction phasing, and a construction traffic and parking plan for review and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. The construction management plan shall also identify that the adjacent sidewalks will be kept open and maintained throughout construction. Staging areas will be identified in the plan, and shall indicate that the alley shall not be closed during construction. No stabilization will be permitted in the City right of way. Storm run off must be addressed. f. A complete geotechnical report and geotechnica] design need to be part of the permit submittal plan. g. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall meet adopted Building Code requirements. h. An approved Landscape Plan. Section 3: Dimensional Requirements The building as presented in the plans contained within the application complies with the dimensional requirements of the Mixed Use (MU) zone district, with the exception of the setback variances granted by the Historic Preservation Commission via Resolution #43 Series of 2007. Compliance with these requirements will be verified by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer at the time of building permit submittal. P& Z Resolution #15, Series of 2008 Page 3 of 7 Section 4: Trasb/Utility Service Area The trash containers shall be wildlife proof and meet the Certificate of Appropriateness regulations pertaining to size and security. Section 5: Sidewalks, Curb, and Gutter The sidewalks shall be upgraded to meet the City Engineer's standazds, HPC recommendations and ADA requirements, and prior to issuance of a Building Pennit, the applicant shall provide plans that meet the approval of the City Engineer. Such improvements shall be made prior to a Certificate of Occupancy on any of the units within the development. Sectiou 6: Affordable Housing A. The affordable housing requirements of the project shall be met with provision of one unit. The Applicant shall provide a three bedroom, Category 4, 1,200 square feet unit as represented in their application. B. The unit is permitted to be rental with the following conditions: a. The unit will be deed-restricted as Category 4 to be approved by APCHA and finalized at time of Final approval. b. The deed-restriction will allow for the unit to become an ownership unit at such time the owners would request this change and/or at such time the APCHA deems the unit out of compliance over a period of one year. If the unit is found to be out of compliance for one year, or the owner elects to sell the unit, the unit would be listed for sale with the Housing Office as specified in the deed restriction. If the unit is being sold due to non-compliance, the sales price will be based upon the price from the day the non-compliance began. If the unit is being sold due to non- compliance, the unit will be sold through the lottery system. If the owner elects to sell the unit, the owner may choose the first buyer only the household qualifies under the top priority for that specific unit. c. An agreement will be established between the owners of the commercial space and APCHA regarding the tenancy of the affordable housing unit. At NO time will the tenancy of that unit be tied to any specific employee If the owner cannot find a qualified a tenant, the owner will contact APCHA and the unit(s) will be filled through APCHA's normal advertising process. d. Two reserved parking spaces would be preferred for the affordable housing unit; however, one parking space is required by the Code and the HPC has approved one parking space for the affordable housing unit. e. The units shall be owned by an Association and managed by that Association; however, the applicant must provide to APCHA, at final approval, more detail of maintaining and managing said unit. . f. Each tenant in the rental unit will be required to be requalified by APCHA on a yearly basis. P& Z Resolution #15, Series of 2008 Page 4 of 7 r ~. , g. Minimum occupancy for the three-bedroom unit is required (i.e., a household of three consisting of all working adults or a family). Should the unit become a "for sale" unit, the top priority for the unit is a household of three with at least one a dependent as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines. h. The goveming documents shall be drafted to reflect the potential for the rental unit to become an ownership unit. These goveming documents shall be reviewed and approved by APCHA. i. Should the rental unit become an ownership unit, the APCHA or the City of Aspen can elect to purchase the unit for rental to qualified households in accordance with the APCHA Housing Guidelines. j. As long as the affordable housing unit remains as a rental unit, the APCHA or the applicant shall structure a deed restriction for the unit such that an undivided 1/10'h of 1 percent interest in the ownership of the unit is deed restricted in perpetuity to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; or until such time the unit becomes an ownership unit; or the applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority determines acceptable. k. Language shall be provided in the Protective Covenants covering the unit's assessments upon the unit becoming a "for sale" unit. The assessments shall be based on the value of the commercial space compared to and in proportion to the value of the deed-restricted unit. This language shall be required in the approval and in the Covenants associated with the project and allow for the same voting representation commercial space if the unit becomes a "for sale" unit. No changes to this restriction would be allowed without APCHA's approval. C. The affordable housing unit shall receive a Certificate of Occupancy prior to or at the same time as the newly developed commercial space. A deed restriction shall be recorded prior to the Certificate of Occupancy and, if applicable, at the same time as the recordation of the Condominium Plat. Section 7: Water Department Reauirements The Applicant 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. within the building shall have individual water meters. Section 8: Sanitation District Reauirements a. Service is contingent upon compliance with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's (ACSD) rules, regulations, and specifications, which aze on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. b. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. P& Z Resolution #15, Series of 2008 Page 5 of 7 ,s-. '~.., c. Oil and Sand sepazators are required for parking gazages and vehicle maintenance establishments. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. Elevator shaft drains must flow through oil and sand interceptors. d. Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements before any and all sol stabilization measures are attempted and prior to ACSD releasing any and all permits. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. e. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hazd landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. f Al] ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. g. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. h. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ACSD main sewer lines. Section 9: Exterior LiQhtin2 All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. Section 10: Landscaoina a. Proposed on grade improvements need to be designed with the maximum protection of the root zones around the cottonwood trees. Plans shall identify impacts to water and air absorption into the soil as well as root impacts. b. Prior to any the issuance of any demolition or building permits, tree removal will be approved by the Parks Department. Mitigation for removals will be paid through cash-in-lieu or on site with street trees. c. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection, and the location of trees and the drip line of the trees in relationship to the existing structure and proposed structures, will be required for the building permit set. Section 11: Park Development and TDM/Air Oualiri Impact Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Impact Fees, the Applicant shall pay a park development impact fee and a TDM/Air Quality impact fee prior to building permit issuance. The fee shall be calculated according to the fee schedule in Land Use Code Section 26.610.09 0, Fee Schedule. Section 12: School Lands Dedication Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, the Applicant shall pay afee-in-lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen Community Development Department shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in affect at the time of building permit submittal. The Applicant shall provide the market value of the ]and including site improvements, but excluding the value of structures on the site. P& Z Resolution # 15, Series of 2008 Page 6 of 7 Section 13: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awazded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 14: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 15: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 151 day of April, 2008. APPROVED AS TO FORM: awes R. True, Special Counsel ATTEST: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: qq~rSgamer; Chair ~- ~5tztr~ ~~b b s ~ , ~~ lid a tie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk P& Z Resolution #15, Series of 2008 Page 7 of 7 ~8. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Direct FROM: Saza Adams, Preservation Planner RE: Enlargement of a Historic Landmark for Mixed Use Development and Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing- Resolution NolS, Series 2008 - Public Hearine (Parcel 2735-124-44-008) DATE: April 1, 2008 APPLICANT /OWNER: 604 West LLC, owned and operated by Neil Karbank. REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman Planning Services and Stryker Brown Architects. LOCATION: squaze feet). The Historic Preservation Commission adopted Resolution 43 Series of 2007, which approved the demolition of two existing buildings on the site and the relocation of an existing historic shed to an adjacent property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the project, with conditions. Lots Q, R and S, Block 24 City and Townsite of Aspen, CO, commonly SUMMARY: known as 604 West Main Street. CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the Mixed Use (MU) zone district containing two existing office buildings with approximately 1,360 square feet of net leasable commercial space. A total of five structures exist on the property comprising approximately 2,651 gross square feet. The entire 9,000 square foot parcel is a designated historic landmazk that contributes to the Main Street Historic District architectural inventory. PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant requests approval to enlazge the historic landmazk property by adding two new commercial buildings (2,975 square feet of new net leasable in addition to the existing 1,360 squaze feet of net leasable azea) and a three bedroom affordable unit The Applicant requests the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the enlargement of a Historic Landmark for a Mixed Use Development and Growth Management for one (1) affordable housing unit as part of the mixed use redevelopment. rage i of ~ G:\city\Sazaa\604_612 WestMain\604WMainPZ.doc LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the.Planning and Zoning Commission to redevelop the site: • Enlazgement of an Historic Landmazk for Mixed Use Develonment pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070.1. (The Plannin¢ and Zoning Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal). • Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040.4 (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal). PROJECT SUMMARY: The subject property is a 9,000 squaze foot lot located within the Main Street Historic District. There are currently five buildings on the property: a circa 1880s historic miner's cabin that fronts Main Street (the Rebecca Wylie house) and an 1880s outbuilding/barn located along the alley and Fifth Street, a 19~' century shed straddling the property line between 604 and 612 West Main Street, and two 1950s structures located in the northwestern portion of the parcel. The three 19s' century structures contribute to the historic chazacter of the Main Street Historic District. The applicant is interested in developing the property to include Commercial and Affordable Housing uses, no free market residential units aze proposed. The proposed design is approximately .87:1 or 7,800 squaze feet, where 1:1 is the maximum cumulative FAR for the Mixed Use zone district. HPC adopted Resolution 43 Series of 2007 (Exhibit E), which granted the following approvals: ^ Major Development Conceptual Review ^ Commercial Design Standazd Review ^ Demolition of two 1950s buildings ^ Relocation of the historic Rebecca Wylie House forward on the property towazd Main Street and Fifth Street • Relocation of the 19`h century shed to the adjacent property Dimensional Variances for setbacks Commercial use comprises the majority of the proposed development with a total of 4,335 squaze feet of net leasable space located on the first and second floors. The applicant proposes to increase the existing 1,360 square feet of net leasable commercial by adding 2,975 square feet of new net leasable space. The proposed basement azea contains a workout azea, media room, lounge and other ancillary operations for the commercial spaces on the property. A three bedroom 1,200 square feet affordable housing unit is proposed at the rear of the property on the second floor along the alley. No free market residential component is proposed. 604 West Main Street Staff Memo G:\city\S azaa\604_612 W estMain\604 W MainPZ. doc Page 2 of 5 Table 1: Dimensional Re uirements -.. ~ ~. ~ '~ £ ~ ~ ` ... h .5_ T.=.`i^f )ice. 'u+ . .3::v ~".."~'~P'-~~.- ,- Minimum Lot 9,000 sq. fr. 3,000 sq. ft. Size Minimum Lot 90 ft. 30 ft. Width Minimum Lot 9,000 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. fr. Area/Dwellin Minimum Front 10 fr. 10 fr., which may be reduced to 5 ft. pursuant Yard Setback to S ecial Review Section 26.430 Minimum Side 1 ft. (east side, HPC granted 6 ft. 8 in. (east side, corner) Yazd Setback variance) 5 ft. (west side) 5 fr. (west side) Minimum Reaz 0 fr.(for Historic Barn and AHU, 5 ft. Yazd Setback HPC granted vaziance) Maximum Height 25 fr or less 28 ft. for Commercial, which may be increased to 32 ft. by Commercial Design Review 25 ft. for Residential Minimum Distance between 10 ft. 10 fr. Buildin son Lot Pedestrian minimum of 35% 25% (pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public Amenit S ace Ameni ) Maximum Approximately 7,800 or Maximum cumulative is 9,000 sq. fr. or I:1, allowable floor 0.87:1 which may be increase to 1:1.25 through area S ecial Review Minimum 6 spaces (5 spaces for the A total of 6 spaces for the proposed Number of 4,390 sq. ft. of net leasable, development- 1 per 1,000 sq. ft. of net leasable Parkin S aces and 1 s ace for the AH unit) area, and one er dwellin unit. STAFF COMMENTS' ENLARGEMENT OF A HISTORIC LANDMARK FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW: The applicant proposes to enlarge the historic landmazk property located at 604 West Main Street. The program includes increasing net leasable commercial and a new affordable housing unit. No free market residential is proposed. Aspen, similar to preservation programs throughout the country, offers incentives to historic property owners to encourage rehabilitation, preservation and high quality design projects. Among other developmental benefits, historic properties calculate the number of employees generated by commercial development based on a specific formula that reduces the standazd mitigation number. The first four employees generated do not require mitigation and the next four employees require 30% mitigation. Over eight employees generated require the standard 604 West Main Street Staff Memo G:\city\Sazaa\604_612 WestMain\604WMainPZ.doc Page 3 of 5 mitigation. The applicant is required to mitigate for 3.0 employees and proposes a three bedroom onsite Category 4 rental unit to fulfill this obligation. The calculation for this project, based on a generation rate of 3.7 employees per 1,000 squaze feet of net leasable azea of commercial space in the MU zone district, is as follows: Number of employees generated: 2,975 sq. ft. new net leasable x 3.7/1,000 =11 employees First 4 employees = 0 mitigation Next 4 employees = 4 x 30% = 1.2 employees to be mitigated Next 3 employees = 3 x 60% = 1.8 employees to be mitigated 11 employees generated by 2,975 sq. ft. of new net leasable 1.2 + 1.8 = 3.0 total employees to be mitigated A three bedroom affordable housing unit houses three employees. Staff finds that the review standards for the Enlargement of a Historic Landmark, Section 26.470.070. C.2 of the Land Use Code, are met and recommends approval of the project. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW: The Applicant is requesting growth management approval to obtain sufficient development allotments to construct the proposed project. The project's compliance with the applicable review standards are discussed below: 1) Growth Management Aanroval for the Development of Affordable Housin¢. The Housing Board reviewed the proposal at their meeting held February 27, 2008 and recommended approval with conditions (Exhibit D). The Board prefers the unit be "for sale" and sold through the lottery system; however, since the applicant proposes a Category 4 rental unit, the Board proposes that the units be deed restricted as a Category 4 rental with the capability of converting into ownership units if the owners would request this change or APCHA deems the units out of compliance for a period of more than one yeaz. Staff includes two options in Section 6 of the Resolution: Option 6. B(1) approves a for sale unit and Option 6. B(2) approves a rental unit. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final decision making body as to the unit being for sale or rental. Based on the preference of the Housing Board and the language in the Land Use Code, Staff recommends that the unit be listed as for sale. Staff finds that the Growth Management Standards are met and recommends approval of the project. The following land dedication and impact fees aze applicable to this development: SCHOOL LANDS DEDICATION: Land Use Code Section 26.630, School Lands Dedications, requires that the Applicant either dedicate lands for school function or pay acash-in-lieu payment. Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed resolution requiring that the Applicant pay the School Lands Dedication cash in lieu requirement prior to issuance of a 604 West Main Street Staff Memo G:\city\Sazaa\604_612 W estMain\604 WMainPZ.doc Page 4 of 5 a building permit for the proposed development and that the fee shall be calculated at building permit submittal. PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE Bc TDM/ AIR QUALITY IMPACT FEE: The Applicant is required to pay the Park Development Impact Fee and Transportation Demand Management (TDM)/ Air Quality Impact Fee for additional bedrooms added to the site and additional net leasable created, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Impact Fees. These fees only apply to the new buildings on the site; the designated historic buildings are exempt (i.e. the historic Wylie House and the historic barn along the alley). The fees associated with this project shall be calculated at the time of building permit submittal. Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed resolution requiring that the Impact Fees be paid prior to buildingpermit issuance. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: The City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Aspen Sanitation District, Housing Department, Building Department, Zoning and the Parks Department have all reviewed the proposed application and their requirements have been included as conditions of approval when appropriate. RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the project is generally consistent with the goals of the AACP, as well as, the applicable review standazds in the Aspen Land Use Code. Staff recommends approval of the project. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMITIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No.J,S, Series of 2008, approving with conditions, the Enlargement of a Historic Landmazk for Mixed Use Development and Growth Management Review for a three bedroom Affordable Housing Unit." ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A Review Criteria for Enlargement of a Historic Landmark and Staff Findings EXHIBIT B Review Criteria for Growth Management and Staff Findings EXHIBIT C Development Review Committee meeting minutes dated February 14, 2007 ExxISIT D Housing Referral dated February 27, 2008 EXHIBIT E HPC Resolution 43, Series 2007, approving HPC Conceptual, Demolition, Relocation, Commercial Design Standazds and Vaziances. EXHIBIT F HPC Minutes dated October 10, 2007 and November 14, 2007. 604 West Main Street Staff Memo G:\city\Sazaa\604_612 W estMain\604 WMainPZ.doc Page 5 of 5 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR THE ENLARGEMENT OF A HISTORIC LANDMARK AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT 604 WEST MAIN STREET, LOTS Q, R, AND S, BLOCK 24 CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL N0.2735-124-44-008. RESOLUTION NO.f~ (SERIES OF 2008) WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from 604 West LLC, owned and operated by Neil Karbank and represented by Alan Richman Planning Services and Stryker Brown Architects, requesting approval of Growth Management Review for the Enlazgement of a Historic Landmark for a Mixed Use Development and Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing to enlazge the historic landmazk by adding 2,975 of new net leasable commercial azea and an affordable housing unit; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant received Commercial Design Standazd approval from the Historic Preservation Commission on December 12, 2007; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant received Major Development Conceptual, Relocation and Demolition approval from the Historic Preservation Commission on December 12, 2007; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant was granted setback variances by the Historic Preservation Commission on December 12, 2007; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned MU (Mixed Use); and, WHEREAS, the subject property is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmazk Sites and Structures; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval with conditions, of the land use requests; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 1, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No.J~ Series of 2008, by a _to _ ( - ) vote, approving Growth Management Review: the Enlazgement of a Historic Landmazk for a Mixed Use Development and Growth Management Review: Affordable Housing, for the development of two new commercial buildings and an affordable housing unit consisting of a total of 4,335 square feet of net leasable area and approximately 1,200 square feet of affordable housing located on the property at 604 West Main Street, Lots Q, R, and S, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, P& Z Resolution #, Series of 2008 Page I of 7 w WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfaze. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves with conditions a Growth Management Review for the enlargement of a historic landmark for mixed use development and a Growth Management Review for the development of affordable housing for the property located at 604 West Main Street, Lots Q, R, and S, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO. The use mix and dimensional requirements shall comply with the MU zone district, as included in the chart below. Specific square footage requirements may be amended, pursuant to compliance with the MU zone district. Dision~-- ~ ~ -~ enaion h ~ rv ~ _ ~: _ ~, r: , .. _., m, Minimum Lot 9,000 sq. fr. 3,000 sq. fr. Size Minimum Lot 90 ft. 30 ft. Width Minimum Lot 9,000 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft. Area/Dwellin Minimum Front 10 ft. ] 0 fr., which may be reduced to 5 ft. pursuant Yard Setback to S ecial Review Section 26.430 Minimum Side I ft. (east side, HPC granted 6 ft. 8 in. (east side, corner) Yard Setback variance) 5 ft. (west side) 5 ft. (west side) Minimum Rear 0 ft.