Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20101116 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, November 16, 2010 4:30 p.m. regular meeting— Sister Cities Room CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL II. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public III. MINUTES IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. 632 E. Hopkins Ave., Final Commercial Design Review and associated land use reviews B. Top of Mill Subdivision, Parcel 8, 8040 Greenline Review VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. BOARD REPORTS VIII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: A. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Drew Alexander, Planner RE: 632 East Hopkins Avenue — GMQS Major Development, Special Review for Parking, Final Commercial Design Review Resolution No. _ , Series 2010 — Public Hearing MEETING DATE: November 16, 2010 APPLICANT /OWNER: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Rudin West, LLC Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the project. REPRESENTATIVE: David Johnston Architects, pc, 418 East SUMMARY: Cooper Avenue, #206, Aspen, CO 81611 The Applicant requests of the Planning and Zoning Commission approval of Growth Management LOCATION: Quota System reviews, Special Review for Subdivision: City and Townsite of Parking, and Final Commercial Design Review for Aspen, Block: 98, Lot: S and east half of an expansion and renovation of the existing Lot R, 533 E. Hopkins structure. CURRENT ZONING & USE P hoto of the sub'ect location Located in the Commercial (C -1) zone district. Current use is entirely #' -" commercial oriented. -"- PROPOSED LAND USE: gglimu The proposal is for a mixed -used building with a newly created free- 1 market unit. A off -site buy -down unit is proposed or the affordable housing mitigation. . _1 c r , ea u„ .0 } � , '+'o,� et 7 LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: ' The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter P &Z). The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal): • Growth Management Review for Expansion or New Commercial Development pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.080.1 for the development of additional commercial net leasable area increase by 434 square feet). • Growth Management Review for Free - Market Residential Units within a Mixed -Use Project for the development of a new free - market residential unit within a mixed -use project pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040 C.6. • Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing in the development of ,affordable housing pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040 C.7. • Special Review for Parking: pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.515 to establish a parking plan for the project. • Final Commercial Design Review: pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412.030 to preserve and foster proper commercial district scale and character, and to ensure that Aspen's commercial areas and streetscapes are public places conducive to walking. PROJECT SUMMARY: 632 East Hopkins Avenue (the "Property ") was originally constructed in 1976, and has undergone minimal changes since this date. The Property is located in the Commercial (C -1) zone district on the outer fringe of the City's Commercial Core (CC) zone district (see "Figure 1 "). The C -1 zone district allows for a variety of uses, including residential, office, and service uses. The existing two- story, 26 foot tall building consists entirely of commercial uses. The Property is situated on a 4,500 square foot lot on the corner of Hopkins Avenue and Spring Street. The building has approximately 5,368 gross square feet, which is inclusive of a 780 square foot basement. The primary entrance is along Hopkins Avenue; however a secondary entrance can be found along Spring Street. The Property includes two areas of Public Amenity Space that account for eighteen (18 %) percent of the total lot size (Fe "Figure 2 "). The Property has four off -street parking spaces which are accessed from the alleyway. 2 cc EA 2 -4' ' " r r q �N co Site ui h' `ti ■ t • Commercial Core (CC) 1 s k coi Zone District . Z' f 1 - Lt l r M -,p 97. of E , l r ,., Commercial (C-1) " '� f Zone District / Mixed Use (MU) N E_yyMgy Zone District 1 " A VT_____________ - . it ,. Figure 1: Zoning 1 /,‘ " / I _ l j/� C1 /// P _;; . 2 k - '` i; OFFICE /RETAIL P n :, i " / if Gw . // � �. I ` ..tG.M e \ N,_ �- / k• / TOTAL EXISITI NG PUBLIC A.M ENITY SPACE EXISTING-PUBLIC AMENITY SPACE (82321 5F) LOT AREA =4500 SF A. 823 "21 SF =1 B?i1 OF LOT n" FtiL"t Spring Street Figure 2: Existing Site Plan and Public Amenity 3 The applicant is requesting to redevelop the site by remodeling and expanding the existing building. The Applicant intends to develop a 3rd floor containing a free - market residential dwelling unit and reconfigure and expand the commercial net leasable on the ground and second floors. Below is a table comparing the project to the underlying zone district dimensional standards. Table 1: Comparison of Proposed vs. Required Dimensional Requirements Dimensional Requirement Proposed Dimensions Underlying Commercial Zone District Requirements Minimum Lot Size 4,500 sq. ft. No Requirement Minimum Lot Area per 1 per 4,500 sq. ft. of lot area No Requirement dwelling Unit Minimum Lot Width No Requirement No Requirement Minimum Front Yard Setback 0 Ft. No Requirement Minimum Side Yard Setback West Side Yard: 0 Ft. No Requirement East Side Yard: 1' 6" Minimum Rear Yard Setback 0 Ft. No Requirement 36 feet, while providing 36 feet (for three story allowed overruns for structures and may be Maximum Height mechanical equipment and increased to 40 feet through appurtenances commercial design review) 2:5:1 or Floor Area ratio 8,995 square feet, or 1.99:1 Commercial uses 1.5:1 or Free - Market uses .5:1 or 4,500 Maximum Net Livable Area of a multi - family residential 1,999 square feet 2,000 sq. ft * dwelling unit: Commercial /residential Ratio 3.38:1 Notes: *The unit may be increased to 2,500 sq. ft. with a Transferable Development Right 4 P5 STAFF COMMENTS: 1) GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS: The Applicant is requesting three (3) separate growth management approvals to obtain sufficient development allotments to construct the proposed project. The requests and the project's compliance with the applicable review standards are discussed below: A) Growth Management Review for Expansion or New Commercial Development: This project includes an increase to leasable area. The existing building contains 3,891 sq. ft. of net leasable area and proposes to increase that number to 434 sq. ft. for a new total of 4,325 sq. ft. For the 2010 growth management allotment year, sufficient allotments are available for this increase. Additionally, the Applicant is required to mitigate for the increase of net leasable created which results in a requirement of 0.76 employees (INSERT FOOTNOTE). B) Growth Management Review for Free - Market Residential Units within a Mixed -Use Project: The applicant is requesting to develop a new free - market residential unit on the third floor. This unit includes 1,999 sq. ft. of net livable area, just shy of the zone district's unit size cap of 2,000 sq. ft. According to Section 26.470.050, General Requirements, affordable housing shall be provided at 30% of the newly generated net livable area. This would constitute an affordable housing requirement of 600 sq. ft. for this project. C) Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing: To meet the mitigation requirements for both the new commercial net leasable and free - market unit proposed, the Applicant is proposing to buy -down an existing two- bedroom affordable housing unit that is 736 sq. ft. of net livable area at Building 6 of the Hunter Creek Condominiums. This two - bedroom unit is the only remaining free - market unit in what is otherwise a multi- family complex completely comprised of affordable housing. The unit is more than a 20% reduction in minimum unit size, however this strategy has been reviewed by APCHA, and their recommendation can be viewed in Exhibit C. Since the unit being proposed is an off -site unit, the land use code requires that both the mitigation requirements for increased net leasable and the creation of new free - market residential be met. Being that the residential and commercial calculations do not correspond (i.e. square footage vs. number -of- employees); the Applicant has the ability to use a conversion ratio found in Section 26.470.100, Calculations. This conversion methodology states that "whenever an affordable housing mitigation requirement is required to be converted between a number -of- employees requirement and a square - footage requirement, regardless of direction, the following conversion factor shall be used: 1 employee = 400 square feet of net livable area." Using the methodology described above, the Applicant converted the 600 sq. ft. requirement from the residential component to a number -of- employees requirement. This would result in a requirement to house a total of 2.26 employees (see Table 2 below). In Section 26.470.050 A.2., Employees Housed, of the land use code, a two - bedroom unit houses 2.25 employees leaving a balance of .01 employees to be mitigated. 