(for Historic Bam and AHU, 5 fr. Yazd Setback HPC granted variance) Maximum Height 25 ft or less 28 ft. for Commercial, which may be increased to 32 ft. by Commercial Design Review 25 ft. for Residential Minimum Distance between 10 ft. 10 ft. Buildin son Lot Pedestrian Minimum of 35% 25% (pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public Amenit S ace Ameni Maximtun A roximatel 7,800 or Maximum cumulative is 9,000 s . fr. or 1:1, P& Z Resolution #, Series of 2008 Page 2 of 7 __"'onsi~ nal, ~ , , y.]Propos+edDimensions Mixed t}se(~U) Zone District Standards y, ,, .:x _ _pp ~; . ~ allowable floor 0.87:1 which may be increase to 1:1.25 through azea S ecial Review Minimum 6 spaces (5 spaces for the A total of 6 spaces for the proposed Number of 4,390 sq. ft. of net leasable, development- 1 per 1,000 sq. fl. of net leasable Pazkin S aces and 1 s ace for the AH unit) azea, and one er dwellin unit. Section 2: Buildine Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the HPC conceptual and final Resolution and a copy of the P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval by HPC and P&Z printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department. d. Improvements to the right of way shall include new grass, irrigation, and possibly the replacement of street trees, and shall be approved prior to building permit submittal. Improvements to the Main Street right of way will require over site by the City Forester. Detail root zones of trees in the right of way that may be impacted by the improvements. e. An excavation-stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), and drainage and spoils report pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The CMP shall include an identification of construction hauling routes, construction phasing, and a construction traffic and parking plan for review and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. The construction management plan shall also identify that the adjacent sidewalks will be kept open and maintained throughout construction. Staging azeas will be identified in the plan, and shall indicate that the alley shall not be closed during construction. No stabilization will be permitted in the City right of way. Storm run off must be addressed. f. A complete geotechnical report and geotechnical design need to be part of the permit submittal plan. g. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall meet adopted Building Code requirements. h. An approved Landscape Plan. Section 3: Dimensional Requirements The building as presented in the plans contained within the application complies with the dimensional requirements of the Mixed Use (MU) zone district, with the exception of the setback variances granted by the Historic Preservation Commission via Resolution #43 Series of 2007. Compliance with these requirements will be verified by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer at the time of building permit submittal. P& Z Resolution #, Series of 2008 Page 3 of 7 Section 4: Trash/Utility Service Area The trash containers shall be wildlife proof and meet the Certificate of Appropriateness regulations pertaining to size and security. Section 5: Sidewalks, Curb, sud Gutter The sidewalks shall be upgraded to meet the City Engineer's standazds, HPC recommendations and ADA requirements, and prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall provide plans that meet the approval of the City Engineer. Such improvements shall be made prior to a Certificate of Occupancy on any of the units within the development. Section 6: Affordable Housiu¢ A. The affordable housing requirements of the project shall be met with provision of one unit. The Applicant shall provide a three bedroom, Category 4, 1,200 squaze feet unit as represented in their application. B(1) The affordable housing unit shall be deed restricted as a Category 4 "for sale" unit and transferred to a qualified purchaser according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. B(2) The unit is permitted to be rental with the following conditions: a. The unit will be deed-restricted as Category 4 to be approved by APCHA and finalized at time of Final approval. b. The deed-restriction will allow for the unit to become an ownership unit at such time the owners would request this change and/or at such time the APCHA deems the unit out of compliance over a period of one year. If the unit is found to be out of compliance for one yeaz, or the owner elects to sell the unit, the unit would be listed for sale with the Housing Office as specified in the deed restriction. If the unit is being sold due to non-compliance, the sales price will be based upon the price from the day the non-compliance began. If the unit is being sold due to non- compliance, the unit will be sold through the lottery system. If the owner elects to sell the unit, the owner may choose the first buyer only the household qualifies under the top priority for that specific unit. c. An agreement will be established between the owners of the commercial space and APCHA regazding the tenancy of the affordable housing unit. At NO time will the tenancy of that unit be tied to any specific employer. If the owner cannot find a qualified a tenant, the owner will contact APCHA and the unit(s) will be filled through APCHA's normal advertising process. d. Two reserved parking spaces would be preferred for the affordable housing unit; however, one pazking space is required by the Code and the HPC has approved one parking space for the affordable housing unit. P& Z Resolution #, Series of 2008 Page 4 of 7 ..,. e. The units shall be owned by an Association and managed by that Association; however, the applicant must provide to APCHA, at final approval, more detail of maintaining and managing said unit. £ Each tenant in the rental unit will be required to be requalified by APCHA on a yearly basis. g. Minimum occupancy for the three-bedroom unit is required (i.e., a household of three consisting of all working adults or a family). Should the unit become a "for sale" unit, the top priority for the unit is a household of three with at least one a dependent as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines. h. The governing documents shall be drafted to reflect the potential for the rental unit to become an ownership unit. These governing documents shall be reviewed and approved by APCHA. i. Should the rental unit become an ownership unit, the APCHA or the City of Aspen can elect to purchase the unit for rental to qualified households in accordance with the APCHA Housing Guidelines. j. As long as the affordable housing unit remains as a rental unit, the APCHA or the applicant shall structure a deed restriction for the unit such that an undivided 1/10`h of 1 percent interest in the ownership of the unit is deed restricted in perpetuity to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; or until such time the unit becomes an ownership unit; or the applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority determines acceptable. k. Language shall be provided in the Protective Covenants covering the unit's assessments upon the unit becoming a "for sale" unit. The assessments shall be based on the value of the commercial space compared to and in proportion to the value of the deed-restricted unit. This language shall be required in the approval and in the Covenants associated with the project and allow for the same voting representation commercial space if the unit becomes a "for sale" unit. No changes to this restriction would be allowed without APCHA's approval. C. The affordable housing unit shall receive a Certificate of Occupancy prior to or at the same time as the newly developed commercial space. A deed restriction shall be recorded prior to the Certificate of Occupancy and, if applicable, at the same time as the recordation of the Condominium Plat. Section 7: Water Department Requirements The Applicant 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. within the building shall have individual water meters. Section 8: Sanitation District Reauirements a. Service is contingent. upon compliance with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's (ACSD) rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the P& Z Resolution #, Series of 2008 Page 5 of 7 District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitazy sewer system. b. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. c. Oil and Sand separators aze required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. Elevator shaft drains must flow through oil and sand interceptors. d. Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements before any and all sol stabilization measures are attempted and prior to ACSD releasing any and all permits. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements aze prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. e. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. £ All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. g. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and dischazge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. h. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ACSD main sewer lines. Section 9: Exterior Li¢htine All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. Section 10: Landscapin¢ a. Proposed on grade improvements need to be designed with the maximum protection of the root zones azound the cottonwood trees. Plans shall identify impacts to water and air absorption into the soil as well as root impacts. b. Prior to any the issuance of any demolition or building permits, tree removal will be approved by the Pazks Department. Mitigation for removals will be paid through cash-in-lieu or on site with street trees. c. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection, and the location of trees and the drip line of the trees in relationship to the existing structure and proposed structures, will be required for the building permit set. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Impact Fees, the Applicant shall pay a park development impact fee and a TDM/Air Quality impact fee prior to building permit issuance. The fee shall be calculated according to the fee schedule in Land Use Code Section 26.610.09 0, Fee Schedule. Section 12: School Lands Dedication Fee P& Z Resolution #, Series of 2008 Page 6 of 7 Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, the Applicant shall pay afee-in-lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen Community Development Department shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in affect at the time of building permit submittal. The Applicant shall provide the market value of the land including site improvements, but excluding the value of structures on the site. Section 13: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 14: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 15• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a sepazate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this ls` day of April, 2008. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: James R. True, Special Counsel ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk LJ Erspamer, Chair P& Z Resolution #, Series of 2008 • Page 7 of 7 ,, Exhibit A ENLARGEMENT OF A HISTORIC LANDMARK FOR COMMERCIAL, LODGE OR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT Section 26.470.070.1 of the Aspen Land Use Code Enlazgement of an historic landmazk for commercial, lodge or mixed-use development. The enlargement of an historic landmazk building for commercial, lodge or mixed-use development shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a. Up to four (4) employees generated by the additional commercial/lodge development shall not require the provision of affordable housing. Thirty percent (30%) of the employee generation above four (4) and up to eight (8) employees shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash in lieu thereof. Sixty percent (60%) of the employee generation above eight (8) employees shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash in lieu thereof. For example: A project generating 15 employees shall require employee mitigation for a total of 5.4 employees, as follows: First 4 em loyees = 0 em to ee mitigation Second 4 em to ees mitigated at 30% = 1.2 em to ees Remaining 7 em loyees miti ated at 60% = 4.2 emplo ees Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Subsection 4, Affordable housing, of this Section and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Staff Findin¢: The development proposes 2,975 sq. ft. of new net leasable commercial space. Approximately 1,360 sq. ft. of net leasable currently exist on the property; therefore, an estimated total of 4,335 sq. ft. of net leasable commercial space (2,975 + 1,360) is projected for the property. Based on an employee generation rate of 3.7 employees per 1,000 square feet of net leasable, the development generates 11 employees. According to the calculation above, the applicant is required to mitigate for 3.0 employees. An onsite 1,200 squaze feet three bedroom affordable housing unit is proposed for the site. The Housing Board has reviewed the proposal and finds that the housing requirements aze met. b. Up to one (1) free-market residence may be created pursuant to Pazagraph 26.470.060.4, Minor enlaggement of an historic landmark for commercial, lodge or mixed-use development. This shall be cumulative and shall include administrative GMQS approvals granted prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2007. Additional free-market units (beyond one [1]) shall be reviewed pursuant to Pazagraph 26.470.080.2, New free-market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use project. Exhibit A/ Enlazging a Historic Landmark GMQS G:\city\Sazaa\604_612 W estMain\604 WMainExhibitA.doc Page 1 of 3 .,, ,~,; Staff Findin¢: N/A. The applicant does not propose free mazket residential units in this development. 26.470.050. B. General requirements: All development applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standazds. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for growth management review based on the following generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of development: 1. Sufficient growth management allotments aze available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Staff Finding: The applicant requests 2,975 sq. ft. of net leasable commercial out of the total quota. Adequate development allotments are available for this proposal. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: The proposed new development meets the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The architecture is sensitive to the context and proportions of the Main Street Historic District. It includes rehabilitation and restoration of the Wylie House, historic barn and the dilapidated shed, which are important goals in the AACP. The project is located within the Urban Growth Boundary, which is a goal of the managing growth section of the AACP. The project promotes the AACP's goals regarding transportation by developing a building that supports a variety of transportation modes -transit, walking, and bicycling - and adds accessible office/commercial space along Main Street. The development provides a three bedroom affordable housing rental unit, which meets affordable housing requirements. The project is consistent with the Parks and Open Space section of the AACP. It includes improvements along the sidewalk on Main Street and the construction of a sidewalk along Fifth Street. The proposed pedestrian amenity exceeds the requirement. Staff finds that the goals of the AACP aze met. 3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. Staff Finding: The development conforms to the requirements in the Mixed Use Zone District. HPC granted reaz yard and east side yard setback vaziances to mitigate an adverse impact on the historic resource. 4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval, as applicable. Exhibit A/ Enlazging a Historic Landmazk GMQS G:\city\Sazaa\604_612 WestMain\604WMainExhibitA.doc Page 2 of 3 v Staff Findine: The proposal is generally consistent with the HPC Conceptual approval and Commercial Design Review approval. 5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Pazagraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Staff Findin¢: N/A. Please refer to Section 26.470.070.1.a for a discussion on affordable housing generation. 6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-mazket residential net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Pazagraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restiicted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that aze being provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied. Staff Findine.: N/A. Please refer to Section 26.470.070.1.a for a discussion on affordable housing generation. 7. 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, pazking and road and transit services. (Ord. No. 14, 2007, § 1) Staff Finding: The project is located within the Aspen Infill azea and represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure. The applicant attended a Design Review Committee meeting in February and already incorporated some changes into the project based on the comments at the meeting. Referral comments aze included in Exhibit C. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Exhibit A/ Enlazging a Historic Landmark GMQS G:\city\Sazaa\604_612 WestMain\604WMainExhibitA.doc Page 3 of 3 :. ..~. EXHIBIT B GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING 26.470.070.4 The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a. 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 Findine: The Housing Board considered the proposed three bedroom 1,200 sq. ft. affordable housing unit and found compliance with the APCHA Guidelines. APCHA recommends approval of the unit with conditions. b. 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 limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Pazagraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, acash-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, acash-in-lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. Staff Findine: The affordable housing unit is in the form of an actual newly built unit located onsite. This criterion is met. c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit's net livable azea is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Staff Findine: The entire unit is located on the second floor of the development above the parking spaces. This criterion is met. d. 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. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the Exhibit B/ Affordable Housing GMQS G:\city\Sazaa\604_612 WestMain\604 WMainExhibitB.doc Page 1 of 2 City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County or other similaz governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision. Staff Finding: The proposed unit is requested to be a Category 4deed-restricted rental unit owned by the applicant. Based on the recommendation of the Housing Boazd and criterion d above which prefer for sale units, staff finds that the unit should be for sale. The applicant intends to rent the unit to an employee of the commercial space and meet with the City Attorney for approval of an acceptable legal instrument to ensure the permanent affordability of the unit. The Housing Board recommends that if the owner cannot find a qualified employee to rent the space, the owner will contact APCHA and the units will be filled through APCHA's normal advertising process. Exhibit B/ Affordable Housing GMQS G:\city\Sazaa\604_612 WestMain\604WMainExhibitB.doc Page 2 of 2 Development Review Committee Referral Comments/ 604 West Main Street: Building Department: Preliminary plan review comment for DRC of 604 W Main 1) Applicant should be aware of CDOT requirements for ROW improvements and or access. 2) Questions about type of construction, occupancy separations, exiting from lower and upper levels will best be worked out prior to permit submittal. Zonin 1. Net leasable had two different #'s 1360 and 1426 sq. fr. in the document. I think that ] 360 was the correct #. 2. List type of AH unit on plan set, list net livable on FAR page and also FAR for AH to total with the rest of the FAR for the property. To verify the .87:1 3. Need to resolve setback in between the two parcels. 4. fees: Will include School Land (26.620), TDM, and Parks (26.610). Applicant will provide current "Market Value". To calculate your fees there is a fee matrix on our website for your convenience. Below is [he definition of market value. This term comes up when calculating your "School Land" fees. 1. Current market value. Current market value means the value of the land at the time of the cash-in-lieu payment, including site improvements such as streets and utilities, but excluding the value of residential dwelling units and other structures on the property. 2. Substantiation. Market value may be substantiated by a documented purchase price (if anarms-length transaction no more than two [2] years old) or other mutually agreed-upon recognized means. 3. Appraisal In the event the developer and the City fail to agree on market value, such value shall be established by a qualified real estate appraiser acceptable to both parties. The developer shall pay for the appraisal. Eire Department: • Sprinkler the development/fire alarms • Hydraulic calculations ~~~r C. C .. Date: February 20, 2008 Project: 604 West Main Street City of Aspen Engineering Department DRC Comments "Chew comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project packet submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting. Transportation Driveways -Specify all driveway locations and widths. Standards depend on zoning district. Draina>;e General -Project packet must include a discussion of anticipated and proposed drainage patterns, detention storage and outlet concepts. Storm Sewer System -Project drainage requirements may include construction of new storm sewer line, minimum lateral 15" RCP and mainline 18" RCP to connect to existing storm sewer system. A Stormwater System Development Fee shall be assessed against all properties at the time of development or redevelopment of the property. The fee shall be assessed against the total impervious area of the development, not simply the increased impervious area. Detention as required by code. Pedestrian Improvements General - In accordance with the City's Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Master Plan, property owners are required to replace and/or install and maintain sidewalk, curb and gutter along the street frontage adjacent to their properties. Properties within certain areas of the City are not required to install sidewalk, curb and gutter. These locations are shown on the "Sidewalk Free Zones" and the "No Curb and Gutter Zones" maps dated February 22, 2002. These maps are kept in the City Engineering Department. Sidewalks -Sidewalks must be replaced and/or installed along the property line. Project must depict ALL sidewalk locations and widths. Sidewalk width is based on the land use. Residential: 5' High density and multi-family azeas: 6' Commercial areas 8'. Warning Pads -detectable warning pads shall be installed at all curb ramps. Curb ramps shall be directional and not diagonal. Construction Mana e~ ment General - A construction management plan must be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. The plan must include a planned sequence of construction that minimizes construction impacts to the public. The plan shall ~~ L ~~ describe mitigation`,or: parking, staging/encroachments, to i traffic, noise, dust, and erosion/sediment pollution. Miscellaneous Utilities -All above ground structures shall be located outside the public rights-of--way. Sight Distances -Project shall comply with proper sight distances at intersections/driveways. Detailed plans are required prior to council -please see engineering department for specific details. Additional Project Specific Comments 'the Engineering Department Checklist will need to be followed, especially with regard to: Site Grading Plan, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan & Excavation Stabilization Plan. Sidewalk will be required along 5`h Street. The sidewalk must be designed in such a way as to minimize the impact to the existing trees. In order to achieve this, an alternate design, material and installation may be required. The Engineering Dept must review and approve the design prior to building permit submittal. It is unclear as to what happens to the irrigation ditch to the north and south. Plans must clearly show this ditch. Only one driveway cut will be permitted. The maximum width of this cut is 10 feet. Depending on how the detention is designed, as new storm sewer system may be required f'or the project. See comment above. ~tAl~4,tr (' ACSD Requirements-604 West Main Street Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Oil and Sand separators are required Tor parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. Elevator shafts drains must Flow thru o/s interceptor The old service lines (3) must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements, before any and all soil stabilization measures are attempted and prior to ACSD releasing any and all permits. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. The Applicant will have to pay 40% of the estimated tap fees for the anticipated building stubouts prior to building permit. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines and within 3 feet vertically below an ACSD main sewer line. ~1t11.v1-r P r-. DRC Comments Parks Department 2/20/08 Project: 604 W Main Street Over the past several years the Parks Department has worked with multiple Main Street redevelopment projects in order to protect the character of the existing urban forest. This has resulted in the successful development of properties that contain historical and important trees. This property is no exception. The property is encumbered with several large and historic cottonwood trees, which will need to be protected to the fullest extent possible. Parks cannot support the proposed excavation within the drip line of the cottonwood trees located in the front yard setback. The maximum encroachment under the drip line that will be approved by the Parks Department will be to the front of the existing historical structure. Anew design for the proposed excavation and location of the structures will be required in order to receive sign off on the building permit. 2. Proposed on grade improvements will need to be redesigned with the goal of maximum protection of the root zones around the cottonwood trees. Current plans identify multiple impacts, which will impact water and air absorption into the soil as well as root impacts. Parks requires a new plan that shows the location of the trees and the drip line of the trees in relationship to the existing structures and proposed structures. 4. An approved tree permit will be required before any construction related activities take place on the property. This includes, demo of structures, house moving, excavation, etc.... Please contact the City Forester at 920-5120. 5. Any landscape plan should detail the mitigation for tree removal with locations and legends for newly planted trees. 6. Improvements to the ROW, if required by engineering, along Fifth Street are encouraged. Improvements may require the removal of the two coniferous trees located within the City ROW on Fifth Street. These trees are not sufficient for appropriate pedestrian movement and vehicular site lines. Removal of these trees for improvements will be approved without mitigation. Improvements to the Main Street ROW will require over site by the City Forester or designee. New curb and gutter, sidewalks and other required improvements will severely impact the existing trees within the ROW. All improvements should take into consideration that excavations into the root zones would not be approved. Designs and the engineering for these improvements should be designed to account for this impact and will need to be approved by both Parks and Engineering. ~X4~I~ilfi G . ~~ MEMORANDUM TO: Sara Adams, Community Development FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing DATE: February 27, 2008 RE: 604 WEST MAIN STREET REDEVELOPMENT Pazcel ID No. 2735-124-44-007 ISSUE: The applicant is seeking approval to redevelop the property at 604 West Main Street BACKGROUND: The property currently contains five buildings. The applicant is requesting to preserve and restore two contributing historic buildings, remove three of the existing buildings that aze not historic, and replace these three structures with two small office buildings and a carport that has an affordable housing unit on its second floor. The Historic Preservation Committee has reviewed and approved the applicant's proposal. The proposed project would create an office compound with five small buildings (the same number that is currently on the property, which two would be historic structures and three would be new structures. No free-market component is being proposed on this property. The affordable housing unit is proposed to contain three bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to increase the net leasable commercial space by approximately 2,975 square feet. The current commercial space is 1,360 square feet, thereby providing a total 4,335 square feet of net leasable space. MITIGATION: Section 26.470.070.0.2 of the Land Use Code authorizes the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve the enlargement of a historic landmark for mix used development. The Code states the following standards: Up to 4 employees generated by the additional commerciaUlodge development shall not require the provision of affordable housing. Thirty percent (30%) of the employee generation above 4 and up to 8 employees shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof. Sixty percent (60%) of the employee generation above 8 employees shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.070.4, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/ ~~.~lt ~. P' Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. According to Section 26.470.100 A.1. of the Code, 2.7 employees are generated per 1,000 square feet of net leasable commercial space in the Mixed Use (MU) zone district. The net increase in net leasable commercial space will generate 11 employees (2,975 X 3.7 - 1,000 = 11). The Code- specified formula for mitigation of employees on a Historic Landmark property would generate the following: • First 4 employees = 0 Employees to be mitigated • Ncxt 4 employees = 4 X 30% = 1.2 employees to be mitigated • Remaining 3 employees = 3 X 60% = 1.8 employees to be mitigated Based on this calculation, 3.0 employees aze required to be mitigated for the redevelopment of this property. The applicant is proposing to build athree-bedroom affordable housing unit on-site that mitigates for 3.0 employees. The applicant is proposing the unit as a Category 4 rental unit and is proposed to be approximately 1,200 square feet in size, which meets the minimum stated size for a Category 3 and Category 4 3-bedroom unit. Section 26.470.070.4.d states: 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. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifteations from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City of Aspen to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an emp/Dyer or non profit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing units for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. As stated above, the applicant is requesting the unit be a rental unit for employees of the commercial space. RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Boazd reviewed the application at their regular meeting held February 20, 2008 and although the project does not fulfill the goal that 100% of employee ll~lfi 1~. ~W , mitigation should be provided, the project is providing mitigation as currently stipulated in the Land Use Code and preserving two historic structures. Since the mitigation requirement is being satisfied as stipulated in the Code by an on-site unit rather than apayment-in-lieu fee, Staff would recommend approval of the application. "For sale" units are preferred over rental units, but since the developer is requesting the unit as a rental, the following conditions should be required as part of the approval: Rental Units: a. The unit will be deed-restricted as Category 4 to be approved by APCHA and finalized at time of Final approval. b. The deed-restriction will allow for the unit to become an ownership unit at such time the owners would request this change and/or at such time the APCHA deems the unit out of compliance over a period of one year. If the unit is found to be out of compliance for one year, or the owner elects to sell the unit, the unit would be listed for sale with the housing Office as specified in the deed restriction. If the unit is being sold due to non- compliance, the sales price will be based upon the price from the day the non- compliance began. If the unit is being sold due to non-compliance, the unit will be sold through the lottery system. If the owner elects to sell the unit, the owner may choose the first buyer only the household qualifies under the top priority for that specific unit. c. An agreement will be established between the owners of the commercial space and APCHA regarding the tenancy of the affordable housing unit. At NO time will the tenancy of that unit be tied to any specific employer. If the owner cannot find a qualified a tenant, the owner will contact APCHA and the unit(s) will be filled through APCHA's normal advertising process. d. fwo reserved parking spaces would be preferred for the affordable housing unit; however, one parking space is required by the Code and the HPC has approved one parking space for the affordable housing unit. e. The units shall be owned by an Association and managed by that Association; however, the applicant must provide to APCHA, at final approval, more detail of maintaining and managing said unit. f. Fach tenant in the rental unit will be required to be requalified by APCHA on a yearly basis. g. Minimum occupancy for the three-bedroom unit is required (i.e., a household of three consisting of all working adults or a family). Should the unit become a "for sale" unit, the 3 ~cikll'blfi'D ° <.~ top priority for the unit is a household of three with at least one a dependent as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines. h. The governing documents shall be drafted to reflect the potential for the rental unit to become an ownership unit. These governing documents shall be reviewed and approved by APCHA. i. Should the rental unit become an ownership unit, the APCHA or the City of Aspen can elect to purchase the unit For rental to qualified households in accordance with the APCHA Housing Guidelines. j. As long as the affordable housing unit remains as a rental unit, the APCHA or the applicant shall structure a deed restriction for the unit such that an undivided 1/10`h of 1 percent interest in the ownership of the unit is deed restricted in perpetuity to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; or until such time the unit becomes an ownership unit; or the applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority determines acceptable. k. [.anguage shall be provided in the Protective Covenants covering the unit's assessments upon the unit becoming a "for sale" unit. The assessments shall be based on the value of the commercial space compared to and in proportion to the value of the deed-restricted unit. This language shall be required in the approval and in the Covenants associated with the project and allow for the same voting representation commercial space if the unit becomes a "for sale" unit. No changes to this restriction would be allowed without APCHA's approval. The affordable housing unit shall receive a Certificate of Occupancy prior to or at the same time as the newly developed commercial space. The deed-restriction shalt be recorded at the time of recordation of the Condo Plat and prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 4 ~4111YL,4r (~ ,-. a, RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), DEMOLITION, RELOCATION, VARIANCES AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW (CONCEPTUAL) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 604 WEST MAIN STREET, LOTS Q, R AND S, BLOCK 24, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION N0.43, SERIES OF 2007 P ARCF.I. ID: 273 5 -124-44-008. WHEREAS, the applicant 604 West LLC, c/o Neil Kazbank, Manager, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services, has requested Major Development (Conceptual), Relocation, Demolition, Vaziances, and Commercial Design Standard Review for the property located at 604 West Main Street, Lots Q, R and S, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen IIisloric Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 oi~ the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, in order to authorize a demolition, according to Section 26.415.080, Demolition of designated historic properties, it must be demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public safely and the ownerfapplicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, azchaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionally for approval to demolish all of the followine criteria must be met: RECEPTIONA~: 545190, 1 212 6120 07 at 10:15:16 AM, ~ of 6, R $31.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO ~Y~-EIC~Ii~ __ _ j a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area; and WHERF,AS, for approval of relocation, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.090.0 of the Municipal Code, it must be demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: 1. It is considered anon-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; or 3. "1'he owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will nut adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally for aaaroval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. WHEREAS, for approval of Commercial Design Standards, according to Section 26.412.050 Review Criteria, an application for Commercial Design Review may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial Design Standards or any deviation from the Standazds provides amore- appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the Standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested Design Elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the Standards. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial ,... _. ---- _ ___ Design Standazds, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the fagade of the building may be required to comply with this section. . C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, Standazds and guidelines that aze to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. "fhe City shall determine when a proposal is incompliance with the criteria, Standazds and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guide]ines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means; and WHEREAS, for approval of setback variances, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a heazing to determine, per Section 26.415.110.0 of the Municipal Code, that the setback variance' a. is similar to the pattern, features and chazacter of the historic property or disVict; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or azchitectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district; and WHEREAS, Saza Adams, in her staff report dated December 12, 2007, performed an analysis of the application based on the Standazds, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on December 12, 2007, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote of 6 to 1. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 17' RESOLVED: That HPC hereby recommends approval for Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition, Relocation, Variances, and Commercial Design Standard Review (Conceptual) for the property located at 604 West Main Street, Lots Q, R and S, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, as proposed with the following conditions; 1. "1'he applicant shall reduce the overall maximum height of the Affordable Housing unit and the Fifth Street new building by al least 1 foot. 2. A step shall be added to the roof of the porch element located on the south elevation of the new building fronting Main Street. '~rl.~n,l+ ~ ,-~ 3. HFC recommends against a sidewalk along the Fifth Street side of the parcel to the Parks and Engineering Departments. [f the City requires a sidewalk, then the site plan, pedestrian paths and parking space along Fifth Street shall be readdressed by HPC. 4. The following setbacks aze granted for the historic Wylie House: 5 foot setback along Fifth Street, where I foot is provided and 6 feet aze required for a comer lot with two front yazds, as attached in Exhibit A. 5. The following setback is granted for the second floor Affordable Housing Unit on the alley: 5 feet setback along the alley, where 0 feet are provided and 5 feet aze required, as attached in F,xhibit A. 6. "fhe following setback is granted for the Fifth Street Building: a minimum setback from the Fifth Street property line for the second story deck is 3 feet, as attached in Exhibit A. 7. The following setbacks aze granted for the Historic Barn: 6 feet sideyard and 5 feet rearyazd setback along Fifth Street and the alley for the existing condition, where 0 feet is provided, as attached in Exhibit A. 8. The following setbacks are granted for the Historic Shed: 5 feet rear yazd setback to relocate the historic shed onto 612 West Main Street. 0 feet is provided for the reaz yazd setback, as attached in Exhibit A. 9. Commercial Design Standard Review is granted regarding Pedestrian Amenity Space and "Trash and Utility areas. 10. Demolition is granted for the two 1950s structures. 11. Relocation is granted for the historic shed. 12. The historic shed is permitted to be thoroughly documented, dismantled, and reconstructed in its new location on the adjacent lot. 13. A structural report demonstrating that the building can be moved and/or information about how the house will he stabilised from the house mover must be submitted with the building permit application. The applicant must provide information as to whether or not the existing floor structure will be maintained and the pro's and con's of the decision for review and approval by staff and monitor. 14. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the structure mixst be submitted with the building permit application. 15. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with [he building permit application. 16. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant aone-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. [signatures on following page] ~~11~tdtk Z APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 12th day of December 2007. Approved as to Form: ~mes R. True, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTO P SF~RVATION COMMISSION \J- Michael Hotfman, hair ATTEST: Kathy Str' kland, Chief Deputy Clerk 'GvLl1t7~Ii- ~ ___ ,~ i~ L9 _~.- ~° C ~~~ . ~~ ~~~I N 0 I - ----- - ;~ __ _ ~,. ~, ~ i -- - __ - ! a9 --,------- _ e, -- • 1 iE3F~l 6 e. _ _ ~~ ~~~ ° ~" - ~~ ti~ ~9 ~ ~ ~_~~I~~ 1~',i~ 3 _, ~ ~- t A h ~ -+ _ _ ~ b f ; ~4 - ~__.. ~ ~ ~ i a ~ i A ~ ~~.~ i - ,~ c ~. I 3'',«i ~ '~ -g. ~ I ~.n- _.. _ .. T ~ ~. 4 e ~~T ' 8 ~ t1f ~g~ ~' ~ ~~ 3 ~ Drn z ~ ~ i ~; ~ ~ I I ~}~ i s ~ F~ s ~`z ;a I~ i~ ' ~ ~ mai s ~~ ~~ ~~ 1 3 ,~. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER lU. 2007 435 W. MAIN -ASPEN JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER -MAJOR DEVELOPMEN'f ............................................................................................................... 2 PARKING ME'fERS .......................................................................................................... 6 604 W. MAIN CONCEPTUAL -DEMOLITION RELOCATION -COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW -VARIANCES - PII ......................................................................... 7 EXHIBIT F HPC MINUTES OCT. 10, 2007 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10.2007 Ann said she would prefer a single poll and keep [he light polls as clean as possible from signage etc. 'T'his is a great idea. Ann said at some point someone should look at lrrouping the newspaper boxes. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public heazing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Sarah said she would like to see a full plan of where the polls would go. Tim said they are located in the middle block. Jeffrey said the locations are specific and we need to see where they are located. Brian agreed that we are spreading out the urban clutter and we need to see a plan. It will be great to get them off the light posts. Tim said the cost is $17,000 a piece. The decision was to go solar and the technology is there. Sarah said she would like an energy analysis. MOTlON.• Jeffrey moved to approve Resolution #37 with the condition that a plan for where the parking meters go be presented to staj~j'and monitor; second by Brian. Roll call vote: Sarah, no; Ann, yes: Alison, yes; Brain, yes; Nora, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried 5-1. 604 W. MAIN - CONCF,PTUAL -DEMOLITION -RELOCATION - COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW -VARIANCES - PH Affidavit of posting -Exhibit I Elevation -Exhibit ll Sara said this is a large project. The size of the lot is 9,000 square feet and it is within the Main Street historic district. Right now there are five buildings on the property, three are considered historic. There is a miner's cabin that fronts Main Street and an 1880's out building/bam located along the alley on Fifth Street. There is a 19`h century shed that straddles the property line between 604 and 612 W. Main. EXHIBIT F HPC MINUTES OCT. 10, 2007 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10.2007 'fhe applicant is interested in developing the property to include commercial and affordable housing. 't'here are no free market uses involved. The design is well under the allowable FAR on this property. The ratio proposed is .85 to 1, where 1 to 1 is the maximum allowed for the mixed use zone district. HPC had a work session and overall staff feels this project is moving in a very positive direction. There are five reviews: Major Development, Conceptual; Commercial Design Standard review; Demolition of 2 1950's buildings; Relocation of the primary historic residence, the miner's cabin that fronts Main Street and also relocation of the 19`h century shed. There are also dimensional variances requested for this application. Design: Staff recommends that the parking space proposed along 5`h Street be removed. Removing the curb cut and reducing the hard scape on the historic property is a positive step. The applicant is asking if the parking space is removed that there be a reduction in the parking requirement which is something HPC has the authority to do. Height: In terms of what is proposed for the new buildings staff reconunends that the applicant look at lowering the floor plate heights to better relate to the historic resources, particularly on the 5`h Street side. It is sandwiched between two historic pieces. We found that the floor plate heights of the 5`h Street building was a little out of proportion to what the historic resources are so we request that the plate heights be dropped. During the work session there was discussion about the elevator shafts and the stairwells that were adding access to the roof decks. The first issues is the maximum height. The proposal is roughly 38 feet and that is in violation of the height requirements for the mixed use zone district. What is allowed is 28 feet. You are allowed 5 feet for mechanical so that brings you up to 33 feet. Staff feels the height variation needs more study. Scale and massing: Sara said the scale and massing is moving in a good direction. The flat roof keeps the height down. Maybe some material changes would create a better dialogue with the historic resources. The alley elevation is broken up which EXHIBIT F HPC MINUTES OCT. 10, 2007 r. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10.2007 is positive: Overall staff is recommending continuation of looking at the massing and the floor plate heights in relationship to the historic resources. Demolition: Staff found that the criteria for demolition of the [wo 1950's buildings were met. Relocation criteria: There is a shed that is straddling the property line. The owner owns both properties and he is asking to remove the shed onto the 612 property. Staff is in favor of that. The owner is also rehabbing the shed. The miner's cabin facing Main Street is proposed to be moved forwadd and is appropriate for this site. Right now it is central on the property which makes it difficult to develop anything on this site. Setback variances: Overall the variances requested are appropriate and they help the development stay spread out and it increases some of the distances between buildings on this small site and it allows the development to be broken up into modules. Overall staff is recommending continuation. Neil Karbank ,owner said he practices law in the main house and has a tenant in one of the cabins in the back. All the buildings are not energy efficient and basically dumps. What I would like to do is renovate the buildings, move a couple of buildings and build new buildings for offices. We would like to have new and modern energy efficient well built buildings. We don't anticipate any change in the current uses just more of it. We will also have the affordable housing unit. We have proposed less FAR than what is allowed. The flat roof portions of the project are proposed to be usable, not every day but for an occasional function. David Brown, architect: David said there is a barn and the historic Rebecca Wylie house. We are proposing to move the Wylie house forward and move the shed and demolish the other three structures on the site. Abasement would be built under the Wylie house and the other 2 buildings as well. We will be adding another building beside the Wylie house on Main Street and one behind the Wylie house connected by one roof top. It would be a one story element that steps up to a two story element, Because we want to activate the roof we need to have an elevator for wheel chair access. The third structure is on the alley where the existing garage barn is. We are EXHIBIT F HPC MINUTES OCT. 10, 2007 .,. ,~ ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10.2007 proposing to have an employee dwelling unit float above the parking spaces and dumpster/recycling area. At the work session we were asked to break the building up and we broke the materials up so that we have vertical siding and glass in between. There are two means of egress provided. Models were presented to show the project and elevator. David said there is a shed over the stairs. Some of the contemporary materials might be a little jamng but it is intentional not to confuse the community that this is not an historic building. David explained the concept of the three buildings. Regarding the parking currently there is a parking space with a shed over it and we are proposing to remove the shed and keep the parking space as an historic clement. Height: David said if we have 28 feet as an allowable height and if HPC grants a 4 foot addition we would be at 32 feet. The predominant portion of the roof deck is 22 feet. One of the reasons to extend the height is stated in guideline 7.13, to make a demonstrable contribution to the building's overall energy efficiency, for instance, by providing improved day lighting. One of the reasons we want a 9 foot ceiling is so that we can have a light shelf at 8 feet that reflects light into a 9 foot ceiling and bounces light for the interior. A 9 foot ceiling would also allow for stratification of hot air and reduce the need for an air conditioner. The shed on the west side has a stair down to the basement and if we have to cover that we can do a trellis with some kind of solid material. We might need a variance for that. Alan Kichmond said Neil owns the property next door and the setback variance in reality would be in the middle of his two properties. In effect he is the only neighbor that would he affected by the setback variance. Ann asked about the use of the art bam. David said Neil's wife is a painter and is contemplating using it for her studio. Neil said his sister-in-law Judy Haas has expressed interest in using the studio. Neil said it seems like the right use for the building. Ann also asked about the existing trees on the site. David said they feel they can stay out of the critical part of the root structures of all the trees on Main Street. Nora asked about the lilac trees on 5`h Street. David said the intention is to retain the pine tree on 5`h Street and he didn't see any lilacs but if they can stay out of the way of the lilacs they will do so. If the entire roof is usable it has to have a guard rail which is solid. David said they are proposing a very EXHIBIT F HPC MINUTES OCT. 10, 2007 ~ () .~. _, ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10.2007 light hand rail. The intent is to meet the code have a guard rail at 42 inches and have the thinnest possible steel handrail that we can achieve. For the four inch elements it would be airplane cable. Nora said with the guard rail we are added 42 inches to the entire height. Neil said the height of the flat roof buildings is 22 feel and with 42 inches it is 25 % feet and the height limit is 28 feet. Alison said there are five parking spaces along the alley and you are requesting that HPC waive the 6` one. Alan said there are five for the commercial and one for the affordable housing. If we loose one we would need HPC to waive one. David said parking is a premium and keeping one space on the site is the reasonable thing to do. Alan said we are willing to provide the six spaces but we recognize that it is visible from 5`h Street and does contradict that aspect of the guidelines. Alison also asked about curb cuts along 5'h Street. David said right now there is a continuous curb cut at the barn. Across the street there are a few curb cuts. The 1Jllr has a continuous curb cut. David pointed out that the two story structure echoes the two story structures across the street. Alan pointed out that there are variances because we are trying to set the buildings away from the historic structure. Nora inquired about the FAR. David said 7,600 square feet is above grade and there is no FAR below grade. The space below, the basement is 5,700 square feet. That includes mechanicals etc. Jeffrey asked about the elevator tower and what the rationale was to go with the flat roofs. David said it creates a different identity from the west building. It creates a very interesting massing to brake up the stair tower and elevator into three pieces. The flat roofs are neutral and one of the goals of the two buildings is to be a neutral background to the historic resource. EXHIBIT F t, HPC MINUTES OCT. 10, 2007 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10.2007 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Don Erdman, public said HPC should never approve a variance unless it proved a true hardship to the applicant. This is a commercial application. The applicant said that the proposed roof deck will be used for fund raising and other functions. There is a great space at the Jewish Center that will be approved that could be used for functions and also there are numerous patrons who are willing to give much more amenable private spaces for fund raising than a place right on Main Street with all the traffic going by. If the roof deck was eliminated there would no railings in the air, no stair tower, no elevator shaft. There would he a lot less impact on Main Street. Chairperson, Jeffrey I Ialferty closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: Sarah indicated that she cannot support the height variance given the historic resources that are single story. It seems inappropriate and contradictory to our guidelines. In terms of the variances for creating a better site plan the overall campus feeling needs to be studied regarding the spacing between the buildings etc. Sarah said she is not sure the mass and scale is appropriate yet. Ann said her feeling is that the overall footprint and massing is too large for the site. The site is very crowded and dense compared to the texture and development on the rest of Main Street. It is commendable to create a distinction between historic buildings and new buildings. These buildings are almost too distinct. The entry to the west building is somewhat screened and more commonly historic buildings on Main Street have dominant entry features on the fapade. Ann pointed out that there needs to be enough space between the five buildings. Alison also agreed that a height variance should not be granted. Regarding the parking she feels the 6th space should not be removed. We should be keeping as much off street parking as we can. Regarding the scale and mass the applicant has worked hard and the program is not out of scale. A restudy on the spacing between the historic structures would be helpful. Brian said the architecture is wonderful and the design. He questions the context that it is in given the numerous surrounding historic resources. EXHIBIT r t Z HPC MINUTES OCT. 10, 2007 y ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10.2007 There is too much of a variation. The historic resource is being absorbed by the new development. Brian said his suggestion would be to scale back on the new building being built right behind the historic resource. The elevator shaft and roof tops are well above what is appropriate in height in this particular area. Brian said he cannot support the height variance. We are dealing with a series of small vernaculars along the streetscape and then you get to the subject lot and the mass is significantly larger than what is on that particular lot. "fhe parking variance is Ok because we need to get cars off the streetscape if we are able to. Nora pointed out that the addition on the west is appropriate because of the scale and it is wood. It is unusual to have three historic structures from the same era on a block. The entire block has a very low profile. It seems as though the historic resource has become a postage stamp and isn't put into value. The height variance is not in compliance with guideline 7.13. The scale and mass is very large. Jeffrey concluded by commending the applicants for their excellent study materials. The need for office space on Main Street is a significant need. The height, scale and mass of the structures are fairly well orchestrated. The elevator and egress tower is the focal point and the difficult part because that is where the height variance is. The roof top and how it affects Main Street and the surrounding historic neighborhood is important. The architecture is being overwhelmed by the elevator towers. Jeffrey can support the parking variance of one space because it might help the separation between the barn and the alley on 5'h street and it meets 7.3 and 7.7 of our guidelines (minimize curb cuts). The height variances requested are somewhat cumbersome. The alley housing component is an important need and they are interesting structures and it is an appropriate place for them. The design proposal of the project is moving forward. The demolition is OK and it meets our criteria. "I'he relocation of the historic structure forward is appropriate as it makes the historic house more prominent. With a little redesign there could be support of the application. Jeffrey announced that this is his last HPC meeting. He has been on the board for 12 years. Jeffrey thanked the board and the applicants. Neil Karbank said he would like to have the roof deck but if it is his life's work to get it he will give it up. If it makes everyone's life easier lets just forget the roof deck. If we have to get rid of the diagonals we can do that EXHIBIT P HPC MINUTES OCT. 10, 2007 13 ~s._^ '' ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10.2007 also. I would like this to be as simple as possible. Neil thanked the board and he can work with everything else. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue 604 W. Main, conceptual and public hearing until Nov. 14`n; second by Alison. Roll call vote: Nora, yes; Brian, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Ann, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Sarah moved to adjourn; second by Jeffrey. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. ~ ~ a~~~' ~~~ i ~t. L CC ~ ~ / l ru.~ ~~tt-, Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk EXHIBIT F HPC MINUTES OCT. 10, 2007 l4 --f; --- ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14.2007 435 W. Main St. Substantial Amendment, public hearing ................................................. 3 604 W. Main Street -Major Development -Conceptual, Public Hearing ........................ 5 420 E. Hopkins .................................................................................................................. 11 Work session -Ordinance #48 no minutes .................................................................... 14 EXHIBIT F NOV. 14, 2007 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14, 2007 Hardy plank: Sarah and Alison had no objection. Brian said he will not object but would prefer something else if the budget allows. East patio wall: Ann said the trade off having ADA access from the building vs. something out of context, the ADA access is preferable. 'fhe wall will be pulled back and have plantings in front of it. Michael said the updated landscape plan should be a condition of approval. Arthur explained that the wall of the patio off the social hall will be flush with the base of the social hall wall and the planting bed will be in front of that wall on the Main Street side. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #40 for 435 W. Main Street an amendment to the major development. The amendments are as follows: The Comanche stone sample and mockup are approved. The cement board siding is approved. The east patio front wall will be aligned with the north wall of the meeting hall. Plantings will be in front of the east patio wall. An updated landscape plan will be approved by staff and monitor. The remaining condition 4-7 of the memo. All conditions of the major development final) approval not inconsistent with those conditions set forth herei~t shall remain in full force and effect. Motion was second by Alison. Roll call.• Nora, no; Alison, yes; Brian, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes. Motion carried 4-I. Ann abstained. 604 W. Main Street -Major Development -Conceptual, Public Hearing Amy indicated that there is an historic miner's cottage on the site and a carriage type structure, which is the art barn and an 19~' Century shed that straddles the property line between this lot and the one to the west. All those are to be preserved. The art bam will be preserved in its existing location. The house is proposed to be moved into the front corner of the lot and the building straddling the lot will be moved to 612 W. Main the neighboring property so that it sits properly on one lot. On the remainder of the site is a EXHIBIT F NOV. 14, 2007 ~. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14.2007 new commercial structure with an affordable housing deed restricted unit proposed on the alley. There are two other shed type buildings on the alley that are proposed to be demolished. Staff is comfortable with the Main Street facade. With regard to the commercial building the fagade on 5`~ Street has not been quite successfully achieved. One proposal is that the building has a flat roof and the benefit of that is that it keeps the height low and allows it to read clearly and it is set back slightly from the facade of the historic buildings. The second alternative puts a gabled roof on the commercial building. Thal is staff's preference but it is not successful yet because it doesn't extend far enough back into the building to read as a true gable. This is the only area of concern. Between the art barn and the commercial wing there is currently a parking space. Staff recommends that the parking space be eliminated. The applicant is suggesting that they make use of that space. Without a clear resolution of the commercial building we are not ready to recommend conceptual approval. Alan Richmond represented the applicant Neil Karbank. David Brown, project architect. Alan said they reviewed the memo and are pleased that staff is in support of most if not all the changes that we have made to the project. We have tried to give a response to all of the directions that we received on Oct, 10`h from the HPC. Alan stated what he thought was right about this project and deserving of HPC support. There are three historic structures on this house, the Wylie house, the art barn and the shed. The applicant is totally committed to restoring all three of the structures. The second point is regarding the overall mass and scale. The proposed floor area and the height of the project are below what is allowed in the zone district. The floor area is about .85 to 1 and the mixed use allows 1.1. The height doesn't even approach the 28 height limit in the mixed use zone district. The flat roof elements are all in the 20 to 22 feet height range. The pitched roof is a little less than 25 feet to the 1/3 point along the gable. With respect to open space, the pedestrian amenity the proposal is at 35% and the code allows 25%. All the street trees remain undisturbed. With respect to uses on this property they are uses that support community needs. There could have been a free market unit in the project because it is an allowed use. It is purposely not part of this proposal. EXHIBIT F NOV. 14, 2007 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14, 2007 The project does comply with the City's mitigation standards in terms of affordable housing and on-site parking. In terms of incentives the only incentive that we aze asking for on the project is setback variances for the historic structures. The code authorizes the HPC to award incentives to projects like this where you have restoration of historic structures occumng. The code allows for FAR bonuses and we are not asking for that and you have free market and lot splits as incentives and we are not putting any of those on the table here. The only incentive is directly in support of historic preservation objectives for the site. We are bringing the Wylie house closer to the property line forward toward Main Street and closer to 5`h Street. What that does is make that building the most important resource on the property and more prominent and secondly it allows for greater separation of that building to the new building. The art barn will remain as is. David Brown said the changes from the last meeting are that we eliminated the three story elements and there is no longer a roof top deck. The board asked that we create additional space between the barn and new building on 5`h Street. There is now a ten foot separation where before the buildings were attached. We also have a ten foot separation between the employee housing unit and the historic bam. To create more landscape place we have taken the old historic building toward 5`h Street which creates the historic building more prominent to the comer. It also aligns it with the barn on 5`h Street. The new building on 5`h Street recedes from the historic buildings about five feet. The building can have a flat roof or a gabled roof. We prefer the flat roof. With the flat roof it has less impact on the two historic buildings. The building reads as a contemporary element. Looking from Main Street through to 5`" Street the new building is not visible. The employee dwelling unit is on the alley. There is parking with columns and the unit is above the columns. Nora inquired about the parking. David said the parking spaces would extend 18 'h feet inward. Nora said her concern was the radius from the alley. David said they are meeting the requirements of the City regarding parking. David said the alley is wide enough to make the tum into the spaces. Michael asked Amy to explain the issue of the facade of the new building on 5`h Street. Amy said it is the contrast of the flat roof and the close proximity to the two historic buildings. Amy said Sara Adams has suggested a gabled roof form. The success of the new construction on Main Street is that it EXHIBIT F NOV. 14, 2007 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14, 2007 starts so far back as a one story. The two story element is not right in front of you like it is on 5~' Street. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Michael identified the topics or issues of concern by the board. 1. Fifth Street fapade of the new building whether it should have a flat or gabled roof. 2. The Main Street fapade. 3. The parking space near the art barn. 4. The relocation of the building and variances. 5. The alley scape and turning radius. 6. Demolition of the two sheds. ' Main Street facade: Sarah said this is a totally exciting project and she commended the team for embracing it. The Main Street facade complies with our guidelines and it is very successful keeping the one story element on the new construction. The moving of the Wylie house works well with the overall project. Ann thanked Alan for going through the benefits of the project. The visuals presented are cxceilent as it helps us understand what is happening on the site. Ann also thanked the team for listening to HPC continents at the last meeting. As a suggestion maybe the eaves on the new construction could be deeper to add a shadow. At final maybe the fenestration on the Main Street fagade of the new building could be addressed. Jay said he was very impressed and al] the buildings compliment each other. The historic Wylie house is definitely the focal point. Michael pointed out that the applicant has done a fantastic job of working with the HPC and listening to their recommendations. Nora said she is concerned about the light at night with the amount of glass proposed. EXHIBIT F NOV. 14, 2007 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14, 2007 Brian said he is very comfortable with the project and everything is falling into place. In terms of the variances he has no problems with what is being proposed. There is a great rhythm going on down Main Street. Fifth Street facade: Brian said after seeing the model with a gabled roof on the new commercial building on 5`h Street he would prefer a flat roof. Regarding the flat roofs maybe they could have slightly different elevations instead of being on one plane. Jay said he likes the gabled roof on 5`h Street. The only problem is when you look at it from Main Street there is a huge mass and possibly there is a way to break that up. Alison said she likes the flat roof and the inner play throughout the project with the gable and flat roofs. She would prefer that the parking spot remain. Alison pointed out that taking off the third level and the roof deck has improved this project inunensely. In the court yard plan maybe some of the interior spaces could have double doors or something in order to have the courtyard as a functional place. The idea would be if you had a function you could have indoor/outdoor use since the roof deck is gone. She also said she agreed with Brian that a little difference in the flat roof heights would help make the project more interesting. Nora said she likes the flat roof because it underplays the street elevation and makes the Wylie house more prominent. She also has a concern with the amount of glass on the 5`h Street facade of the commercial building. Ann pointed out that there aze strong forms on the site and putting a gable on the commercial building would compromise the site. She would support the flat roof. The shed gable stairway enclosure is an interesting transition to the bam. In referencing the parking space and after looking at the plan she would prefer the parking space disappear. Sarah said she is concerned with the flat roof because the building looks like an office building. More design development needs to occur with the volume and how it reads. She is not opposed to the flat roof. On the Main Street side the flat roof is in direct relationship to a gabled volume and it is very successful. The commercial building on 5`h Street should he the least EXHIBIT F NOV. 14, 2007 9 J ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14, 2007 high. We are being asked to choose from the same spring point for both and that is not an accurate way to look at a gable vs. a flat roof. Michael said he agreed with Amy that the problem is that there is a two story fapade right in your face on 5`h Street. The top floor needs to be stepped back. The one story volume needs to read well. David said one of the reasons we feel this works is the differentiation from Main Street which was brought up at the work session. By eliminating the gable on 5`h this building became the background building. David said the building is set back and the second floor is also set back. Neil Karbank said they could move the building back into the courtyard if that would work. Sarah said there needs to be further development of that facade. There are three different planes going on the building with a flat front facade. Sarah said the facade is in conflict with guideline 12.14 and 12.15. Ann said on Main Street it is very articulated because there is a front porch etc. On the 5`h Street facade of the commercial building it is very bland so that it makes the contrast greater. Jay said on Main Street the second building sets behind the front building. Amy said on the 51h St. streetscape the historic buildings have very simple flat facades and there is an issue with the variety of setbacks on the wall and its height given how close it is to the street. Brian said he likes the flat roof. Alison said the flat roof is the successful way to go. If it needs developed further it is a mass and scale issue not a detail issue. Sarah said the issue is mass and scale of the building. Parking space: The majority of board members were in favor of keeping the parking space. Variances: EXHIBIT F NOV. 14, 2007 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14, 2007 All members supported the variances, relocation and demolition. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue the application based on the S`" Street elevation and massing. Motion died for lack of a second. MOTION: Brian moved to approve the application for 604 W. Main Street, major development, conceptual, relocation, demolition, commercial design review and variances with the added condition that the applicant look at possibly adding some variation to the flat roof heights to remain under the 25 foot height, motion second by Jay. Sarah said she feels the motion is a massing issue and we are telling the applicant to look at different heights and we would be giving them approval for that without seeing the drawings. Roll call vote: Jay, yes; Alison, no; Brian, yes; Sarah, no; Nora, rto; Ann, no; Michael, no. Motion dies S-2. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue the application for 604 W. Main and the public hearing until Dec. 12`"; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried. 420 E. Hopkins Amy said the fire department and the thrift store have programmatic needs. At the previous discussion it was determined that it was OK to have the thrift store pulled back from the street to retain a pocket park in the front. We are not talking about materials but that is the most significant change. The commercial design review standard address the requirements for height and anytime there is a building that is a couple of blocks width wide they want to see the height of the building going up and down, historically the way you had a sense of seeing modules. What is being proposed does not entirely meet that guideline. Another guideline says when you are ncxt to an historic building you are not to be more than 28 feet tall. Does the HPC have any comments regarding the flat roof plane`? Staff is basically in support of the project. Gilbert Sanchez, architect for Studio B EXHIBIT F NOV. 14.2007 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14.2007 Joseph Spears, architect for Studio B Gilbert said we had previous approvals in order to go to the voters fora 14 million dollar bond election. The program was for the fire truck bays, museum, fire district room and community rooms and the thrift store. The lease is with the city for 40 years. Gilbert said one of the proposals for tonight is to have the ability to build on top of the building in the future as need be. It will be built structurallly to handle another story, about 7,500 square feet. What was approved was 22,583 square feet. The approved project was put on the shelf while the ABC station was built and we could restudy the elevations. We modulated the design to represent historical qualities of the original building. We added steel post and beams and glass doors. The second floor is a brick pattern with punched openings. The parapet rail on top is open and transparent. The basement will be used for the city IT team which is about 1,000 square feet. The total square footage will be 23,480 square feet. The new design will go to the co-op mid December. The building is set back so that the trucks maneuver in and out. Gilbert when over the changes in the design. The fire station sets back and the museum steps out somewhat 10 % feet. Daryl Grob, fire marshall said we arc trying to provide a legacy and continued revolution of the fire department. In ten years we are going to let the department become what it must become in the future and that will describe the facility downtown and then we will design the addition. The fire department services 87 square miles and we are putting an ambulance in town. Gilbert said the Isis stair tower is 33 feet tall. The apparatus bay is 37.6 feet tall. The entry to the museum component is 39.6 feet. The thrift store is 24 feet. If an additional story is built it would be set back. Michael asked where the guidelines are being stretched in order to meet the public purpose part of this application. Amy said the biggest issue is the setbacks. '17te board determined that they had no issues with the setbacks. EXHIBIT F NOV. 14, 2007 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14, 2007 Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. 'T'here were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Michael stated the issues of concern. Roof height and thrift store. Setback issue. Commercial design standards balance. Sarah said at the co-op there was a lot of passion to have the setbacks in their current location. The board concurred. Ann said the detail of the pavement to make it somewhat of a public park is appropriate. What is proposed for the Isis corner should be coordinated with the design of the fire station space. Jay inquired about the fire whistle and Gilbert said they intend to keep it. Roof height: Ann said having the top of the fire station being the same height is good. Possibly the height of the museum could be lower. It seems that there is too much distance between the thrift shop and the top of the museum. Overall the project is exciting. Nora also said she feels the height of the museum could be lowered. We need to take into consideration City Hall and going any higher would dwarf city hall. Jay clarified that he felt the east portion of the museum could go a little higher, like an elevator shaft. Commercial design standards: Brian said the design is great. There is a lot of brick and possibly the 'T'hrift Store could be a different material in order to break it up a little. Gilbert said they will study varying the height of the museum etc. for final. MOTION: Ann moved to approve 604 W Main, Conceptual development, relocation, demolition and variances. The project represents compliance EXHIBIT F NOV. 14, 2007 13 ,.~, - - ~~ ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14, 2007 with the applicable commercial design standard guidelines given the programmatic needs of the building. HPC accepts the project as proposed and all representations are conditions of approval. The approval is good for one year, motion second by Sarah. Brian wanted to make sure in the motion that Gilbert would have the opportunity to make changes on material and height at final. Amy clarified that once conceptual is approved the shape of the building is approved and HPC can't change their minds but the applicant can ask HPC to reconsider at final. Brian said Gilbert represented that he would study the height for final. Roll call vote: Nora, yes; Jay, yes; Alison, yes; Brian, yes; Sarah, yes; Ann, yes; Michael, yes. Motion carried 7-0. Work session -Ordinance #48 - no minutes MOTION.• Michael moved to adjourn; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk EXHIBIT F NOV. 74, 2007 t4 . ~ : ---. r~ E. _._.._ fir--, ,~ ~~ ~~. T ~~~- ~ ~~~ .-~`* t ~. . ~~: ~ ~.... ".~ ,~ ~~ 1, ~' /"`-•~~ I~_ ~ ~ _~~//, '~_~7 ~' ~~~ V ~~ ~•`~ ~~ ;--~.. ~ ~~~ ~ ~ -`~ ~' ' v ._: ~=~. ~,.; _ 1 t~.,, +.ti "r... u,awy. ., _~. F.'~ ~~ ,, - - --- - :. .. . ~. W '° w a a o ' ^ W ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~~ W:. :~~ I ~ n ~ _ W ~ ~_ Sa g 4 ~ 3 ( ~\ k~~ Yqk Soo{T 5 Y~' 4 3 ~ V ~ S 3"~ S ~ R"4 „x Y Y 8 ~ x :aY.o ~ 4~ x 5 9 4 Y . ~ ~ ~~ a ~ ~ga . g ~~ ,. P g s r ~ gs P: ~ Y 4 ~ o s&x ~~ Y .~ x~ s W£ Y p 0 .8 WYS~, ~S~ :Y 6 ~ Y z o ~. ~3gW g3 EE .6 YM o.K~s £ ~'I $~ ' t Y ~ ..., 6 .~Po. ' Q .. y e Y Y Y Y 5 3a S~Y ~' ' m ~, O q - e a w4 ~ 1 3: 3b , ~: Y~~ ~ "o3L4 53 ~Y. "~~€ E m ~~ 4 ~ 9oa~° W~~ba £ ~ £ Wo3~~ a ~ F~.o ~ o ~w°YY „~ -.S Y' o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 e ~ 3~ ~./ ~4 a J "o z ~ ~ ~; ~ I ~ M ~ ~~ 6 ,r, m. 13 ~~,...r ~. ~b1 S Njd~d e3 XY `3'S3 `S X35 ~~Y-. ~ e i " ~~f~~ ~, °;~~E !, ~~9ili. i ,~s~q~ ,, Qic '~l a $y ~ 3 4 ~ ~C h: 3 a~ a~~~ tl N p _ , w~° M " a~~ i99 {, ~~ " *'' t i .r' •ri e 604 WEST MAIN STREET P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW SUBMITTED BY ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES BOX 3613 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 920-1125 JANUARY, 2008 ~a --, ~., ~ ,~ I. INTRODUCTION A. Application Request This is an application for Planning and Zoning Commission growth management review of the proposed re-development of 604 West Main Street. The property is legally described as Lots Q, R, and S, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen. It consists of approximately 9,000 sq. ft. of land. The property is zoned Mixed Use (MU). It is located within the Main Street Historic District and is a designated historic landmark. The property's Parcel ID# is 273512444008. The owner of the property is 604 West LLC, which is owned and operated by Mr. Neil Karbank. Proof of the ownership of the property is provided by Exhibit #1, the title insurance policy. A letter from the applicant authorizing Alan Richman Planning Services to submit this application is provided as Exhibit #2. Several pre-application meetings have been held with representatives of the Community Development Department prior to the submission of this application (see Exhibit #3, Pre- Application Conference Summary). Based on these meetings, the applicant is hereby submitting an application for the following: • Enlargement of a Historic Landmark for Mixed Use Development, pursuant to Section 26.470.070.1 of the Code; and • Affordable Housing, pursuant to Section 26.470.070.4 of the Code. The following sections of this application identify the standards of the Aspen Land Use Code that apply to these procedures and provide responses to the applicable review standards. First, however, some background information on the property is provided, followed by a summary of the proposed re-development plan. B. Background Information Mr. Karbank is a long time Aspen resident whose law office has been located at 604 West Main Street for approximately the last 7 years. He was fortunate enough to have the " opportunity to purchase this property from its former owner a few years ago to secure his future occupancy of the space. Mr. Karbank also leases a portion of the existing space on the property to Millard Zimet, another long time local attorney. In 2005, Mr. Karbank submitted an application to the City for a historic landmark lot split for this property, to create a 6,000 sq. ft. lot for re-development as a mixed use project and a 3,000 sq. ft. lot for a free market residence. HPC recommended approval of the lot split pursuant to Resolution 23, Series of 2005 (see Exhibit #4). City Council 604 West Main Street - Applicationfor P&2 Growth Management Review Page t approved the lot split, pursuant to Ordinance 33, Series of 2005 (see Exhibit #5). The applicant received several extensions from the Community Development Director for filing the plat for the subdivision. The most recent deadline for filing the plat was February 13, 2007. At that time Mr. Karbank concluded that the lot split was not the best option for this property, and he allowed its approval to expire. With this application, the applicant is embarking upon a new direction for this property. The applicant is proposing a mixed use development that includes no free market residential development, no floor area bonus, and less than the as-of-right floor area. Instead the project proposes a modest increase in the amount of net leasable commercial space and the mitigation of that increase by building an on-site affordable housing unit. The principal elements of this project are proposed to be as follows: Preserve and restore the three contributing historic buildings that are located on the site, so they may continue to be used for many years into the future. 2. Remove the two non-contributing structures from the property. Replace these structures with three new compatible buildings: two small office buildings and a carport along the alley that has an affordable housing unit on its second floor. This proposal received conceptual approval from the Historic Preservation Commission on December 12, 2007 (see HPC Resolution 43-2007, attached as Exhibit #6). An improvement survey of the property has been prepared and is included in this application. It shows that there are five separate structures currently located on the property. These structures are identified in Table 1 and can be described as follows: TABLE 1 INVENTORY OF EXISTING STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY Structure Approximate Gross Area Approximate Date Built Rebecca Wylie House (existing: office) 1,076 sq. ft. 1890's Garage 670 sq. ft. (plus 180 sq. ft. carport) 1890's Cabin (exis#ing office) 459 sq. ft. 1950's Original Shed 175 sq. ft. 1890's Newer Shed 271 sq. ft. 1950's ,~. 604 West Main Street - Applicationfor P&Z Growth Management Review Page 2 ~.. • The principal structure on the property is the Rebecca Wylie house, located near the middle of the property. The building was originally constructed in the 1890's. It has been used as an office for many years and contains approximately 1,007 sq. ft. of net leasable space. • The garage, which is located along Fifth Street, is an out-building that was also originally constructed in the 1890's. It was converted into a garage many years ago and has a loft space that is used for storage. In modern times, a carport was added along the side of the building. The City Engineering Department granted an encroachment license to the applicant in 2005, allowing this structure to encroach into the alley by less than one foot. • The cabin is a 1950's era structure that is located towards the alley. It has been used as the second office building on the property and contains approximately 419 sq. ft. of net leasable space. • The older shed is an out-building that was also originally constructed in the 1890's. It is actually located half on this property and half on the adjacent property at 612 West Main Street (which Mr. Karbank also owns). In 2006, the applicant completed a temporary stabilization effort to ensure that the shed did not collapse. Nevertheless, the shed is quite dilapidated and in need of restoration. • The newer shed is a small 1950's era structure that is located along the alley, behind the Wylie house. In total, the two existing office buildings contain approximately 1,360 sq. ft. of net leasable commercial space. The gross square footage of the five existing buildings on the property is approximately 2,651 sq. ft. C. Summary of Proposed Development The proposed re-development of this property is depicted in a series of drawings that accompany this application. These drawings include floor plans and elevations. A zone district compliance analysis is provided in Table 2, below. The main level floor plan represents the site plan for the property. It shows that the proposed project would create an office compound with five small buildings (the same number as today) of which two would be historic structures and three would be new. 1. The Rebecca Wylie House is proposed to be positioned closer to the sidewalk along Main Street and closer to the eastern property line, ensuring that this landmark structure will be continue to be the focal point for the site. This building would continue to function as office/commercial space. 604 West Main Street - Applicationfor P&Z Growth Management Review Page 3 TABLE 2 ZONE DISTRICT COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS FOR 604 MAIN STREET Dimensional Land Use Code Standard: Proposed Conditions Requirement Mixed Use Zone District Minimum lot size 3,000 sq. ft. 9,000 sq. ft. Minimum [ot witlth`' 30' 90' Minimum front yard 10' 10' Minimum rear yard 5' Variances granted by HPC for art barn and for parking/affordable unit Minimum Side Yard 6' 8" for east (corner) side; Variances granted by 5' for west side of property HPC for Wylie House, Fifth Street building and art barn Minimum distance` 10' 10', except for stair at rear between buildings on of Fifth Street building the lot ..Maximum. height Commercial = 28', All buildings measure less increasable to 32' by than 25' in height commercial design review Residential = 25' Public amenity space' 25% A minimum of 35% Maximum allowable Maximum cumulative is 1:1 Approximately 7,800 sq. floor area (9,000 sq. ft.); increasable ft. (0.87:1) to 1.25:1 by special review Minimum `number of 1 per 1,000 sq. ft. of net 6 spaces (5 for the 4,390 parking spaces leasable area plus 1 per sq. ft. of net leasable dwelling unit space; 1 for the AH unit) 604 West Main Street - Applicationfor P&Z Growth Management Review Page 4 tl ~* ~ ~, 2. The garage is a historic out-building which would be retained in its present location along the alley. The interior of the building would be remodeled and converted into a small two story art barn. 3. The new Fifth Street building will be a small, modern two story office building fronting on Fifth Street. It has been separated from the Wylie House by 10' in response to comments by HPC. 4. A second modern-style building, known as the West Office building, would front along Main Street, on the western side of the property. This building would have the same 10' front yard setback as the Wylie House and would also comply with the 5' side yard setback requirement. An open, usable courtyard will separate it from the Wylie House by more than 15'. 5. The third new building would be located along the alley. Five of the six proposed parking spaces would be located in the carport, which accesses directly from the alley. The sixth parking space would be located between the art barn and the Fifth Street building, where there is an existing parking space today. A three bedroom affordable housing unit would be built on the upper level, above the carport. The HPC granted approval for the original shed, which straddles the lot line between this property and 612 West Main, to be moved approximately 10' to the west so it is located entirely within the neighboring property (the applicant also owns the 612 property). The shed would be restored so it can be used for storage on that historically designated site. Finally,the HPC granted approval for the two 1950's-erabuildings (the "newershed" and the "cabin") to be demolished. The total buildout proposed for the site is approximately 7,800 sq. ft. of floor area.. This constitutes a floor area ratio of about 0.87:1, which is below the allowable floor area ratio of 1:1 for mixed use buildings in the MU zone district (the zone permits a floor area ratio of 1.25:1 by special review). The applicant did not request a floor area bonus from HPC. Approximately 35 percent of the site would qualify as public amenity space, which exceeds the underlying 25 percent requirement. Six parking spaces are being provided, in compliance with Code requirements. The applicant proposes to increase the amount of net leasable commercial space by approximately 2,975 sq. ft. Since there is approximately 1,360 sq. ft. of existing net leasable space, the re-developed site will contain approximately 4,335 sq. ft. of net leasable space. Responses to the City's growth management standards for the increased net leasable space and the affordable housing unit are in the following sections of this application. 604 West Main Street - Applicationfor P&Z Growth Management Review Page 5 r^ ~_,r ,. II. ENLARGEMENTOFAHISTORICLANDMARKFORCOMMERCIAL,LODGEOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT Section 26.470.070.0.2 of the Land Use Code authorizes the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve the enlargement of a historic landmark for mixed use development. Following are the standards for review of this type of development: a. Up to four (4) employees generated by the additional commercial/lodge development shall not require the provision of affordable housing. Thirty (30) percent of the employee generation above four (4) and up to eight (8) employees shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof. Sixty(60) percent of the employee generation above eight (8) employees shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.070.4,Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. Response: The applicant proposes an increase of 2,975 sq. ft. of net leasable commercial space. The applicant has measured the two existing commercial buildings on the site and determined that they contain approximately 1,360 sq. ft. of net leasable commercial space. Therefore, the property is expected to contain approximately 4,335 sq. ft. of net leasable commercial space when this project is completed. According to Section 26.470.100 A.1. of the Code, 3.7 employees are generated per 1,000 sq. ft. of net leasable commercial space in the Mixed Use (MU) zone district. Therefore, the net increase in net leasable commercial space will generate 11.00 employees (2,975 x 3.7/1000 = 11). The Code-specified formula for mitigation of employees generated by a mixed use development on a Historic Landmark property is as follows: • First 4 employees = 0 employees to be mitigated. • Next 4 employees = 4 x 30% = 1.2 employees to be mitigated. • Remaining 3.00 employees = 3.00 x 60% = 1.8 employees to be mitigated. Based on this calculation, 3.0 employees (1.2 = 1.8 = 3.0) are required to be housed by this project. The applicant proposes to build a three bedroom affordable housing unit on-site. Section 26.470.100 A.2 of the Code credits a 3 bedroom unit with providing "; housing for 3.0 people, fully mitigating the applicant's requirement. The unit will be a Category 4 unit, as specified in the Code section above. 604 West Main Street - Applicationfor P&Z Growth Management Review Page 6 ,~"", :, b. Up to one free-market residence maybe created pursuant to 26.470.060.4, Minor enlargement of a Historic Landmark for commercial, lodge, or mixed use development. This shall be cumulative and shall include administrative GMOS approvals granted prior to the adoption of Ordinance 14, Series of 2007. Additional free-market units (beyond one) shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.470.080.2, New Free Market Units Within aMulti-Family or Mixed Use Project. Response: The applicant is not seeking to utilize this provision to develop a free market residence on this property. An applicant is also required to comply with the General Requirements for all Growth Management applications, as stated in Section 26.470.050 of the Code: 1. Sufficient growth managementallotmentsave available to accommodate the uses, pursuant to Section 26.470.030 D. Response: The referenced section permits up to 33,000 sq. ft. of net leasable commercial space per year. The applicant is requesting 2,975 sq. ft. of net leasable commercial space out of that total quota. 2. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Response: The proposed development is consistent with many of the most fundamental elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Some of the themes of the 2000 Community Plan which this project will promote include the following: • Promote density and a sustainable mix of land uses within the Aspen Infill Area. • Provide incentives for small, diverse, locally owned businesses; • Encourage a more balanced, permanent community; • Preserve and enhance our historic resources; and • Increase resident housing. The most notable elements of this project that are consistent with the AACP are (a) its location along Main Street, within the infill area, where services are available and it is appropriate to use land efficiently; and (b) its intent to provide a permanent home for two small, locally owned businesses and to provide housing for employees of those businesses. Moreover, this project will restore the three original structures on this historic landmark property, thereby preserving and enhancing Aspen's historic resources. HPC members also pointed out that this project will help to satisfy the existing need for new office space in Aspen. 3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district 604 West Main Street - Applicationfor P&Z Growth Management Review Page 7 ~.-. -. v, Response: Thedevelopment has been designed to conform to the use, dimensional and parking requirements of the Mixed Use zone district. It will actually be well below the allowable height and floor area of this zone. The applicant has obtained variances from the HPC for side and rear yard setbacks for certain of the buildings. 4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Reviewapproval, and the Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval, as applicable. Response: The proposal is identical to the Conceptual Historic PresenrationCommission approval and Conceptual Commercial Design Reviewapproval granted in HPC Resolution 43, Series of 2007. 5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty (60) percent of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Section 26.470.100.A, Employee Generation Rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. Response: The employee housing requirements are otherwise specified for historic landmarks, as stated above. The applicant has complied with those requirements. 6. Affordable housing nef livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty (30) percent of the additional free market net livable area for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Response: No free market residential area is proposed, so this standard does not apply to this project. Nevertheless, the affordable housing that is being provided is entirely above both natural and finished grade. 7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such demand is mitigated through improvements 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. Response: This project is located in an area of Aspen that is fully served by existing infrastructure. The applicant is not aware of any particular demands on the City's infrastructure that could not be served by existing facilities. Moreover, by housing employees of the businesses on site, the project will minimize its impacts on City services. The applicant will respond to the reasonable requests of the City's referral agencies for any infrastructure upgrades that may be directly needed to serve this project. 