5 P6 Staff Comment: This project is the only project that submitted for GMQS allotments for the August 15 2010 deadline and therefore there was no competition for available allotments with regard to the commercial net leasable and the free market unit. The buy -down unit is a 736 square foot two- bedroom one bath unit located in Hunter Creek Building 6, Unit 613. The Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) guidelines state that a two- bedroom unit used for the purposes on GMQS mitigation shall be no less than 950 square feet of net livable space in size. However, this size can be varied depending on sale price and improvements to the unit. The APCHA board discussed this application on September 15 2010 where a recommendation of approval was provided. The Applicant agreed to lower the sale price of the unit and being that the space was recently remodeled with high quality finishes APCHA determined that the reduced net livable area was acceptable, especially when considering that it would make the building entirely affordable housing. APCHA recommended the full mitigation amount of 2.25 employees for a two- bedroom unit being granted to this buy -down unit, leaving only .01 employees remaining to mitigate, or $1,340.79 (by 2010 standards). Staff has reviewed these suggestions and finds them acceptable. 2) Final Commercial Design Review: Final Commercial Design review considers the following elements: • Public Amenity Space • Utility, Delivery, and Trash Service Provision • Suggested Design Elements • Additionally, projects must satisfy those requirements found in the Commercial, Lodging • and Historic Design Objectives and Guidelines (Design Guidelines). During the P &Z review for Conceptual Commercial Design, several suggestions were made towards enhancing the project. The suggestions dealt mostly with the Project's public amenity area, the third floor massing, and neighborhood compatibility. The Applicant has returned with a revised project that attempts to address these considerations. The key changes to the project include: 1) A revised public amenity area and site plan (see Figure 3 below) 2) Revised architecture 3) Reduced scale of the third floor mass 1 $245,000 which is$42,000 less than the maximum sales price. 6 4 j 1 r iT . _ _______ t. , 1....:_=.1 ------11 e ____, 4 1. ___ i 1 , I ..� - �. n 1 •r- 1' •CCANCRCW. DU Y I ' y g , y _ f -ENTRY: L488Y GARAGE 1 : t e. j am... __ -ri • ,,L-___-. - _ r - L • r.. wL L...1.. :49VM i.w nwi� Y $CUT4 a NGSTRCET Figure 3: Proposed Site Plan Staff Comment: 1) Public Amenity Area: The public amenity area has seen a great deal of improvement since the conceptual review. The site better respects the residential character to the east, and feels more interactive and to the overall. Being on ee n e mo a e area, the site did not lend itself previous design which included hardscape and an overall `plaza" feel. Now, the area reads as a much more personal space, suitable for its location. Staff recommends that a bench near the Spring Street entranced be exchanged for a bike rack. Additionally, Staff still recommends the placement of the parkway design along the Spring Street frontage. This has been included in the proposal for Hopkins, but completing it along Spring would increase the streetscape design and provide a better system for screening the building from the neighbors to the east. This would also provide a benefit to the public right -of -way in regards to justifying the reduction in on -site public amenity area. 2) Utility /Trash/Delivery Service Area: The trash area of this project is hindered by the same issue that burdens the off - street parking plan. Being that trash area is included in the carport, Staff feels that the area is too confined and does not lend itself to efficient operation. The dimensional variation being requested in the depth of trash area is not an issue, but the interaction between the parked cars is a concern. The Applicant has committed to fencing and the placement of bollards to assist in the separation of both uses, but Staff continues to believe there is not adequate enough space. 3) Design Guidelines: The final area for consideration for Final Commercial Design Review is how the project satisfies those requirements in the Commercial, Lodging and 7 3 Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines (the "Design Guidelines). The Property is located within the Commercial Character (CC) area which has its own unique list of criteria for Conceptual Commercial Design. Key objectives of the character area include: • Building design that expresses the traditional lot widths in Aspen, • Articulation in facades and the retention of hierarchy in design, • Street level character, • Creation of adequate floor to ceiling heights, • First floor character, especially in regard to retail storefronts, • The design of the roofscape and side and rear facades, • The implementation of high quality architectural materials, and • A high quality landscape plan When compared to the Conceptual Review Criteria, the Final Commercial Design Criteria in the Design Guidelines are much more focused on dimensional and material aspects. There are no areas of the Design Guidelines that were not being satisfied through this proposal. Staff's only issue was the degree of screening that would be provided to the rooftop mechanical area. The Applicant has confirmed that the mechanical equipment placed on the roof shall be screened 3) SPECIAL REVIEW FOR PARKING: As proposed, this development requires the provision of 4.325 on -site parking spaces. The entire requirement is permitted under the land use code to be provided through a payment in lieu; however the applicant is proposing, through special review Net leasable Parking Total standards Existing Comm. 3891 1 per 1,000 sq. ft. 3.81 Development of net leasable* Proposed Comm. 434 1 per 1,000 sq. ft. .434 Development of net leasable* Proposed Res 1 unit No requirement 0 Development in C -1 4.325 Notes: * 100% of the commercial parking may be provided as a payment in lieu Staff Comment: The Applicant has provided a parking plan which requires deviations from the Land Use Code 's minimum parking requirements. In reviewing the proposal, Staff has concerns that the plan fails to adequately serve the development. The major concern is with the programming of the carport space. With the trash area, two stacked smartcar© stalls, and a compact car stall, the space becomes increasingly constrained. Staff finds that the space would operate most efficiently with a more open area to reduce conflict with parking and the normal operation of the trash and storage area (see Figure 4 below). Staff 2 If a geo- thermal system is deemed viable for the site, much of the mechanical equipment on the roof will be reduced or eliminated. 8 9 would favor a plan that eliminates the smartcar© and compact car stall and provides one standard sized parking stall. This provides ample room for the trash area to operate, and even opens the possibility of adding a bike rack to the space. The smartcar© technology is something that is not guaranteed, and Staff would rather see a plan implemented with more of a guarantee of longevity. T REC LINe TRASH II ,I Aaca 4:',0044 2YD DMA PS III I O =nSWc cann...s 111 i. C O RECYCLING/TRASH AREAI - Ij1 _ i T_5 loI :; i `� 13.-6" -0 ;" I ' 1.17. - I. i 22' -0" --- �soLLARDS 11 ,,,i _ _ _ _ 1 '; 1 rf -1 1 rt 1 :14 r 1 - - --1 qii \CARPOR " III 1 4 III -- 111 e- il d � II i 1 I Y I I I i j� it ii I1 II i i - -:- -_-' --- III o imi 1- Figure 4: Proposed carport parking plan with smartcar© stalls Staff is aware that using the existing structure restricts some aspects of the project, especially in regards to the parking plan. However, in the best interest of the building and its users, Staff is recommending that the applicant reduce the amount of provided parking to three stalls, while paying the cash -in -lieu amount of $39,750 for the deficit of 1.325 stalls REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: • Housing — The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority provided a recommendation of approval for the proposed employee mitigation plan. To view these comments see Exhibit C. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the Applicant meets the requirements associated with the Growth Management Reviews and Final Commercial design Review by providing appropriate affordable housing mitigation and generally meeting the cormnercial design standards; however, staff recommends the following with regard to parking, the public amenity, and the rooftop mechanical: 3 The Applicant has committed all of the off - street parking to the Commercial Use. The area of the parking stalls were assigned to the Commercial Area during the allocation of Non -Unit Space. 