604 West Main Street - Applicationfor P&Z Growth Management Review Page 8 ~. „~ ,.. >. e.. III. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING The applicant proposes to develop one (1) affordable housing unit on the property. Section 26.470.0400.7. of the Land Use Code establishes the criteria for review of the development of affordable housing units. These criteria and the applicant's responses to them are as follows: a. 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. Response: As shown on the enclosed floor plans, the applicant has made every effort to design the proposed three bedroom unit to comply with the Housing Guidelines. The unit will be approximately 1,200 sq. ft. in size, which meets the minimum stated size for Category 3 and Category 4 units. The unit will be a Category 4 unit, as required by Section 26.470.070.C.2.of the Code. The location of this unit so close to the Aspen core will also make this an exceptional housing opportunity for employees. If the Housing Authority determines that any modifications to the design are necessary for the unit to better comply with the Guidelines, these will be accomplished prior to submission for a building permit. b. 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 maybe accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one full unit, acash-in-lieu payment maybe accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation requirement is less than one full unit, acash- in-lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Section 26.470.090.3. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. Response: The proposed affordable housing mitigation comes in the form of one newly- built on-site unit. c. Each unit shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty (50) percent or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Response: 100%of the unit's net livable area is above both natural and finished grade. = 604 West Main Street - Applicationfor P&Z Growth Management Review Page 9 .-, ,-, d. 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 maybe provided if a legal instrument, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, ensures permanent affordability of the units. Response: The applicant proposes that the affordable housing unit be a rental unit, so it can be used to house employees of the offices. The applicant will meet with the City Attorney following the approval of this project by the Planning Commission to determine the appropriate form of legal instrument that will be used to ensure the permanent affordability of the rental unit. IV. VESTED RIGHTS Pursuant to Section 26.308 of the Land Use Code, the applicant hereby requests that this development be granted vested rights status. V. CONCLUSION In summary, the applicant has submitted all of the materials requested during the pre- application conference, has responded to the applicable standards of the Aspen land Use Code, and has demonstrated the compliance of the proposed development with said standards. Should any reviewing agency request additional information, or need any of the statements made herein to be clarified, the applicant will respond in a timely manner. Please feel free to contact the applicant or his representatives as necessary. 604 West Main Street - Applicationfor P&Z Growth Management Review Page 10 EXHIBITS .-~ EXHIBIT #1 --. I ~ JSCHEDULE A-OWNER'S POLICY~~ CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY AMOUNT OF INSURANCE PCT19a15L3 May 17, 2005 @ 4:43 PM 1. NAME OF INSURED: 604 WEST LlC POLICY NUMBER A75-2024899 2. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREIN AND WHICH IS COVERED BY THIS POLICY IS: IN FEE SIMPLE 3. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST REFERRED TO HEREIN IS AT DATE OF POLICY VESTED IN: 604 WEST LLC 4. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS POLICY IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF ,STATE OF COLORADO AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOTS O, R AND S, BLOCK 24, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. Count/ersigned: Authorized off\ioeJr~or agent PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS AVE. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970) 925-1766/(970)-925-6527 FAX r^ ...., SCHEDULE BAWNERS .; CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY POLICY NUMBER PCT19415L3 May 17, 2005 @ 4:43 PM A75-2024899 THIS POLICY DOES NOT INSURE AGAINST LOSS OR DAMAGE BY REASON OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Water rights, claims or title to water. 6. Taxes for the year 2005 not ye[ due or payable. 7. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Survey of subject property recorded November 29, 1999 in Plat Book 51 at Page 83. 8. Encroachments as shown on said property as shown on Survey by Louis H. Buettner dated October 12, 1999, as recorded in Plat Book 51 at Page 63 as Reception No. 438052. ~. EXHIBIT #2 Ms. Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: HPC AND P&Z APPLICATIONS FOR 604 WEST MAIN STREET Dear Sara, I hereby authorize Alan Richman Planning Services and Stryker Brown Architects to act as my designated representatives with respect to the applications being submitted to your office for my property located at 604 West Main Street. Alan Richman is authorized to submit applications on my behalf for review by the HPC and P&Z. Mr. Richman and David Brown are also authorized to represent me in meetings with City staff and the City's review bodies. Should you have any need to contact me during the course of your review of this application, please do so through Alan Richman Planning Services, whose address and telephone number are included in the development application. Sincerely, ~" ~~~ Neil D. Karbank, Manager 604 West LLC 604 West Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 920-2899 '^ EXHIBIT #3 CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Sara Adams, (970) 429-2778 DATE: 6.26.07 PROJECT: 6041612 West Main Street . _. REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman, land planner "'' - '~ ``~' `` . _f (970)920.1125 ~ ~,' arichman@sopds.net ' ~~: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Certificate of Appropriateness for Major HPC Development, Demolition, Relocation, Commercial Design Standard Review/ Public Amenity, GMOS Review, Affordable Housing Mitigation DESCRIPTION: History: The Victorian miners cottage, also known as the Rebecca Wylie house, was built circa 1890, and appears to be in its original location. There are several outbuildings on the site, including a 19"' century shed that straddles the property line between 604 and 612 West Main Street. The main residence, which represents an average Aspen residence during the mining era, has been altered over time: the front porch was extended and enclosed, interior wall of front porch was altered, windows were replaced, and an asphalt roof was added. Large cottonwood trees and a lilac bush are significant aspects of the landscape and the overall Main Street historic district character. It is important to involve the Parks Department (920-5120) at the beginning of the application process if there are any proposed alterations to the existing landscape. Proaosal: The applicant proposes to develop 604 West Main Street, a 9,000 square foot lot located within the Main Street Historic District. The property is zoned Mixed Use (MU) and is a designated landmark. The Mixed Use zone district emphasizes a mix of residential and commercial uses; currently the historic site is used solely for commercial purposes, a residential component is proposed. It will be important to clarify the existing commercial use in the application- how much net leasable area exists, etc. The proposal includes: rehabilitating the historic resource and the "garage" structure located in the northeast comer of the lot; relocating the historic resource forward; adding a rear addition and a new detached stmcture; and relocating the 19"' century historic shed off of the west property line entirely onto 612 West Main Street. Amid twentieth century secondary structure, located in the northwestern section of the property, is proposed for demolition. Program: Increasing FAR on the property requires growth management review for commercial, free market residential (only if there is more than one unit proposed) and affordable housing; and requires affordable housing mitigation. For an increase in commercial development the first 4 employees generated dd not require affordable housing mitigation; 30% of the employee generation for between 4 and 8 employees; and 60% of the employee generation for over 8 employees, see Section 26.470.070.1 and 26.470.100 for calculations. After a complete application is submitted, the proposal will be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) as follows: PROCESS: Step One: The HPC will review the proposed development through a two step process. HPC Conceptual approval is the first step and includes the following reviews: on site relocation of the historic home, demolition, FAR Bonus, rehabilitation, conceptual design approval (mass, height, proportion, scale), Commercial Design Standard review, parking requirements and dimensional variances. HPC relies on the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, available on our website, to determine appropriateness of a proposal- pay special attention to Chapter 12 for deveopment in the Main Street .-. ~, Historic District. A 3-D, preferably digital, model is required for Conceptual HPC Review. This is a public hearing. Step Two: The P & Z will review the growth management portion of the application pursuant to Section 26.470.070.1. This is a public hearing. Step Three: The HPC will review the final design proposal and grant a development orcler. Final design review focuses on architectural details, materials, landscaping, lighting. Color renderings, material samples t and "cut-sheets" are integral to this portion of the final application process. This is a public hearing. f Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304, 26.415.070 (D), 26.415.080 26.415.090 26.415.110.8 26.412 26.470.070.1 26.470.070.4 26.470.100 26.710.040 Common Development Review Procedures HPC Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development Demolition of Historic Property Relocation of Historic Property Variances for Historic Property Commercial Design Review GMQS- Enlargement of a Historic Landmark for Mixed Use Development Affordable Housing Calculations Mixed Use zone district Review by: HPC (Conceptual and Final) , P&Z Public Hearing: at HPC (conceptual and final), P&Z Referral Agencies: Engineering ($204), Parks ($204), Housing ($204), Environmental Health ($204). Planning Fees: $2,820. Referral Agency Fees: $816. Total Deposit: $3,636. To apply, submit the following information: 1. Proof of ownership with payment. 2. Signed fee agreement (all applications) 3. Completed City of Aspen application form (all applications). 4. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant, which states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 5. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner s right to apply for the Development Application. 6. Total deposit for review of the application. 7. ie. 12 Copies of the complete application packet and maps. HPC =12; PZ = 10; GMC = PZ+S; CC = 7; Referral Agencies =1/ea.; Planning Staff =1 8. An 81/2" by 11"vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. 9. Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, including all easements and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community Development Department if the project is determined not to warrant a survey document.) 10. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed. 11. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing. The GIS department can provide this list on mailing labels for a small fee. 920.5453 r ~. 12. Copies of prior approvals. 13. Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of copies noted above) as well as the text only on a Compact Disk (CD). Microsoft Word format is preferred. Text format easily convertible to Word is acceptable. A 3-D rendering of the design proposal in SketchUp shall be included on the CD. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. EXHIBIT #4 `~IiIIIIEiIIIIIIIEIiIIIIIEIIIIlIEIEIIEIIIIIlEIIII!EIIE 07/114~080~5 09: SEL R 26.00 D 0.00 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION AND GMQS EXEMPTION, AND GRANTING APPROVAL FOR SETBACK VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 604 W. MAIN STREET, LOTS Q, R, AND S, BLOCK 24, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 23 SERIES OF 2005 Parcel ID #:2735-124-44-008 WHEREAS, the applicants, 604 West LLC, owner, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services, leave requested a Historic Landmark Lot Split and Variances for the property located at 604 West Main Street, Lots Q, R, and S, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. WHEREAS, in order to complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the applicant shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Municipal Code: Section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.470.070(C), and Section 26.415.010(D.), which are as follows: 26.480.030(A)(2) Subdivision Exemptions, Lot Split The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family -:~~ dwelling on a lot formed,by a lot split granted subsequent to November ]4, 1977, where all of the following conditions are met a) The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Boai•d of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969; and b) No more thau two (2) lots are created by the lat split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development. is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.040(A)(1)(c). c) The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.100.040(C)(1)(a); and d) A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units °, be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter ^~ and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. nM .. ~ _ .. 1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEIIIJIIIIIIII!IIIIII P 9zs8o 6 IIII ~ 0,14 SILVIti DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO ,2005 05. 66f R 26.00 D 0.00 e) Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitltin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City .Council will be required for a showing of good cause." - f) In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible 1'or a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. g) Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home; and (' 26.480.030(A)(4), Subdivision Exemptions, Historic Landmark Lot Solit The split of a lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures for the development of one new single-family dwelling may receive a subdivision exemption if it meets the following standards: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square feet in size and be located in the R-6, R-15, R-15A, RMF, or MU (formerly O) zone district. b. The total FAR for both residences shall be established by the size of the parcel and the zone district where the property is located. The total FAR for each-lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. In the Mized Use (formerly Office) zone district, the following shall app-y to the calculation of maximum floor area for lots created through the historic landmark lot split. Note that the total FAR shall not be stated on the Subdivision Exemption Plat because the floor area will be affected by the use established on the property: If all buildings on what was the fathering parcel remain wholly residential in use, the maximum floor area will be as stated in the R-6 zone district. If any portion of a building on a lot created by the historic landmark lot split is in commerciaUoffice use, then the allowed floor area for that lot shall be the floor area allowed for all uses. other than residential in the zone district. If the adjacent parcel created by the lot split remains wholly in residential use, then the floor area on that parcel shall be limited to the maximum allowed on a lot of its size for residential use according to the R-6 standards. If there is commercial/office use on both newly created lots, the maximum floor area for all uses other than residential in the zone district will be applied. c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. The variances provided in Section 26.415.120(B)(1)(a),(b), and (c) are only permitted on the parcels that wilt contains a 2 IIIIIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIiIIIIIII I~IIIII~III III I~IIIIIII IIII P 9~ zH~ 09:55f 5[IVIP DAVIS 7ITKIN DOUNTYCO - R 26.00 D 0.00 historic structure. The FAR bonus will be applied to the maximum FAR allowed on the original parcel; and 26.470.070(0), GMOS Exemption, Historic Landmark Lot Split The construction of each new single-family dwelling on a lot created through review and approval of a Historic Landmark. Lot Split shall be exempt from the scoring and _ competition procedures. The exemption. is to be approved by the Community Development Director, but is not to be deducted from the respective annual development allohnents or from the development ceilings; and 26.415.010(D), Historic Landmark Lot Split A Historic Landmark Lot Split is a two step review, requiring a public hearing before HPC and before City Council; and WHEREAS, for approval of setback variances, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.110.0 of the Municipal Code, that the setback vaziance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; andlor b. Elilrances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district; and WHEREAS, Sara Adalns, in her staff report dated June 22, 2005, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and recommended the application be approved with conditions: and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on June 22, 2005, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application to meet the standards, and approved the application by a vote of 5 to 0. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the HPC recommends Council approval ofa Historic Landmark Lot Split 604 W. Main Street, Lots Q, R, and S, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, with the following conditions: { 1. Staff recommends that HPC grant 0' setback conditions on the east, west and rear ,~ lot lines, and a waiver of the minimum distance required between structures to "" legalize all four outbuildings on this site and a 5' setback for the office building as y created by the new lot line. The 5' setback variance is only applicable to the existing building and not to future development on this lot ,~~ ~ I I II II IIl II II I II I~I III II I ~ 238 I III 111 111 II II III I~ III ~ I p 9 6 I 14/2005 09.56E S AVIR DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 26.00 D 0.00 2. The applicant has 60 days to stabilize the historic shed that straddles the property line in order to protect it prior to restoration, and i year from June 22, 2005 to submit a plan for full restoration of the historic shed to the HPC board. 3. Staff recommends that HPC grant GMQS exemption for the Historic Landmark Lot Split. ° 4. Staff recommends that the applicant immediately pursue an encroachment license fi-om the Engineering Department for the 19'h century garage that sits in the alley. 5. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and ;' approved by the Community Development Department and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of < final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid ~ and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall: a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.480 of the Aspen Munici al Code ~ p ; b. Contain a plat note stating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional writs be built withouC receipt of applicable ~!' approvals pursuant to the provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the ~,i,. time of application; c. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will ~~ conform to the dimensional requirements of the Mixed Use zone district, ~" except the variances approved by the HPC; and e ~ d. Be labeled to indicate that [his proposal will create Lot 1 of 6,000 square ~ , ` feet in size with 6,000 square feet of floor area, and a Lot 2 of 3,000 square feet in size with 1,920 square feet of floor area. ~' 6. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific ~"" development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance ~ of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested ~~ property rights. Unless otherwise exelnpted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 ~. days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the ~ forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. w„ No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews ^ecessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: 4 ... k= ~" s ~4 Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 604 West Main Street Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited asset forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. APPROVED BY TAE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 22nd day of June, 2005. '"~'" Appro cd as t Form: Davi oefer, Assistant ity Attorney Approved as to Content: H TORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ~ V~~' .Ieffre I alferty. Chair A d, Chief Deputy Clerk 512380 Iilllll VI II III VIII IIIIIIII III IIIIIIIiI IIIiIIIIIIIIIII 9.56E 7/14 !R + D 0 00 06 SIL VIR ORVIS PITKiN CO .+, W .w w S --. ,. EXHIBIT #5 ORDINANCE NO. 33 (SERIES OF 2005) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR A HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT AT 604 W. MAIN STREET, LOTS Q, R, AND S, BLOCK 24 CITY AND TOWNSTTE OF ASPEN, P1TKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel H) #:2735-124-44-008 WHEREAS, the applicant, 604 West LLC, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services, has requested a Historic Landmark Lot Split for the property located at 604 W. Main Street, Lots Q, R, and S, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, in order to complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the applicant shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Municipal Code: Section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.470.040(A)(4), and Section 26.415.110(A), which are as follows: 26.480.030(A)(2) Subdivision Exemptions Lot Split The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the following conditions are met: a) The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969; and b) No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.470.070(B). c) The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.470.040(C)(1)(a); and d) A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.470. e) Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the ollice of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat .d ,~-~ ,-. invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. f) In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. g) Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home; and 26.480.030(AI(41, Subdivision Exemptions Historic Landmark Lot Snlit The split of a lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and t Structures for the development of one new single-family dwelling may receive a f subdivision exemption if it meets the following standards: f a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square feet in size and be located in the R-6, R-15, R-15A, RMF, or MU zone district. b. The total FAR for both residences shall be established by the size of the parcel and the zone district where the property is located. The total FAR ( for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. 6" In the Mixed Use zone district, the following shall apply to the calculation of maximum floor area for lots created through the historic landmark lot split. Note that the total FAR shall not be stated on the Subdivision Exemption Plat because the floor area will be affected by the use established on the property: ~U If all buildings on what was the fathering parcel remain wholly residential in use, ~l the maximum floor area will be as stated in the R-6 zone district. If any portion of a building on a lot created by the historic landmark lot split is in commercial/office use, then the allowed floor area for that lot shall be the floor area allowed for all uses other than residential in the zone district. If the adjacent parcel created by the lot split remains wholly in residential use, then the Moor area on that parcel shall be limited to the maximum allowed on a lot of its size for residential use according to the R-6 standards. If there is commerciaUoftice use on both newly created lots, the maximum floor area for all uses other than residential in the zone district will be applied. c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements n! of the underlying zone district. The variances provided in Section „` 26.415.110(B)(1)(a),(b), and (c) are only permitted on the parcels that will contains a '" historic structure. The FAR bonus will be applied to the maximum FAR allowed on ~" the original parcel; and ~" ~,. ~"" ~` ,.A, .. 