9 • Staff fmds that the proposed parking plan is not ideal. Instead of providing a compact car spot and two smartcar© stalls, Staff fmds that the project would be better served with a total of three parking spaces. This allows for more operation space for the trash, utility, and storage area. Staff recommends that the Application pay the cash -in -lieu fee for 1.325 parking stalls. • Include a bike rack in place of a bench towards the primary entrance along Spring Street; • Staff supports the implementation of the parkway along the length of the lot on Spring Street. • Staff recommends that all mechanical equipment placed on the roof be adequately screened so as to have minimal impact on the surrounding neighborhood. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. Series of 2010, approving with conditions, Growth Management Quota System, Final Commercial Design Review, and Special Review for Parking for the property located at 632 East Hopkins Avenue." ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. _, Series of 2010 Exhibit A.1— Growth Management and Affordable Housing Criteria Exhibit A.2 — Commercial Design Review Criteria Exhibit A.3 — Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines Review Criteria Exhibit A.4 — Parking Special Review Criteria Exhibit B — P &Z Resolution No. 16, Series of 2010 Exhibit C — Recommendation letter from APCHA Exhibit D — Revised Architecture Exhibit E — Revised Landscape/Public Amenity Plan Exhibit F — Memo from the Applicant addressing Staffs concerns Exhibit G.1— Application: Growth Management Quota System and Affordable Housing Exhibit G.2 — Application: Final Commercial Design Review and Parking 10 P1 1 Resolution No. _ (SERIES OF 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS, SPECIAL REVIEW FOR PARKING, AND FINAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR BLOCK 98, LOT S AND EAST HALF OF LOT R, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, THE PROPERTY COMMENLY KNOWN AS 632 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2737 - 073 -32 -006 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Rudin West, LLC, represented by David Johnston Architects, pc, requesting approval for Conceptual Commercial Design Review; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's property is located within the Commercial (C -1) Zone District, and legally described as: City and Townsite of Aspen, Block 98, Lot S and east half of Lot R, commonly known as 632 East Hopkins; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 20, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application upon recommendation from the Community Development Department and approved Resolution No. 16, Series of 2010, by a (4 - 0) vote, approving "Conceptual Commercial Design Review,"; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant is now requesting approval for Growth Management Quota System, Special Review for Parking, and Final Commercial Design review; 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 November 16 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application upon recommendation from the Community Development Department and approved Resolution No. _, Series of 2010, by a ( - ) vote, approving "Conceptual Commercial Design Review, "; 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, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets 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, Resolution No , Series 2010 Page 1of5 P12 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 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Growth Management Quota System (GMQS), Special Review for Parking, and Final Commercial Design Review for the renovation and expansion of the building located at 632 East Hopkins Avenue. The Growth Management reviews include: a. Growth Management Review for Expansion or New Commercial Development: For the addition of 434 square feet of Net Leasable area. b. Growth Management Review for Free - Market Residential Units within a Mixed - Use Project: For the addition of a newly created free - market residential unit of 1,999 square feet of Net Livable area. c. Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing: For the mitigation of the newly generated 2.26 employees. Section 2: Building Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final recorded approvals. This will include a Resolution from the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as any recorded plats b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. If required, a drainage plan, including an erosion control plan prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on -site during and after construction. d. As applicable, an excavation stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), top of bank and stability of hillside plan, tree protection plan and drainage and soils reports pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. e. As applicable, a fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. f. As applicable, a detailed excavation plan that utilizes vertical soil stabilization techniques, or other techniques, if appropriate and acceptable, for review and approval by the City Engineer. Resolution No -, Series 2010 Page 2 of 5 P13 g. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall be addressed to satisfactorily meet adopted building codes. Section 3: Zoning Fees Before Building Permit issuance, the Applicant shall pay the applicable zoning impact fees for the newly created free - market unit and newly generated Net Leasable space. These fees include: 1. Parks Development Fee 2. TDM/Air Quality Fee 3. School Lands Dedication Fee Section 4: Public Amenity The Applicant has been granted the authority to reduce the amount of on -site public amenity space from 18% of the lot area to 16 %, or from 810 sq. ft. to 720 sq. ft. respectively. The approved plan includes improvements to the public right -of -way that establish a basis for this reduction and are reflected on the attached Exhibit B. Section 5: Off - street Parking: The project has been approved with an off - street parking plan that includes three standards stalls: one in the carport area and two in the enclosed garage. The stalls shall be used for the commercial uses of the building, given the requirement is derived from the commercial net leasable area. These stalls satisfy 3 of the projects required 4.325 parking stalls. The remaining 1.325 spaces shall be paid via a cash -in -lieu payment of $39,750, which equals 1.325 x $30,000. Alternate for P &Z: The project has been approved with an off - street parking plan pursuant to a Special Review. This plan includes two standard stalls in the enclosed garage, and a carport consisting of one compact car stall and two stacked smartcar© stalls. This parking plan has shall satisfy 4 of the required 4.325 parking stalls. The remaining portion of .325 shall be paid via a cash -in -lieu payment of $9,750. Section 6: Growth Management Ouota System The Project has been granted allotments for 434 square feet of Net Leasable area and the creation of a free- market residential unit of 1,999 square feet of Net Livable Area. These additions constitute an employee mitigation amount of 2.26 employees. The employee mitigation shall be handled in the following manner: 1. The purchase and subsequent sale of a buy -down free - market residential unit in Building 6 of the Hunter Creek Condominiums located at 613 Vine Street. This unit is a two bedroom unit and shall satisfy 2.25 employees of the required 2.26. The unit is sub - standard in size; however the Applicant shall reduce the sale price to $245,000, and sell to a qualified buyer, as referenced in Exhibit D. The unit shall be deed - restricted as "for sale" prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building located at 632 East Hopkins Avenue. Resolution No , Series 2010 Page 3 of 5 P14 2. The remaining .01 employees shall be mitigated through a payment fee based on the Category 4 rate established by the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines at the time of building permit submittal. Section 7: Engineering Building permit submission shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation published by the engineering department. Section 8: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907). The latest Code in effect shall be used for the building permit submittal. Section 9: 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. Section 10: Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. Section 11: Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. Sectionl2: The establishment of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this development approval, the applicant shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing by the city. 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, 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. Resolution No _, Series 2010 Page 4 of 5 P15 Section 14: 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 chall 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 16 day of November, 2010. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Jim True, Special Counsel Stan Gibbs, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Attachments: Exhibit A: Approved Final Architectural Elevations Exhibit B: Approved Final Site and Landscape Plan Exhibit C: Approved Parking Plan Exhibit D: Letter of Recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Resolution No Series 2010 Page 5 of 5 P16 Exemrr A.1 632 East Hopkins, Growth Management Quota System REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS 26.470.050.11, General Requirements: All development applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards. 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 are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi year development allotment pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet this standard Staff Response: The City of Aspen currently has available allotments to satisfy the proposed growth of this project. These allotments include one free- market residential unit and 434 square feet of net leasable space. This was the only Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) application submitted before the August 15th, 2010 deadline. Staff finds this criterion met. 2. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Response: Staff finds that the proposed development, in consideration of Staffs recommendations, is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Below are hi•blights from sections of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) have strong association with this project (some areas of the AACP are not applicable to this project): • In response to Managing Growth statement: "Contain development with the creation of the Aspen Community Growth Boundary...to ensure development is contained and sprawl is minimized." (Goal D, pg 18) o Response: This project fits the pattern of Aspen's commercial core and encourages the style of urban development that is favored. • In response to Transportation statement: "Maintain and improve the appeal of bicycling and waiking...by adding sidewalk connections, replacing sidewalks, and requiring sidewalks as part of development approvals, where appropriate..." (Goal C, pg 22) o Response: This project seeks to improve the appeal of the streetscape and pedestrian walkways, especially along Hopkins Avenue where a parkway is proposed. Staff recommendation to add a bike rack and parkway are intended to further this impact on the community. • In response to Housing statement: "Create an affordable housing environment that is appropriately scaled and distributed throughout existing and new neighborhoods..." (Intent, pg 25) P17 o Response: The proposed affordable housing is within an existing structure within the City limits. This unit also makes the structure entirely affordable housing. • In response to Housing statement: "Housing should be compatible with the scale and character of the community and should emphasize quality construction and design even though that emphasis necessarily increases costs and lessens production." (Philosophy, pg 25) o Response: The proposed affordable housing unit, a buy -down unit, is within an existing structure and does not burden the scale or character of the neighborhood. The unit is recently remodeled with high quality finishes and appliances. • In response to Economic Sustainability statement: "Encourage resource efficiency, environmental responsibility, and cultural and community sensitivity in local organizations and in construction." (Policies, pg 32) o Response: The proposed development incorporates multiple strategies for environmental responsibility. The roof will have a photovoltaic array and green roofs, the windows on the building are constructed with highly rated materials, and the ability to install a geo- thermal heating system is being examined. • In response to Design Quality statement: "We wish to encourage creativity that results in design solutions that are fresh and innovative, yet are net additions to the built environment by being contextually appropriate and harmonious without being copies of that which already exists." (Philosophy, pg 43) o Response: The proposed structure contextually appropriate, while also being interesting and new. Certain style elements, such as non - orthogonal comer pieces have been removed to better respect the intended use of the building and the surrounding residential character. • In response to Arts, Culture and Education statement: "...arts, culture, and education are acknowledged as essential to Aspen's thriving year -round economy, its vibrant international profile, and its future as a unique place to live, work, and learn." (Philosophy. Pg 45) o Response: The Applicant has stated an interest to display art in the public amenity area of in the right -of -way improvements. This would be an improvement to the site and the community. 3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. Staff Response: The proposed development conforms with the requirements and limitations of the zone district, Commercial (C -1). The Applicant has request no dimensional or use variances of any sort. Height may be increased to 40 ft. for this structure through Commercial Design Review. Staff finds this criterion met. P18 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. Staff Response: The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and conditions established therein. The Applicant has made an effort to address those considerations that the Planning and Zoning Commission and Community Development Staff made during this review. Staff finds this criterion met. 5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60 %) of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.4700.100A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 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. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate. Staff Response The proposed development has created an employee mitigation plan that satisfies this requirement Being a mixed -use project, with no on -site affordable housing, the Applicant must mitigate for both the free- market residential unit (1,999 square feet of net livable) and the newly created net leasable space (434 square feet). The applicant use the conversion rate found in Section 26.470.100.4, Employee/square footage conversion, to equate the residential requirement to a "number of employees to be mitigated" amount, not a square foot requirement This equated the residential requirement with the commercial requirement so that the Applicant could consolidate both. The resulting calculation requires an employee mitigation of 2.26 employees. The mitigation plan includes the purchase of a two - bedroom free- market .unit in the Building 6 of the Hunter Creek Condominiums, located at 613 Vine Street This buy -down unit satisfies 2.25 employees of the required 2.26. The Applicant shall pay the remaining .01 employees via a cash -in -lieu payment of $1,340.79. Staff finds this criterion met 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- market 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 Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended An applicant may chose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ( "voluntary units") may be deed - restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall P19 be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.090 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100, Employee/Square Footage Conversion. Staff Response: See staff response for Criterion 5 above. Staff finds this criterion met 7. The project represents minimal additional demand on the public infrastructure, or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services. Staff Response: The proposed development represents minimal additional demand on the public infrastructure. Being a renovation, the only additional impact would be derived from the expanded commercial space and third level free- market unit The roof plan incorporates a photovoltaic array and green roofs, both of which would reduce the impact on energy and drainage. Staff finds this criterion met. 26.470.070.4, Affordable Housing 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: 1. 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 Response: The proposed buy -down unit complies with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) in their entirety, except for the minimum size of the unit The two- bedroom buy -down unit is slightly undersized (736 available vs. 950 being required). Given the Category 4 designation, this size is more than the 20% reduction permitted through the APCHA Guidelines for unit size. However, the Applicant has met with the APCHA Board of Directors and was provided a recommendation of approval given an agreement of a lower sale price and the physical condition of the unit, being that it is newly remodeled with high quality finishes. Staff finds this criterion met. 2. 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 Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a cash -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, a cash -in -lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval of the Community P20 Development Department Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. (Ord. No. 6 -2010, §4) Staff Response: The buy -down unit being acquired for this proposal is within the City limits. The unit shall mitigate for 2.25 of the 2.26 required employees and the Applicant shall pay the remaining .01 requirement via a cash -in -lieu payment. Staff finds this criterion met. 3. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of ffty percent (50 %) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Staff Response: The buy -down unit is not an on -site provision, therefore this criterion is not applicable. 4. 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 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 similar governmental or quasi- municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory 'for sale" provision. Staff Response: The buy -down unit shall be deed restricted as "for sale" prior to the project receiving a Certificate of Occupancy. The Applicant has stated no interest in renting the unit and plans to sell the unit to a qualified purchaser at a reduced rate to reflect the sub- standard size. Staff finds this criterion met. 5. Non - Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required for mitigation, but meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a -d). The owner of such non - mitigation affordable housing is eligible to receive a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540. (Ord No. 6— 2010, §4) P21 Staff Response: Not applicable. The Applicant is not proposing the creation of any non- mitigation affordable housing. P22 EXHIBIT A.2 632 East Hopkins, Commercial Design Review REVIEW CRITERIA, STANDARDS, AND STAFF FINDINGS 26.412.050, Commercial Design Review Criteria — An application for Commercial Design Review may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards. Staff Response: See Staff response to 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, below. 2. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the facade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. Staff Response: The existing building is already used for commercial purposes. Staff finds this criterion met. 3. 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. (Ord No. 13, 2007, §1) Staff Response: The Applicant has addressed the guidelines in the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. The full Staff report for these criteria can be found in Exhibit A.3 of this packet. 26.412.060, Commercial Design Standards — The following design standards, in addition to the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging, and mixed -use development: A. Public amenity space. Creative, well - designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and P23 entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights -of -way or private property within commercial areas. On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on -site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. Staff Response: The proposed public amenity space works well with the subject building and the surrounding neighborhood. While in the C -1 zone district, the site is also directly adjacent to Aspen's eastern residential neighborhoods. The proposed amenity space functions well as a transitional space that does not attempt to be urban in feel and operation. Numerous seating options are available, along with permeable landscaping. The size of the amenity area allows for a variety of uses, ranging from small meetings, to a more private setting for lunch or relaxation. Staff finds,this criterion met. 2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at- grade relationships with adjacent rights -of -way are encouraged. Staff Response: The proposed amenity area will contribute vitality to the Hopkins and Spring Street streetscapes. The plan parkway along the Hopkins side will continue this style of design for the length of the block. The seating options are inviting and creativity. The proposed public art will likely draw attention and interest to the site. Staff does recommend the exchange of a bench at that the Spring Street entrance for a bike rack, and to also implement a parkway along the Spring Street streetscape. 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights -of -way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. Staff Response: Although on the outer fringe of the Commercial (C -1) zone district, the design of the amenity space, right -of -way, and building create an interesting environment that encourages active use. Staff finds this criterion met. 4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. P24 Staff Response: The proposed amenity space is reasonably unique in its design. Along Hopkins Street, the Applicant has proposed seating both for the sidewalk and for the sunken patio space. This is achieved through the "zipper" style of benching. Spring street uses benches with a loose style of paving that reduce the overall amount of hardscape. The Spring Street amenity is particularly sensitive to the residences across the street. Staff finds this criterion met. 5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. Staff Response: The proposed amenity requests no variations from the design and operational standards established in 26.575.030.F. The only variation being requested is a reduction of the on -site public amenity (18% of the lot area to 16 %). Staff finds the proposed plan and improvements justify this reduction and find this criterion met. B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A utility, trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated along the alley meeting the minimum standards established by Section 26.575.060, Utility/trash/recycle service areas, unless otherwise established according to said Section. Staff Response: The Applicant is requesting a reduction in the required dimensional size of the Utility, deliver and trash service area. See Section C below for Staff s response to this separate set of criteria. 2. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property and along the alley. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. Staff Response: Staff finds this criterion met. 3. Delivery service areas shall be incorporated along the alley. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. Staff Response: The delivery service area is located along the alley. This delivery area is to be shared by the tenants of the building and is an integral component of the building, located in the carport. Staff finds this criterion met. 4. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. P25 Staff Response: Any mechanical exhaust is properly ventilated_ The utility area for this project is in the northwest corner of the building, removed from the two principal streets. Staff finds this criterion met. 5. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right -of -way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. Staff Response: The mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting is to be installed internally and the mechanical equipment shall be on the building's roof. Staff has requested adequate screening for this mechanical area. The amount of mechanical equipment on the roof shall be determined by the undecided geo- thermal system. If deemed viable, this will greatly reduce the amount of mechanical equipment on the structure. Staff finds this criterion met. C. Review Standards for reduction of dimensions: The Planning and Zoning Commission may reduce the dimensions of a utility/trash/service area by following special review procedures set forth at Chapter 26.430 if 1. There is a demonstration that given the nature of the potential uses of the building and its total square footage, the utility/trash/service area proposed to be provided will be adequate. Staff Response: The area for the utility/trash/service area should be adequate for the intended uses of the building and the size of the building. Staff finds this criterion met. 2. Access to the utility/trash/recycle service area is adequate. Staff Response: Staff finds that the carport area which includes the utility/trash/service area is too confined for proper operation. Staff recommends that only one standard -size parking stall be included in the carport, thus leaving enough room for proper operation and access of the utility/trash/service area. 3. Measures are provided for enclosing trash bins and making them easily movable by trash personnel. Staff Response: The bins are enclosed and the primary dumpster is accessed via the alleyway. Staff finds this criterion met. 4. When appropriate, provisions for trash compaction are provided by the proposed development and measures are taken to encourage trash compaction by other development in the block. P26 Staff Response: Not applicable. 