26.470.040(A)(4), GMOS Exemat Development, Single-Family and Duulex Development on Historic Landmark Properties. The development of one or multiple single-family residences or a duplex on a parcel of land designated as a Historic Landmark shall be exempt from growth management. This exemption applies to the rehabilitation of existing structures, reconstruction after demolition of existing structures, and the development of new structures on Historic Landmark properties, provided all necessary approvals are obtained, pursuant to Section 26.415, Development involving the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Additional units shall not be deducted from the respective Annual Development Allotments or Development Ceiling Levels established pursuant to Section 26.470.030; and 26.415.110(A) Benefits. Historic Landmark Lot Split. This section establishes the procedure for review of a Historic Landmark Lot Split; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director reviewed and recommended approval of the application, finding that the applicable review standards have been met; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 22, 2005, the Historic Preservation Commission recommended, by a five to zero (5-0) vote, that City Council approve a Historic Landmark Lot Split at 604 W. Main Street; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.415.110 and Section 26.480, of the Municipal Code, the City Council may approve a Historic Landmark Lot Split Subdivision Exemption during a duly noticed public hearing after taking and considering comments from the general public and recommendations from the Historic Preservation Commission (hereinafter HPC) and Community Development Director; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standazds and that the approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfaze. NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CTI'Y OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1 Pursuant to Sections 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.470.040(A)(4), and Section 26.415.110(A) of the Municipal Code, and subject to those conditions of approval as specified herein, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the subdivision exemption: 1. The applicant's submission is complete and sufficient to afford review and ~* evaluation for approval; and e> i -~ 2. The subdivision exemption is consistent with the purposes of subdivision as outlined in Section 26.480 of the Municipal Code, which purposes include: assist in the orderly and efficient development of the City; ensure the proper distribution of development; encourage the well-planned subdivision of land by establishing standards for the design of a subdivision; improve land records and survey f, monuments by establishing standards for surveys and plats; coordinate the ' construction of public facilities with the need for public facilities; safeguard the f interests of the public and the subdivider and provide consumer protection for the 1, purchaser; acquire and ensure the maintenance of public open spaces and parks, ( provide procedures so that development encourages the preservation of important and unique natural or scenic features, including but not limited to mature trees or ~ indigenous vegetation, bluff, hillsides, or similar geologic features, or edges of ~ rivers and other bodies of water, and, promote the health, safety and general ~ welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen. Section 2 Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 1, above, the City Council does hereby grant a Historic Landmark Lot Split Subdivision Exemption for 604 W. Main Street, Lots Q, R, and S, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. A subdivision exemption plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be f ' reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department and recorded ~9s in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and is e subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required fora ~° showing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall: IP a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.480 of the Aspen Municipal Code; b. Contain a plat note stating that no further subdivision may be granted for ~~ these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable SIB approvals pursuant to the provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the `N+ time of application; ~~~; c. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the Mixed Use zone district, ~~~~ except the variances approved by the HPC; ~" d. Contain a plat note stating that the lot does not contain the historic ~r structure must be developed as a single family residence. e. Contain a plat note stating that the FAR on the two lots created by this lot ~1 split shall be based on the use of the buildings. The maximum FAR for each lot may be affected by applicable lot area reductions (i.e., slopes, ',"" access easements, etc.). The applicant shall verify with the City Zoning s* Officer the total allowable FAR on each lot taking into account any and all ,~„ applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be subdivided into two parcels, corner Lot 1 which is 6,000 square feet in size, and interior Lot 2 ..~ which is 3,000 square feet in size. ~^ ~. r ,-. 2. Sidewalk Curb and Gutter -The site is located on Main Street, where pedestrian improvements are an important goal. The applicant must refer to the City Engineering Department for required Sidewalk, Curb, and Gutter requirements appropriate to this site. Section 3• This Ordinance shall not effect 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 constmed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4• 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 5• A public hearing on the ordinance will be held on the 22nd day of August, 2005, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. Section 7• This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final passage. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided bylaw, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 11th day of July, 2005. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 22nd day of August, 2005. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: John P. Worcester, City Attorney ,.,, .. EXHIBIT #6 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), DEMOLITION, RELOCATION, VARIANCES AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW (CONCEPTUAL) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 604 WEST MAIN STREET, LOTS Q, R AND S, BLOCK 24, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,COLORADO RESOLUTION N0.43, SERIES OF 2007 PARCEL ID: 2735-124-44-008. WHEREAS, the applicant 604 Wes[ LLC, c/o Neil Karbank, Manager, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services, has requested Major Development (Conceptual), Relocation, Demolition, Variances, and Commercial Design Standard Review for the property located at 604 West Main Street, Lots Q, R and S, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D3.6.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, in order to authorize a demolition, according to Section 26.415.080, Demolition of designated historic properties, it must be demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public ~; safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely ,~ manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to ~ properly maintain the structure, 'y c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in -~ Aspen, or ~„ ,,,,~ d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, '"~ architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionally, for aaaroval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: ~_ ~, , a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area; and WHEREAS, for approval of relocation, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.090.0 of the Municipal Code, it must be demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: L It is considered anon-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. WHEREAS, for approval of Commercial Design Standazds, according to Section 26.412.050 Review Criteria, an application for Commercial Design Review may be approved, approved with ~` conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: r A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial Design Standards or any deviation from the Standards provides amore- appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is ... proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a ^~ deviation from the Standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested Design ^* Elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the Standards. ~. ~. ~" B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the .. proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial ., v Design Standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the fagade of the building may be required to comply with this section. . C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means; and WHEREAS, for approval of setback variances, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.110.0 of the Municipal Code, that the setback variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district; and WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated December 12, 2007, performed an analysis of y the application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on December 12, 2007, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standazds and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote of 6 to 1. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby recommends approval for Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition, Relocation, Vaziances, and Commercial Design Standard Review (Conceptual) for the property located at 604 West Main Street, Lots Q, R and S, Block 24, Ciry and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, as proposed with the following conditions; 1. The applicant shall reduce the overall maximum height of the Affordable Housing unit ^+ and the Fifrh Street new building by at least 1 foot. 2. A step shall be added to the roof of the porch element located on the south elevation of ^~ the new building fronting Main Street. 'A .J .-° ~. 3. HPC recommends against a sidewalk along the Fifth Street side of the parcel to the Parks and Engineering Departments. If the City requires a sidewalk, then the site plan, pedestrian paths and parking space along Fifth Street shall be readdressed by HPC. 4. The following setbacks are granted for the historic Wylie House: 5 foot setback along Fifth Street, where 1 foot is provided and 6 feet are required for a corner lot with two front yards, as attached in Exhibit A. 5. The following setback is granted for the second floor Affordable Housing Unit on the alley: 5 feet setback along the alley, where 0 feet are provided and 5 feet are required, as attached in Exhibit A. 6. The following setback is granted for the Fifth Street Building: a minimum setback from the Fiflh Street property line for the second story deck is 3 feet, as attached in Exhibit A. 7. The following setbacks aze granted for the Historic Barn: 6 feet sideyard and 5 feet rearyard setback along Fifth Street and the alley for the existing condition, where 0 feet is provided, as attached in Exhibit A. 8. The following setbacks are granted for the Historic Shed: 5 feet reaz yard setback to relocate the historic shed onto 612 West Main Street. 0 feet is provided for the rear yard setback, as attached in Exhibit A. 9. Commercial Design Standard Review is granted regarding Pedestrian Amenity Space and Trash and Utility areas. 10. Demolition is granted for the two 1950s structures. 11. Relocation is granted for the historic shed. 12. The historic shed is permitted to be thoroughly documented, dismantled, and " reconstructed in its new location on the adjacent lot. 13. A structural report demonstrating that the building can be moved and/or information about how the house will be stabilized from the house mover must be submitted with the building permit application. The applicant must provide information as to whether or not the existing floor structure will be maintained and the pro's and con s of the decision for review and approval by staff and monitor. 14. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the structure must be submitted with the building permit application. 15. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 16. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (I) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole grant aone-time extension of the expiration date discretion and for good cause shown , for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written °~ request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. [signatures on following page] APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 12th day of December 2007. Approved as to Form: James R. True, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Michael Hoffman, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk DRAWINGS ~ .:. r ~ Z ~ ` ~ ~ O - x C ~ C w e z~ ~ v d o 00 <! I I I I 1~ I 1 a 1 = 1 ws' ' 1 1 1 ' o~ 1 ~a 11 i II 1 I 1 1 1 I ~ I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I ~ I I I I 1 I ~ 1 w 1 3 i S ~ 1 w s I ~ ~ w~ a 1 i Y - I ~ ¢I ~ i ~ i o F I 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 Y ~~ 3~i ,w,.>a3~tl, _ I ~ I 1 I 1 d, ~ fi n ~ oa 1 t ~ 1- 1 x ~~~~ - I fx= 1 I .mix= 1 ~ P we w .P w wa 1 ~mz ~ faa 1 ------- 1 _.. I I I ~~ 1 1 1 .~T~~13 I J I 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 i e ~_, I ', ~ 1 1 ~ n S S w i _~____ ___1, o- xOH OP pR 1 ~ wUP N~ ~_ _~ _ _ ~~ k'o%~% S °Y I F ~~ y~6 g~g ~€ 8 ~~~ Y ~o 3 i~ Lo.~ o~ Of w68e 'a wo 2Y tlItl1S ~ - I ______p^_~ ~_ ~ 1 1 ~ I V F w~ ~ ~ g _ w ~¢~ oe I ~oP w - 38 1 ~ 1 it 1 - i 1 ~ `; i4p. ZOrtB I ~ I .CEP ZOB~ 3 E I I 2 e`, a ~(n ~ ~~ a ~ 3a `~ E ~ ~a t E~~s z ~ ¢ > ~ ~ w = _s~~~;ew - 00 ~ ~ ~ w 5 fig ~ €°o . ~O wa= ~ w as 5w ~ ~ ~8 N Q a w _ a _ _ °~~ e ~i w 43 ~3~ ; °- °O-o us 133e1S Hljj Y .ow a~ -- 3 s5 os oo - < wom ao - i_ u __ - w m m _. . .. - -' :.,. - ~~ -- , _ ~ ~. .r _ _ L , . w ~ ,, ~ ' ', W ~ i i II -- w ~ - ~ ~- i _ ~ -_ _ ° ~ _ _ - aoua __~_ ~ i ,o~. .. ..o. ex l _-r.. _ .,.a, - __ .~ aav r, - _ - - _ - - ~ 1~ - I _ ¢ e _ _ "g ~ i r i `ow i w ~ o ~ - . ~ I o~ « __ ~ "u z wo v i I o w ~~2 lY _ - ¢ 0 - 02 w ~~ ° ~ e m _. ~w a wz ~ __ _ §"s o i. _ - i ~~~ nn e ~ i g o ~ w i ~, ~a ~~. . ~ m I _.... i w ~ i a ~-co- - - _ i ~i ~ e° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ea ~ 8\ ~ ~ _ i ' C.' ~ ~ a s~ E ~ ~ s .. ,. ~ _ .o _ y § ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ R _. _ a ° o ~ ~- -- ~ i m ~a I ~a s. aw ~ ~ ~ - ~ o so ~ u a „~ ~ i_o ~_ w -} ~ e: .. wg ~~ >¢ ~ ,~ ~ S . a„w m v w ,e s e . o ~ t1 @ g n 1 _ 8i ~ ~ u i xx a ~ - - i ~ ' Quo m a -. .. _. i / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ wg - __ - S ~ . / _ _ i O _ I I `ll ~ ~~ I ~ __ __ k-.. 1 _ I $ I J~ J - - 1 ~ 8 axn uaaeoua - - - - - - - __ _ ~ ~.. d r H =_ ~ w ~ ~_ N w ~ ; ~_=_ a o ~,: w ~ N `~ h ~ ' ~ ~ _.- - ~~~` ` m e O a . _ §E~ o Z G 5 C j" _ Z ~ Q ~ Boa w e ~ ~ p °~ ~ ~ w o 9 o 1 Q o _~ _ f,~ a ® > ~ ~ 00 _.. c; 133H1S H1i13 _ ~._ ~ _ _ o i 5 __.._. ~. j o --~ o H i - ~ ~ o _ _ o.' e_ ~ 8H C w m x ¢ ; ey e CSI ~ ~~~ w ~a ~ ro Q ~~ ~ e - _ _. ~~ 0 a I~ T ~! o ~' C.I ~ ~ I~ r:t a. ~ ° i PH Be b~ O ~~ U H Q ...~ _I a 4p~ a LLRn U O~ S ~ _-s O 3~;b O ~ ~ ~ i _ ~ ^ ~ ~_~ gw ~ a ~ ~ ~ m ~ Q.~. ~ ~ ueirHS a ¢3 i'~ w w m W ~8°= Li ° ~ 83_. ~~ O z f E~~ z ~ E c I~ _ i' ~~ F ~ N _ i ~ ~Yi _ Y . ~y ~ ry . ~ ~ o ~V ' e ~ ~ K C' 133 tl1S H1313 w w r N F- W f ~T ~ ~ Ye _ W ~ ~ ~ _ ~" _ s ~N ~ 3 ,~ ~$ ~ $ m ~ O ~ ~ Z g _ ~ ~~$ ~ ¢ z N C o _ ~ ..'~~~' G c Q .. V 7 [il 0 p I- I I V ¢ f Yu e~ Oo_ W¢ I I u I O II io m C N 1 N W N m N L LL N W O I m C O W m W N _ S T g _ . ~ ..1 Y3s ` ~~1 f •.. c y ¢ ~/~ ~// M ~ O i. i ~nE' i C w L L s o ~_ _ N ~ / ~ 2 V/ ~ J ~ ~ 3 `- E~`~ ~ ~ y [G O o z N f E~ ~ ~ w ¢ ~ N 6 r _ t G Z W lick ~ F o O 3 8 7 i p o T r W ~ N O O ^ 2 I ~ 7 c W ~ V/ ~J 6 N ~ O ~ QS Q ~ o L p o `2 43s~ ¢i `F i r yk 4 ~~6 a m ~ f_ ~ Z E.:~ ~ ~' F ~ S ~ l 'J _ _ ¢ 9 ,~c ~ z ^ ~` ~Vi ~ O N 7 [J O II i0 m Z O w J W I I W - Q 'J 4. F ll li N , N F T ? mq _... _.. _. "° I^ I~ g~.a ~ I I I I LLz I og. i I Illi __ I III III I III I I I II I I w ~ I m q rv m p ~ y A 6s Y~ O I m N a~ W 3 V N N N °~ n~l@ ~I qy LLY - Im' ~~I 6~ ~w ¢I i i - _ ~ = t ~ ~ ~ S ~ W W W~ ~N ~ a Q a G 0 ws mfr N U we a~ o~ 0 II io cn z O W J W W U LL LL O F w 3. r a w : :2 5 k ?s e _ g;y f 4ss~ a o ~ a ETA z N f ~ G E - ~ ikcv ° F m Z - m ?s$' ~ 9 C' v o o ~ > V 0 i io m O w J W W W Y O J a w m a w 4 ~ 4 ~b ow9 w.S i IR ~wl~ _ Iry I ool ¢II I I gal i~ r~ r~ C~ :,, ;~;: ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (Ej, ASPEN LAND USE CODE (,OLp WEST Mp,~N ST2EE~ ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: TUrcS_ ~PKI L 1 . ~Q Lt~ 200 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. Couuty of Pitkin ) I, ~S~ A J CO (L'G _ ! (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general cvculation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) ~l days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of 200_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeazed no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient ]egal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. `3ignatu The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this I'I day bf tic FE2c H , 200 $ , by ~ ~_o, e~ e. S o R t"c-t WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL rch 16, 20 • Aspen Times Weekl PUBLIC NOTICE My commission expires: ~~ I' i p RE: 696 WEST MAIN STREET- GRO`MH ENL4FGEMEENi OFAHSTOORCLANDMARK ~/~y~~ ~1 FOP MIXED UGE DEVELOPMENT AND 9 ~^ k r \ vG-t AQ ~ AFFORDABLE HOUSING Notary Ft,bi1C NOTICE LC uve[w r_~~i~.~.._. _ _.... Alan m Ar- aid ~ ATTACHMENTS: LAURA MEYER COPYOF THE PUBLICATION ~'~ Ily Commiasiai Expires 081108010 atl Sara Atlams at the PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) Development Depgrt- _ Aspen, CO, (9]O) '. cnar, artJ Empamar 3E OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED Aspen Planning antl Zoning Commlasion n V XAAIT Puhlishetl in the Aspen Tmes Weekly on Merch U! e,ln L 16,2006.(1280391) ATTACHMENT? AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: ~~~ W^"S`~ ~n``^ ~~~ ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PU6LIC HEARING DATE: K ~ 1 °~6 , 200 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, ` ' ~'~~ ~ ~ ~ ~`~'°-~ (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner. Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of ati official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) / days prior to the public heazing. A copy oJthe publication is attached hereto. ~! Posting ojnotice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained fi~otn the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifeen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the ~ ` day of V~P~~~ , 200r-~, to and including the date and time of the public / hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. y Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. A[ least fifeen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (contiwued on next page) _ Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the p]amling agency during all business hours for fifteen (1 ~) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. ~~ ~~ C~ e. ',~1..~ Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notic "was acknowled ed before me this~`~ day of,~r ~~. [:G~ , 200, by ~~-1a.~2 ~ ~_rn ! ~r ~( pUe~/ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL ~_' My co mission ex 'res: ~ ~ r~0(~ ~~ ~ ~ o ..~''~o~~ Notary Public ,fOFCO P. LIST OF THE O ass ~ED C O PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 604 WEST MAIN STREET- GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR THE ENLARGEMENT OF A HISTORIC LANDMARK FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in the Sister Cities Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by 604 West Main LLC managed and owned by Neil Kazbazilc, 604 West Main Street, Aspen, CO represented by Alan Richman Plazming Services and Stryker Brown Architects. The applicant requests growth management review for the enlargement of a historic landmazk for mixed use development, pursuant to Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.470.070.1 and the creation of one affordable housing unit, pursuant to Aspen Land Use Code section 26.470.070.4. This project received Major Development Conceptual approval from the Historic Preservation Commission to demolish two non-historic buildings and erect two new buildings on the property located at 604 West Main Street, Lots Q, R and S, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen CO. For further information, contact Sara Adams at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429-2778, sazaa@ci.aspen.co.us. s/I.J Erspamer Chair, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on Mazch 16, 2008 City of Aspen Account A83AV-O9-008-t uoy~rWSUI,p wor~4anennn~w~ aplna; el ze;lnsuo~© 501 WEST MAIN LLC 532 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611-1818 ALPINE BANK ASPEN ATTN GAYLE BEAN PO BOX 10000 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 ASPEN MESA STORE LLC C/O ASPEN BLUE SKY HOLDINGS LLC PO BOX 8238 ASPEN, CO 81612 BAILEY RYAN 1994 TRUST 50% 15808798 METAVANTE WAY SIOUX FALLS, SD 57186 BROOKS NORMAN A & LESLEE S 16311 VENTURA BLVD #690 ENCINO, CA 91436 CHUCHMAN GEORGE S PO BOX 2800-355 CAREFREE, AZ 85377 COCHENER CAROLINE A TRUST C/0 TODD M CONNELL 7309E 21ST ST #120 WICHITA, KS 67206 CZECH NOAH PO BOX 12086 ASPEN, CO 81612 DUNSDON S MICHAELE BORKENHAGEN DAVID A 617 W MAIN ST #D ASPEN, CO 81611-1619 FERGUS ELIZABETH DAWSON PO BOX 1515 ASPEN, CO 81612 1 ~~®~_ ~1 ~ VU ;uawa6~ey~ ap sua5 ®095 ®A83Atl;!~ege6 al zaslll;~ ~ ~ salad ~ salhe} sauanbp~ 612 WEST LLC ALLEN DOUGLAS P 604 W MAIN ST 403 LACET LN ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN CONDO ASSOC ASPEN FSP ABR LLC 600 E HOPKINS AVE #304 11921 FREEDOM DR #950 ASPEN, CO 81611-2934 RESTON,VA 20190 ASPEN SQUARE CONDO ASSOC INC BABB LAURIE JANE 617 E COOPER 3525 DEL MAR HEIGHTS RD #352 ASPEN, CO 81611 SAN DIEGO, CA 92130 BERR LLC BRIDGE WILLIAM & JOSEFINA 611 W MAIN ST PO BOX 78510 ASPEN, CO 81611 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107 BURKE OLSHAN ASPEN PROP LLC CARTER RICHARD P C/O ELK CREEK M GMT 400E 3RD AVE #804 255 LITTLE ELK CREEK AVE DENVER, CO 80202 SNOWMASS, CO 81654-9320 CITY OF ASPEN CLEANER EXPRESS 130 S GALENA ST 435 E MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 CORTALE ITA COULTER G LYNNIE 205 S MILL ST #112 PO BOX L3 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 DART ELIZABETH RODWELL DESTINATION RESORT MGMT INC 633 W MAIN ST 610 WEST END ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 FARR CHARLOTTE FELD ANNE S 306 MCCORMICK AVE 1700 PACIFIC AVE #4100 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 DALLAS, TX 75201 FINE FREDRIC N & SONDRA FLEETWOOD JENNIFER ELISA PARK 412 MARINER DR 616 W MAIN ST JUPITER, FL 33477 ASPEN, CO 81611 Tam;ea~ lead 6se3 ~o; jaded paa~T ®0915 31M1dW31 ~Gany asD taays uoly~tu3sul eas ~ ~ i slage3 lead ~(se3 A83AV-O9-008-1 uolyruysul,p wor~Lanemnnm aplne; of zet;nsuo~~ FRIAS PROPERTIES OF ASPEN LLC 730 E DURANT ASPEN, CO 81611 GORDON LETICIA C/O JOE RACZAK GOLDEN HORN 555 E DURANT AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 HALPERIN ALEXANDRA & BARBARA 52 LARKSPUR DR CARBONDALE, CO 81623 HERITAGE ASPEN DBA ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY 620 W SLEEKER ST ASPEN, CO 81611 HOTEL ASPEN CONDO ASSOC 110 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 IGLEHART JIM 610 W HALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611 JEMAR PARTNERS LLC 701 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 KOELLE ALICE PO BOX 2871 ASPEN, CO 81612 MACDONALD BETTE S TRUST 15 BLACKMER RD ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110 MOLLER DIANE T 4032 CRYSTAL BRIDGE DR CARBONDALE, CO 81623 ~uawa6iey~ ap sua5 ®09L5 ®AN3AV l!