5. The area for public utility placement and maintenance is adequate and safe for the placement of utilities. Staff Response: To the degree this applies to this project is minimal. The site plan provides ample space for the maintenance of public utilities. Staff finds this criterion met. 6. Adequate provisions are incorporated to ensure the construction of the access area. Staff Response: This project will be required to submit a construction mitigation plan (CMP) as part of the building permit submittal. This document shall ensure that construction is staged and completed in compliance with the Municipal Code. Staff finds this criterion met. P27 EXHIBIT A.3 632 East Hopkins, Design Objectives and Guidelines REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS The following design guidelines (referenced hereafter as "Guidelines ") shall apply at the conceptual review stage: Building Design and Articulation a) Expression of Lot Widths: 1.29 — A new building shall reflect the traditional lot width (30 ft) as expressed by two or more of the following: (1) Variation in height at internal lots, (2) Variation in the plane of the front facade, (3) Street facade composition, or (4) Variation to emphasize the building module. 1.30 — The detailed design of the building facade should reflect the traditional scale and rhythm of the block. This should be achieved using all the following: (1) The fenestration grouping, (2) the modeling of the facade, (3) the design framework for the first floor storefront, and (4) variation in architectural detail and/or the palette offacade materials. Staff Response: This proposal does not include a completely new building, and works mostly with the existing footprint and structure of the existing building. The proposed design has been created in a manor that respects the traditional 30 ft. building design. The facade of the proposed building uses all of the recommendations found in the guidelines. Additionally, along Spring Street, the building has been broken up visually with the primary entrance. This pays homage to the traditional design of the Aspen core and creates a more interesting project on a visual scale. Staff finds these criteria met. b) Facade Articulation: 1.31— A building should reflect the architectural hierarchy and articulation inherent in the composition of the street facade. The following should be addressed: (1) The design and definition of the traditionally tall first floor, and (2) the vertical proportions of the upper level fenestration pattern and ratio of solid wall to window area. 1.32 — A building should reflect the three - dimensional characteristics of the street facade in the strength and depth of modeling, fenestration and architectural detail. Staff Response: The first floor of the structure is taller than both the second and third floors in floor to ceiling height. The detailing on the upper level uses a proper mix of horizontal and vertical elements that establish a suitable pattern for this building and block. Also, the style of the building uses variations in depth and fenestration, such as varying brick installations and a broad material palette P28 that create interest and three - dimensionality to the structure. Staff finds these criteria met. c) Floor Stature: 1.33 — Any new building shall be designed to maintain a minimum of 9 feet from floor to ceiling on all floors. 1.34 — Maintain the distinction between the street level and upper floors. 1.35 — A new building should be designed to maintain the stature of traditional street level retail frontage. 1.36 — Minimize the appearance of a tall third floor Staff Response: The structure maintains a minimum of 9 feet from floor to ceiling on all floors. The existing structure does not satisfy the floor to ceiling heights requirement, but the structure will be adjusted during construction to provide this. There is an apparent difference between the street -level and upper levels given by window size and other architectural details. Although not intended for restaurant or retail, the street -level space is designed for and could easily accommodate this type of use. After the P &Z review for Conceptual Commercial Design, the third floor has received several modifications, both horizontally and vertically. Primarily, the south - facing eave has lost its angular rise and some of the third floor walls have been pulled back further from the building edge. Staff feels these changes satisfy the recommendations by the P &Z and the criteria in the Guidelines. Staff finds these criteria met. d) First Floor Character: 1.37 — The first floor facade should be designed to concentrate interest at the street level, using the highest quality of design, detailing and materials. Staff Response: The first floor facade uses a wide range of materials and architectural strategies such as shadow lines, alternating brick installations, and different window designs to create interest. Also, the facade at this level is not a consistent distance from the right -of -way along the length of the lot. The facade along Spring Street has an entrance that is set back from the outer edge of the building. Staff fords this criterion met. 1.38— Retail Entrance — The retail entrance should be at the sidewalk level. 1.39— Retail Entrance — Incorporate an airlock entry into the plan for all new structures. P29 Staff Response: The commercial uses on the ground floor have sidewalk level entrances. One slight variation is along Hopkins Street where the entrance uses an existing sunken patio space that is approximately 16" below sidewalk level. Staff finds this appropriate given this is not a new structure and 16" is not a critical issue for gaining access. The floorplans, as proposed, do not display an airlock off of the Hopkins Street However the primary entrance to the building, which is along Spring Street, does function as an airlock. Staff finds these criteria met. 1.40— Transparency — Window area along the first floor shall be a minimum of 60% of exterior street facade area when facing a principal street(s). 1.41— Transparency — Where appropriate a building shall be designed to maintain the character and transparency of the traditional street level retail frontage. 1.42— Storefront Design — Design of the first floor storefront should include particular attention to the following: (1) The basic elements and proportions of storefront design, (2) depth and strength of modeling, (3) the palette of materials and finishes used in both the structural framework and the storefront window, (4) the concentration of architectural detail to ensure a rich visual experience, (5) the complementary use of signage and lettering to enhance the retail and downtown character, and (6) the use of lighting to accentuate visual presence. Staff Response: The first floor incorporates glazed windows that are at least 60% of the exterior street facade area, along both Hopkins and Spring streets. Although not intended for retail usage, the building does cater to this style of frontage design, especially along Hopkins. If a retailer were to use the Hopkin's facing storefront, the windows would be adequate for retail displays. As mentioned previously in the preceding criteria, the proposed design incorporates all the details in criteria 1.42, Storefront Design. The Applicant has also stated that a new sign plan will be created for the site and that the existing corner signage will be removed. A lighting plan will be reviewed during the building permit process, to ensure the Outdoor Lighting Standards in Land Use Code Section 26.575.150 have been met. Staff finds these criteria met. e) Side and Rear Facades: 1.43 — Retail frontage facing onto side courts or rear alleys should follow similar design principles to the street frontage, adjusted for the scale of the space: Staff Response: Not applicable, given this a comer lot facing two primary streets. f) Roofscape: P30 1.44 — A larger building should reflect the traditional lot width in the form and variation of its roof its roof. This should be achieved through the following: (1) A set back of the top floor from the front facade, and (2) reflect the traditional lot width in the roof plane. 1.45 — The roofscape should be designed with the same design attention as the secondary elevations of the building. Staff Response: The third floor facades that face the two principal streets have been set back from the building's outer edge (13'6" from Hopkins Street and 9'5" along the southeast portion of Spring Street and 4'5" on the northeast portion of Spring Street). Not every element on the roof reflects the traditional lot width, but the Applicant has stated that all elements, including the mechanical area shall be screened. The mechanical area, as proposed, is positioned on the northwest portion of the roof which is furthest from the principal streets. In regards to the mechanical area, if a geo- thermal deemed viable for the site, this will significantly reduce the amount of equipment located on the roof. Staff finds these criteria met. Architectural Materials 1.46 — High quality, durable materials should be employed. 1.47 — Building materials should have these features: (1) Convey the quality and range of materials seen traditionally, (2) reduce the perceived scale of the building and enhance visual interest of the facade, (3) convey a human scale, and (4) have proven durability and weathering characteristics within Aspen's climate. 