~ege6 a! zasy!if1 • ~ salad g sake; sauanbh~ ~. GOLDMAN DIANNE L PO BOX 516 FAIRFIELD,CT 06824 GOLDSTEIN MARC 4545 POST OAK PL #100 HOUSTON, TX 77027 H 8 H PROPERTIES LLLP 807 W MORSE BLVD STE 101 WINTER PARK, FL 32789-3725 HAYES MARY FAMILY PTNSP LTD PO BOX 497 ASPEN, CO 81612 HERNANDEZ LORENE & CECIL M PO BOX 1045 ASPEN, CO 81612 HUNTINGTON TRUST CO NA TRUSTEE C/O COATES REID 8 WALDRON 720 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 IGLEHART JIM 617 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 KELSO DOUGLAS P 627 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611-1619 LAST NICKEL LLC C/O LUCAS PECK BRANDY PC 132 MIDLAND AVE #4 BASALT, CO 81621 MADSEN MARTHA W 608 W HOPKINS AVE APT 9 ASPEN, CO 81611 MOUNTAIN RESCUE ASPEN INC 630 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 HAISFIELD MICHAEL DOUGLAS HAISFIELD LISA YERKE 616 W HOPKINS ASPEN, CO 81611 HAYMAN JULES ALAN 9238 POTOMAC SCHOOL DR POTOMAC, MD 20854 HORTON DAYNA L 520 W MAIN ST #22 ASPEN. CO 81611 HY-MOUNTAIN TRANSPORTATION INC 111 C AABC ASPEN, CO 81611 ILGEN EILEEN L & JACK D & ELOISE C/O DAN SODERBERG 2569 LOWER RIVER RD SNOW MASS, CO 81654 KLEIN DEBBIE 546 MCSKIMMING RD ASPEN, CO 81611 LESTER JAMES 229 CHRYSTIE ST #1417 NEW YORK, NY 10002 MAEW EST LLC ATTN: DOROTHY A SHARP 706 WEST MAIN ASPEN, CO 81611 NATIONWIDE THEATRES CORPORATION A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 120 N ROBERTSON BLVD LOS ANGELES, CA 90048 T ®09L5®~~ ® Tw°leai land Ase3 ~o; jaded paadT ® ®09L5 3LVidW31 any as(7 i;aay5 uo~ruasul aas ~ • ~ slagei lead Ase3 A!l~/1V-O~-OUS-L uolL~n~+isu6P war~4ane•~wxM alllne! pl ia31~~'J~ NORTH AND SOUTH ASPEN LLC 200 S ASPEN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 PEARSON MARK M 8 LEES M 702 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 REVA LLC PO BOX 1376 ASPEN, CO 81612 RUSSO NICK A PO BOX 4743 ASPEN, CO 81612 SCHARER JAY REC TRUST 215 ZOE WAY MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140 THROM DOUGLAS H 617 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 VANDERSCHUIT FAM TRUST 5836 WAVERLY AVE LA JOLLA, CA 92037 WENDT ROBERT E II 350 MT HOLYOKE AVE PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 WHITMAN RANDALL A 4845 HAMMOCK LAKE DR CORAL GABLES, FL 33156 WOLF BRADLEY R 33581RELAND RD MORROW. OH 45152 luawaCuey~ ap sua5 ®09L5 ®AL3AV wege6 al zaslllyD ~ ,,. salad g salRe; sa33anbR~ ~~, ~~ OLIVER SPORTS BRACING LLC PATRICK KEVIN 520 W MAIN ST #20 730 E DURANT AVE #200 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 PERRY EMILY V PO BOX 11071 ASPEN, CO 81612 RENO ASPEN PROPERTIES LLC 605 W MAIN ST #002 ASPEN, CO 81611 RODRIGUEZJOANN 605 W MAIN ST #OOA ASPEN, CO 81611 SANDERS FAMILY TRUST 1997 C/O SANDERS BARBARA 634 W MAIN ST APT 8 ASPEN, CO 81611 SCHEFFJONATHAN BUTTERW ICK KIMBERLY 2445 RIDGEGATE ROW LAJOLLA, CA 92037 TOMS CONDO LLC C/O BRANDY FEIGENBAUM PC 132 MIDLAND AVE #4 BASALT, CO 81621 VIEIRA LINDA 50% INTEREST HALL TERESA 50% INTEREST 605 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 WERLIN LAURA B TRUST 2279 PINE ST SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94115 WHITNEY KURT A & JACQUELINE PO BOX 5950 SNOW MASS VILLAGE, CO 81615-5950 YOUNG DONALD L 617 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 RUFUS CAMI CAMI LLC 1280 UTE AVE #7 ASPEN, CO 81611 SCHALL FAMILY TRUST 8/31/1998 18518 ST MORITZ DR TARZANA, CA 91356 SUBOTKY JULIE E 55 WEST 14TH ST #15L NEW YORK, NY 10011 ULLR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 600 E HOPKINS #304 ASPEN, CO 81611 WAGNER HOLDINGS CORP LLC C/O BILL POSS 605 E MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 WEST ALFRED P JR & LORALEE S 58416475 METAVANTE WAY SIOUX FALLS, SD 57186 WINGSTONE TOY COMPANY LLC 12 GREENBRIAR LN PAOLI, PA 19301 T Tam;ea~ land ~(se3 ~o; jaded paadT ®09L5 31`a'1dW31®,(iany asD i ®091.5®~b~ ~ laayS uop~nASUI eaS ~ • ~ slaQe'I laad ~tse3 MEMORANDUM TO: Plans were routed to those departments checked-off below: X ........... City Engineer X ........... Zoning Officer X ........... Housing Department X ........... Parks Department X ........... Aspen Fire Marshal X ........... City Water X ........... Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District X ........... Building Department X ........... Environmental Health O ........... Electric Department O ........... Holy Cross Electric O ........... City Attorney X ........... Streets Department O ........... Historic Preservation Officer O ........... Pitkin County Planning O ........... County & City Disaster Coordinator O ........... Police O ...........Transportation X ........... Parking FROM: Saza Adams, Community Development Department 429.2778 or sazaa(a,ci.aspen.co.us DRC MEETING DATE: Wednesday, February 20th @ 1:30 Council Chambers PACKETS SENT: Monday, February 13th COMMENTS DUE: Friday, February 22nd RE: DRC Review - 604 West Main Street SUMMARY: This property is located on the comer of Main and Fifth Streets in the Main Street Historic District. There aze currently three historic structures on the property, two of which are proposed for relocation. The applicant proposes to demolish two non-historic buildings and construct two new buildings on the site. The Historic Preservation Commission has granted conceptual approval of the project. "~~ f f C¢a~- IN. ~1~1 • ~~ - ~lau~,-,vr,~rf - ~ ~~ l~~a~ ~~ ~i~hw~ ~ M~ .. ~ ~~ . alb aFi~- ~ G~~ u1~,rn ~K, ~. ~~.. `~ L ` / IM- GD~T ~~ ~~ '~ ~~~ P eaw~ ~ ti' s-. ~ ~~~~ = r~ • ln` 1M111hMAlm Cwvb tom{" •x{162 II~'- ~'~ f~ 1ui ~u~ . ZX~s~~ p ~ you ~- ~. ~~~a.. w ~~s a~ ~ ~i ACSD Requirements-604 West Main Street Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. Elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor The old service lines (3) must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements, before any and all soil stabilization measures are attempted and prior to ACSD releasing any and all permits. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. The Applicant will have to pay 40% of the estimated tap fees for the anticipated building stubouts prior to building permit. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines and within 3 feet vertically below an ACSD main sewer line. City of Aspen Date: February 20, 2008 Project: 604 West Main Street Engineering Department DRC Comments These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project packet submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting. Transportation Driveways -Specify all driveway locations and widths. Standards depend on zoning district. Drainaee General -Project packet must include a discussion of anticipated and proposed drainage patterns, detention storage and outlet concepts. Storm Sewer System -Project drainage requirements may include construction of new storm sewer line, minimum lateral 15" RCP and mainline 18" RCP to connect to existing storm sewer system. A Stormwater System Development Fee shall be assessed against all properties at the time of development or redevelopment of the property. The fee shall be assessed against the total impervious area of the development, not simply the increased impervious area. Detention as required by code. Pedestrian Improvements General - In accordance with the City's Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Master Plan, property owners are required to replace and/or install and maintain sidewalk, curb and gutter along the street frontage adjacent to their properties. Properties within certain areas of the City are not required to install sidewalk, curb and gutter. These locations are shown on the "Sidewalk Free Zones" and the "No Curb and Gutter Zones" maps dated February 22, 2002. These maps are kept in the City Engineering Department. Sidewalks -Sidewalks must be replaced and/or installed along the property line. Project must depict ALL sidewalk locations and widths. Sidewalk width is based on the land use. Residential: 5' High density and multi-family areas: 6' Commercial areas 8'. Warning Pads -detectable warning pads shall be installed at all curb ramps. Curb ramps shall be directional and not diagonal. Construction Mana eg ment General - A construction management plan must be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. The plan must include a planned sequence of construction that minimizes construction impacts to the public. The plan shall describe mitigation~rt: parking, staging/encroachments, truly!traffic, noise, dust, and erosion sediment pollution. Miscellaneous Utilities -All above ground structures shall be located outside the public rights-of--way. Sight Distances -Project shall comply with proper sight distances at intersections/driveways. Detailed plans are required prior to council -please see engineering department for specific details. Additional Project Specific Comments The Engineering Department Checklist will need to be followed, especially with regard to: Site Grading Plan, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan & Excavation Stabilization Plan. Sidewalk will be required along 5`h Street. The sidewalk must be designed in such a way as to minimize the impact to the existing trees. In order to achieve this, an alternate design, material and installation may be required. The Engineering Dept must review and approve the design prior to building permit submittal. It is unclear as to what happens to the irrigation ditch to the north and south. Plans must clearly show this ditch. Only one driveway cut will be permitted. The maximum width of this cut is 10 feet. Depending on how the detention is designed, as new stonn sewer system may be required For the project. See comment above. !^~ Page 1 of 1 Sara Adams From: Denis Murray Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 3:19 PM To: Sara Adams Subject: 604 west main Preliminary plan review comment for DRC of 604 W Main 1) Applicant should be aware of CDOT requirements for ROW improvements and or access. 2) Questions about type of construction, occupancy separations, exiting from lower and upper levels will best be worked out prior to permit submittal. Denis Murray x2761 2/27/2008 .-. ~ .; MEMORANDUM TO: Sara Adams, Community Development FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing DATE: February 27, 2008 RE: 604 WEST MAIN STREET REDEVELOPMENT Parcel ID No. 2735-124-44-007 ISSUE: The applicant is seeking approval to redevelop the property at 604 West Main Street. BACKGROUND: The property currently contains five buildings. The applicant is requesting to preserve and restore two contributing historic buildings, remove three of the existing buildings that are not historic, and replace these three structures with two small office buildings and a carport that has an affordable housing unit on its second floor. The Historic Preservation Committee has reviewed and approved the applicant's proposal. The proposed project would create an office compound with five small buildings (the same number that is currently on the property, which two would be historic structures and three would be new structures. No free-market component is being proposed on this property. The affordable housing unit is proposed to contain three bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to increase the net leasable commercial space by approximately 2,975 square feet. The cun•ent commercial space is 1,360 square feet, thereby providing a total 4,335 square feet of net leasable space. MITIGATION: Section 26.470.070.0.2 of the Land Use Code authorizes the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve the enlargement of a historic landmark for mix used development. The Code states the following standards: Up to 4 employees generated by the additional commerciaGlodge development shall not require the provision of affordable housing. Thirty percent (30%) of the employee generation above 4 and up to 8 employees shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof. Sixty percent (60%) of the employee generation above 8 employees shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.070.4, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspenl 1'"` ~' `.. Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. According to Section 26.470.100 A.1. of the Code, 2.7 employees are generated per 1,000 square feet of net leasable commercial space in the Mixed Use (MU) zone district. The net increase in net leasable commercial space will generate it employees (2,975 X 3.7 _ 1,000 = 11). The Code- specified formula for mitigation of employees on a Historic Landmark property would generate the following: • First 4 employees = 0 Employees to be mitigated • Next 4 employees = 4 X 30% = 1.2 employees to be mitigated • Remaining 3 employees = 3 X 60% = 1.8 employees to be mitigated Based on this calculation, 3.0 employees are required to be mitigated for the redevelopment of this property. The applicant is proposing to build athree-bedroom affordable housing unit on-site that mitigates for 3.0 employees. The applicant is proposing the unit as a Category 4 rental unit and is proposed to be approximately 1,200 square feet in size, which meets the minimum stated size for a Category 3 and Category 4 3-bedroom unit. Section 26.470.070.4.d states: 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. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications from the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority or the City of Aspen to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or non profit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing units for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. As stated above, the applicant is requesting the unit be a rental unit for employees of the commercial space. RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Board reviewed the application at their regular meeting held February 20, 2008 and although the project does not fulfill the goal that 100% of employee z r V mitigation should be provided, the project is providing mitigation as currently stipulated in the Land Use Code and preserving two historic structures. Since the mitigation requirement is being satisfied as stipulated in the Code by an on-site unit rather than apayment-in-lieu fee, Staff would recommend approval of the application. "For sale" units aze preferred over rental units, but since the developer is requesting the unit as a rental, the following conditions should be required as part of the approval: Rental Units: a. The unit will be deed-restricted as Category 4 to be approved by APCHA and finalized at time of Final approval. b. The deed-restriction will allow for the unit to become an ownership unit at such time the owners would request this change and/or at such time the APCHA deems the unit out of compliance over a period of one year. If the unit is found to be out of compliance for one year, or the owner elects to sell the unit, the unit would be listed for sale with the Housing Office as specified in the deed restriction. If the unit is being sold due to non- compliance, the sales price will be based upon the price from the day the non- compliance began. If the unit is being sold due to non-compliance, the unit will be sold through the lottery system. If the owner elects to sell the unit, the owner may choose the first buyer only the household qualifies under the top priority for that specific unit. c. An agreement will be established between the owners of the commercial space and APCHA regarding the tenancy of the affordable housing unit. At NO time will the tenancy of that unit be tied to any specific employer. If the owner cannot End a qualified a tenant, the owner will contact APCHA and the unit(s) will be filled through APCHA's normal advertising process. d. Two reserved parking spaces would be preferred for the affordable housing unit; however, one parking space is required by the Code and the HPC has approved one parking space for the affordable housing unit. e. The units shall be owned by an Association and managed by that Association; however, the applicant must provide to APCHA, at final approval, more detail of maintaining and managing said unit. f Each tenant in the rental unit will be required to be requalified by APCHA on a yearly basis. g. Minimum occupancy for the three-bedroom unit is required (i.e., a household of three consisting of all working adults or a family). Should the unit become a "for sale" unit, the 3 top priority for the unit is a household of three with at least one a dependent as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines. h. The governing documents shall be drafted to reflect the potential for the rental unit to become an ownership unit. These governing documents shall be reviewed and approved by APCHA. i. Should the rental unit become an ownership unit, the APCHA or the City of Aspen can elect to purchase the unit for rental to qualified households in accordance with the APCHA Housing Guidelines. j. As long as the affordable housing unit remains as a rental unit, the APCHA or the applicant shall structure a deed restriction for the unit such that an undivided 1/10`h of 1 percent interest in the ownership of the unit is deed restricted in perpetuity to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; or until such time the unit becomes an ownership unit; or the applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority determines acceptable. k. Language shall be provided in the Protective Covenants covering the unit's assessments upon the unit becoming a "for sale" unit. The assessments shall be based on the value of the commercial space compared to and in proportion to the value of the deed-restricted unit. This language shall be required in the approval and in the Covenants associated with the project and allow for the same voting representation commercial space if the unit becomes a "for sale" unit. No changes to this restriction would be a-lowed without APCHA's approval. The affordable housing unit shall receive a Certificate of Occupancy prior to or at the same time as the newly developed commercial space. The deed-restriction shall be recorded at the time of recordation of the Condo Plat and prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 4 ~~ -- Zoning DRC review for 604 West Main 1. Net leasable had two different #'s 1360 and 1426 sq. ft. in the document. I think that 1360 was the correct #. 2. List type of AH unit on plan set, list net livable on FAR page and also FAR for AH to total with the rest of the FAR for the property. To verify the .87:1 3. Need to resolve setback in between the two parcels. 4. Fees: Will include School Land (26.620), TDM, and Parks (26.610). Applicant will provide current "Market Value". To calculate your fees there is a fee matrix on our website for your convenience. Below is the definition of market value. This term comes up when calculating your "School Land" fees. 1. Current market value. Current market value means the value of the land at the time of the cash-in-lieu payment, including site improvements such as streets and utilities, but excluding the value of residential dwelling units and other structures on the property. 2. Substantiation. Market value may be substantiated by a documented purchase price (if an arms-length transaction no more than two [2] years old) or other mutually agreed-upon recognized means. 3. Appraisal. In the event the developer and the City fail to agree on market value, such value shall be established by a qualified real estate appraiser acceptable to both parties. The developer shall pay for the appraisal. .~.. a a, DRC Comments Parks Department 2/20/08 Project: 604 W Main Street Over the past several years the Parks Department has worked with multiple Main Street redevelopment projects in order to protect the character of the existing urban forest. This has resulted in the successful development of properties that contain historical and important trees. This property is no exception. The property is encumbered with several large and historic cottonwood trees, which will need to be protected to the fullest extent possible. Parks cannot support the proposed excavation within the drip line of the cottonwood trees located in the front yard setback. The maximum encroachment under the drip line that will be approved by the Parks Department will be to the front of the existing historical structure. Anew design for the proposed excavation and location of the structures will be required in order to receive sign off on the building permit. 2. Proposed on grade improvements will need to be redesigned with the goal of maximum protection of the root zones around the cottonwood trees. Current plans identify multiple impacts, which will impact water and air absorption into the soil as well as root impacts. 3. Parks requires a new plan that shows the location of the trees and the drip line of the trees in relationship to the existing structures and proposed structures. 4. An approved tree permit will be required before any construction related activities take place on the property. This includes, demo of structures, house moving, excavation, etc Please contact the City Forester at 920-5120. 5. Any landscape plan should detail the mitigation for tree removal with locations and legends for newly planted trees. 6. Improvements to the ROW, if required by engineering, along Fifth Street are encouraged. Improvements may require the removal of the two coniferous trees located within the City ROW on Fifth Street. These trees are not sufficient for appropriate pedestrian movement and vehicular site lines. Removal of these trees for improvements will be approved without mitigation. 7. Improvements to the Main Street ROW will require over site by the City Forester or designee. New curb and gutter, sidewalks and other required improvements will severely impact the existing trees within the ROW. All improvements should take into consideration that excavations into the root zones would not be approved. Designs and the engineering for these improvements should be designed to account for this impact and will need to be approved by both Parks and Engineering. $ ___ w ~ op $ c W x 8 ~ o N ~ / C o ~ V O ~ n _ Q 4 a W Q o ^ o ~ F _ S G ~ U_ " - ~ g g Q N N t0 N d _ _ _ _ _ - - I I I I z ~ w ~ 8 i .,< ~ i g om i ~< i i _ _ _ _ _ ~ I I ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ I I ~ I I ~ I I ~ ~ ~ I I 3 ~ I c ~ ~ I I 'n ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ I aw~uuaeoed 8. ~ ..__ ____ ___ t_~ `_ ~ ~~ i - -- W ~ i. ~ - ~ I r ~ ~e r- > Qa H i o i m .. _ '~, ~ /a 3 .^r~ W ~~~ ~ I Q I ~6 ~~ 4 _ _ _ n _ 6~ _ - __ ___ -_ Ili _ _ _ -r _ _ _ _ _ f Ilrl -_-.-._..__ W=e oag x° ix om& ~p¢ Wo ~i oa 3 wW liJ rt ~ - 8 V U (/1 = & J q~ ~ ~ d VJ U v O Q ~/~~ ~/ ~ W Q a ~ F o 0 0 __ _ _ - L w = T ~ ~ F H . I y ~: i4: ~ = F J ~ ~ _ _ ~ ~, I O ~ ~J ' ~ ? ~~ WD V t O 2 4 ~ ~ ~ U 331i1S HlHl3 _._ __ ". _ 1 ~ ~ ~ i .. i ~~ . 1 - _ 1 ~ I i ~ i .. r / m I I i ' r... 3P~ _ - r ~ _ _ ~ $ 31El A1HidWd ~ __ _.._. _ _~ -. " } -T -361 I ~ ~.. , ~ pNl .~TS~ ~ F y m Z g ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~w . 8 UU N wa `~ U ry ~ ~ g ~ '- _ 1'~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ a s a7S , ~ id i ~.~ - _ _ aR 1 ~ 1.. ~ i o l b b _ ~ ~ -' I w~ ~u,S fie. f ' c " ... - o m5ic ¢ t - €omg;~ _- __ ~ . ¢ ~ w _ ~~ ~g - ~ - ~i t"' ~.' i 3 ce 4 i ~. ~~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~'-.. .. g _ g x ~d_ ~ I, a ~1 ~ - ~ / / rv _ I i ~ a ~ ~~ - - ~ , l ~ ( " _ _ __ ~ i~ w ~ ~ ~~ i ~ M U T ~~ ~ ~ 6 WY ~ !) ~ -, - y, ~ ~_ _ - g' ~ 1 _ T _ i W~ ~ ¢ ~ ~ - `o o~ ~ ~ ~ - 'f i g ~ ~ _ n _ ~ ~ f 1 o 0 µ I ~ ~ ~ + W a 11 " S ~~ Q ~ ~ I ° I `I / 1 " 1 ~ ~ o ~F ~ ~ sg D ~ o ~~ . r T ~ \ ~ ~~ n m 9~8 b i~~s ~_ a i ~ _ - z;rems i __ an «o p _ g, - _ ,.._ , _. ~ i ~ ~ ~', E ~_ _ h,1 ° ~ ~ ~ i ~ ` ~II ~ = c7 ~ I - i -- " ~-" __-~_ _ _. ~g 3NlAltl%Ctltl ~~~ ~3 ~' W r#~ THE CITY OF ASPEN Land Use Application Determination of Completeness Date: January 15, 2008 Dear City of Aspen Land Use Review Applicant, We have received your land use application and reviewed it for completeness. The case number and name assigned to this property is 0003.2008.ASLU (604 W. Main St.). The planner assigned to this case is Sara Adams. The public hearing on the application is scheduled for Mav 6, 2008. ^ Your Land Use Application is incomplete: We found that the application needs additional items to be submitted for it to be deemed complete and for us to begin reviewing it. We need the following additional submission contents for you application: i 1. 2. 3. Please submit the ;aforementioned missing submission items so that we may begin reviewing your application. No review hearings will be scheduled until all of the submission contents listed above have been submitted and are to the satisfaction of the City of Aspen Planner reviewing the land use application. Your Land Use Application is complete: If there are not misshg items listed above, to begin the land use review process. then your application has been deemed complete Other submission items may be requested throughout the review process as deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. Please contact me at 429-2759 if you have any questions. Thank 'ou, r Jennifer Ph an, eputy Director City of Aspen, Community Development Department C:\Documents and Settings\jennifep\Desktop\organized\G Drive\Templates\Completeness Letter Land Use.doc