1.48 — A building or additions should reflect the quality and variation in materials seen traditionally. 1.49 — Where contemporary materials are used they shall be: (1) High quality in durability and finish, (2) detailed to convey a human scale, (3) compatible with a traditional masonry palette. 1.50 — Materials used for third floor accommodation set back from the street facade(s) should be more subdued than the primary facades. Staff Response: The proposed structure uses a large variety of materials. These range from standard brick, limestone masonry, wood, glass, and steel. These materials are durable and should have no issue with Aspen's harsh climate. Criterion 1.47 is satisfied by this range of material. No one feature obscures the human scale of the project, and the materials are used responsibly given the varied mix of anticipated uses for the building. The third story uses more wood P31 and glass than the lower levels that are composed mostly of brick and stone. This continues the hierarchy established by other details and forms used on the building. Staff finds these criteria met. Paving and Landscaping 1.51 — Paving and landscaping should be designed to complement and enhance the immediate setting of the building and area. Staff Response: The P &Z recommended several changes to the landscaping and public amenity plan after the review for Conceptual Commercial Design. The Applicant has returned with a greatly modified landscape plan and public amenity area. In response to concerns from the neighbors to the east of the property, the Spring Street amenity area is much less of a plaza and now and instead reads as a private transitional space. Benches have been added and hardscape has been reduced overall. The Hopkins Street amenity space has also seen the addition of more seating options, including a "zippered" style of seating along the sidewalk that provides benches immediately adjacent to the right -of- way. Also included is an ADA compliant ramp that provides access to the Hopkins Street amenity space that sits below grade. Staff finds that these improvements have made a large stride towards a better product that is more compatible and usable by the surrounding neighborhood. However, it is still Staffs recommendation that the Applicant institute a parkway along Spring Street This design better separates the project from the residential neighborhood to the east and creates a more preferred style of streetscape design. Staff is aware that pulling the sidewalk away from the street would either limit or eliminate the Applicant's proposed public amenity design along Spring Street. A final recommendation includes the exchange of a bench near the Spring Street entrance for a bike rack that would allow the project to better accommodate bikers. P32 ExmBrr A.4 632 East Hopkins, Special Review for Parking REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS 26.515.040.A, Special Review Standards: A Special Review for establishing, varying, or waiving off -street parking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, - taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on- street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. Staff Response: The proposed structure requires 4.325 parking stalls. This is solely based on the amount of Net Leasable space (1 space per 1,000 sq. ft.). There is no requirement for free - market residential units in the C -1 zone district. Currently the building has adequate parking for the size of the building. By enclosing two spaces in a garage and adding a carport structure (which includes the utility, trash, and storage area) for the remaining parking, the new design constrains the usable area. Staff recommends that the Applicant eliminate the smartcar© stalls in the carport and provide one adequately sized stall (8'6" x 18') in the carport and two in the enclosed garage. This will provide a reasonable space in the carport for the trash area to operate without conflict to the cars, and may also provide the opportunity for the placement of a bike rack in the carport. If implemented, Staff's recommendation would satisfy 3 of the required 4.325 spaces, with the remaining spaces paid via cash -in -lieu in the amount of $39,750. 2. An on -site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. Staff Response: Being that the Applicant is committed to using the majority of the existing building's footprint, there is a difficulty for the site to provide the required parking. However, this is primarily due to the redesigned alley program. The four spaces provided on the site work now, but with the addition of the enclosed garage, carport, and trash area the space becomes restricted. Staff finds that the best solution is the one detailed in the response to Criterion 1: provide three spaces and mitigate for the remaining 1.325 spaces. 3. Existing or planned on -site or off -site parking facilities adequately serve the' needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. Staff Response: As mentioned in Criterion 2, the existing off - street parking will not adequately serve the needs of the building. There is a possibility of procuring street parking permits for tenants and residents. RECEPTION #: 572357, 08/04/2010 at g$14 15 it 33 3 11:31:14 AM, 1 OF 7, R $41.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO Resolution No. 16 (SERIES OF 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR 632 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 273707332006 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Rudin West, LLC, represented by David Johnston Architects, pc, requesting approval for Conceptual Commercial Design Review; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's property is located within the Commercial (C -1) Zone District, and legally described as: City and Townsite of Aspen, Block 98, Lot S and east half of Lot R, commonly known as 533 E. Hopkins; 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 July 20, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application upon recotnmendation from the Community Development Department and approved Resolution No. 16, Series of 2010, by a (4 - 0) vote, approving "Conceptual Commercial Design Review,"; 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, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets 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 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Conceptual Commercial Design Review, based on the following conditions. Resolution No 16, Series 2010 Page 1 of 4 P34 a) The trash, recycling and delivery area shall be designed so that adequate clearance is maintained between the service area and the parking stalls in the carport It is recommended that a separation fence or bollards shall be installed to ensure that normal use of the service area does not impose a risk to the adjacent vehicles. If adequate separation cannot be maintained, a reduction of one parking space shall be considered. b) The final design of the Spring Street Public Amenity Space shall consider permanent seating options that encourage public interaction (such as benches), light landscaping, and a form of public art in the public right-of-way. c) A detached sidewalk along Hopkins shall be considered and evaluated for Final Commercial Design Review. d) The improvements to the right -of -way provide a basis for reducing the open space on the private property from 18% to 16% of the total lot area e) The Applicant shall consider redesigning the Hopkins amenity space to make it more inviting to the public. f) The Applicant shall continue to work with Staff to better shield the Spring Street amenity space from the residents to the east of the Property. g) The Applicant shall continue working on redesigning the top floor facade so that it is less imposing. Section 2: Buildine Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final recorded approvals. This will include approvals for Growth Management Quota System, Subdivision, Parking, and Final Commercial Design Review. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. If required, a drainage plan, including an erosion control plan prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on -site during and after construction. d. As applicable, an excavation stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), top of bank and stability of hillside plan, tree protection plan and drainage and soils reports pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. e. As applicable, a fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. Resolution No 16, Series 2010 Page 2 of 4 P35 f. As applicable, a detailed excavation plan that utilizes vertical soil stabilization techniques, or other techniques, if appropriate and acceptable, for review and approval by the City Engineer. g. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall be addressed to satisfactorily meet adopted building codes. Section 3: Engineering Building permit submission shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation published by the engineering department. Section 4: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire sprinlder and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907). The latest Code in effect should be used for the building permit submittal. Section 5: 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. Section 6: Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. Section 7: 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. Section 8: The establishment of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this development approval, the applicant shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing by the city. Section 9: 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 City Council, are Resolution No 16, Series 2010 Page 3 of 4 P36 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 10: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and chall 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 11: 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 20 day of July, 2010. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: • , ChASC Jim True, Special Counsel Stan Gibbs, Chair ATTEST: $ 44 kie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Attachments: Exhibit A: Approved Conceptual Elevations Exhibit B: Approved Conceptual Site Plan Resolution No 16, Series 2010 Page 4 of 4 d � ! ¢¢c.. ' t 4�H3d5Y{ 6NMdO ZE8 ° 11 111 ' 74.L. f . 1 3 14 t 9 ' 1 i I ! 0 iff t0 dsi. r j,3 f f SNINdOH ' 3 ZE9 iti+i `` fff14: tEEE€ ti 96)1301 J311V 1 , ' a D..7 11/ 5 1 1 , 3 . z o '__T�, Nr . ril i J { R Il Y t -, , e K n }a • // 1 U EI °'. 1 O I ri I ■ ' I I s u 1 0 i I, t w s tt 1 0 u 1 I � o [ a€ 41 fir. 1 � 311NaAY SNDidOH IStl3 ass P40 Exhibit C MEMORANDUM TO: Drew Alexander FROM: Cindy Christensen TITRE: Tom McCabe DATE: September 21, 2010 RE: MITIGATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 632 EAST HOPKINS ISSUE: Rudin West LLC's renovation of 632 East Hopkins will require mitigation of 2.26 FTE's. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting approval for the renovation of an existing two -story structure. It includes adding an additional level to the building, reworking the exterior, and adding an adding a free - market residential unit to the top floor. Drew Alexander, the Community Development Department planner, has provided information regarding the additional square footage and what the required mitigation would be. According to the Land Use Code, the mitigation required for the redevelopment of 632 East Hopkins is 2.26 I FE's — 1.5 FTE's from the free- market and .76 FTE's from the net leasable commercial area at 60 %. If 100% mitigation were required on the net - leasable commercial area, a total of 2.82 FTE's would be required. The applicant would like the ability to buy down the last free - market unit in Building 6 at Hunter Creek. Unit 613 is the only free - market unit in a deed - restricted building. The two - bedroom unit would mitigate at 2.25 FTE's. The unit is a fully remodeled unit and is in excellent shape. The unit is a two-bedroom, one bath, 736 square foot unit. The current maximum sales price for a Category 4, two - bedroom unit is $287,000. Although this is a newly remodeled unit, the applicant has recommended that the sales price be $245,000, $42,000 less than the maximum sales price. At the 2.26 FTE's, the developer would be .01 short. Fractional FTE's can be satisfied by the payment -in- lieu fee; therefore, an additional $1,340.79 could be requested to be paid at building permit approval. RECOMMENDATION: The Board reviewed the application at their regular meeting held September 15, 2010 and due to the newly remodeled condition of 613 Vine Street, recommends approval with the following conditions: 1 P41 1. 613 Vine Street, Hunter Creek, shall fully satisfy the mitigation requirement for the redevelopment of 632 East Hopkins. 2. The unit shall be deed restricted at Category 4. 3. The unit will be marketed through the lottery process through APCHA with the maximum sales price of $245,000. 4. An approval letter shall be provided by Hunter Creek Properties approving the deed restriction on this specific unit. 2 J z { y = �:�s N- C O ° N d_ a �;2sLa 00 1N3dSV 1 SNINdOH'3 Z£9 N N 8 : , p ° 1- !fig s 3 1 111111111 {d 1 (§ 1 0 p SNI)IdOH ' � ZE9 d ' 1 U ri :a �7 ^ � 7 a�iIitli uLL OW E 3 u. w LI, ! i I! k t h h w o my ° w o Im 2 Y w 1 _N 6 O >O y2 Y S2 ♦ y� U W O W U m � an d �a m F bin ,i kX I 1 I I .'t : I x I! ' m 2 ua ¢ ° wrc n A§ �LLJ ° ' § 'Jr' ° U :11 y 2 K Y N L l ° W E P W ° W WW n U2 2 € .._ _. O ma- n g mm ° u mm a03 • • • il I I I § : • I I I I I I I I . ; Ln I w • 1 w 0 s l k' . , , I N3 I I I 0 I I a 0 z I . ,, g . ; a ._ W W a m 2 y S w J _A S'1 4 YES a 2 l:. 0 y I I • pJ 1§N / .' l ' Y 4. Za 7* a 'f' n a ® 6 W v \/ a I: I I' • : . a , F �/� �fwu O 'L1 w W 2 t �ky V N wiO3 03 ° I I 2 w w � t a .W 7 a a ° r w . SON J 5 q O 3 0 tilitri o z cs�3 --- '- F < m m $ _ E i OJ'N3dSV 1 SNDidOH '3 Z9 . WM x o I i iL i i r2= N � ° b � NINdOH '� ZC9 S a w �� �: : u a s �s a ES d g a g ° a 86 NOOle A311b I ' A A 1 ,,,,,, ; r ......______,.-- - , 7 ..-___- - i - . .- k , i , ,- , --- ',iN . z tl i ll. t: o Q I 1 1 k, z X I( Limp _ a 1 II �I g z U �� Q ' .•.re•trm J 0 r Pn r - ) - k 0 1 1 wili11111111,-----,, a, _� if -d. �. - - - _,-‘, _ J. 1 f . 2 III - O I ;, I - rY �, - I - ; i J ul 0 0 11 4.,:q - T -I_,_ 1_ o c9 / I 1 II -. r '. . z I / - Rul I-1 h ._ _I r-I ..r. ; W - 1 _ MINg M. I i 7 � . 1 1 I I • I �� r 1 1 -u 11 1 . -.111 _ MI W W 111 I' rw Z ,, .1 - 11 - z 0�i F- _ r. -� �� � 1 ! + w 1 . lip C7 Z CO Q � �A� ( 5 1 W I p Imo+ - I 1 NIG �'� '' g..onii.. . 1 I III! ..Arimm. i 1 ' -` R " • . s zs '. I i - I [ 04.01:91rass.l i aam.r....; ! ��s9 � �i ' i I I �1.ff`I � - L I ill L_ 7.„131, III C -1 . !0 J JIM Rpm- , I L 1 _0 wisi ._ - - - ■ ig J_ I MNIIM • F ' • 1 -, Ws 'II ; s� w , - e �c r-, wim MLIALe - _ � �_ ` i , alrs . w rIv !Ire! o r u !1 _® Iji9 lisemi.si_Tk_ ' . i ce -.- 1 z �i�•- I «�A:.i If ? r `1 f-- _ Ie _ _ Si �i _ _ v --- ii ii. n P>dnKt- li� =iii' rn i � ____ -__. w � AN � w i vamir w K, w W J Z y • a z In Q o Ait 4110. 1 ' L' \ A ., r ._ir .„.,....„.....- ft. . • -,,,,,,,m- _ '...„6' „ Ho f mi „.....i tif: . .. I t 41., -41 4"" 11 - 1 ' rAt. ,....0., - 5-- ' , ft e f ' , ' ''( 0' . co ' +, P : ri e l' "At ' gf1N2AV SNINdOH 1S`o, P45 LIP DAVID JOHNSTON ARCH ITECTS rc 41$ East Cuapc.r Avcauc Suilc 206 ;spa. Co 81611 Tn. 970.925J444 tax 970- 920 -2n66 NO. 01 DATE November 10, 2010 BY Adam Roy TO Drew Alexander, City of Aspen Community Development CC Michael Rudin PROJECT 632 East Hopkins Renovation SUBJECT Final Commercial Design Review - Response to Staff comments on 10.28.2010 Dear Drew: The intention of this memorandum is to address staff comments from 10.28.2010 regarding the Final Commercial Design review for the renovation project at 632 East Hopkins Avenue. The memo specifically addresses comments related to the parking, trash and recycling area plan, the public amenity plan and rooftop mechanical equipment screening. As noted in both the conceptual and final commercial design review applications, the subject application is being reviewed as a renovation rather than a complete razing of the existing building. As a result, a variety of existing conditions associated with the site create constraints within which the new design must be accommodated. Parking Trash and Recyclin rea: Because the project is a renovation of the existing building, there is no feasible opportunity to change the location and configuration of the current parking stalls and the area currently designated for trash and recycling. As an alternative, these areas are being improved to a more functional and efficient level as provided in Community Developments recommendation to Planning and Zoning Commission and required in the Resolution approving the Conceptual Commercial Design review of the project. Based on the information in this memo and the material represented in the Final Commercial Design application, it is requested that no recommendation is made for the reduction of on -site parking stalls from four (4) to three (3), and that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve and retain the existing four (4) parking stalls. Furthermore, pursuant to Section 26.575.060.B of the Code, it is requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the minor reduction of the dimensions of the trash and recycling area by virtue of the representations made with regard to the function and adequacy of the proposed design and use of this area. In the proposed final design, all four (4) of the existing parking stalls are retained and adequate circulation and access to and froin the building is accommodated in the proposed layout Two of the stalls are proposed as standard size stalls and two are proposed as compact stalls, a mix that is both typical and appropriate for the "urbarf location of the property (see attached drawing). The layout is in accordance with provisions in the Page I1 P46 Eli DAVID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS.c 416 East Cooper Avcnuc Su3tc. 206 Aspcn.. CO 81611 TEL 910- 925 -3444 rut 970- 920 -211t6 MEMORANDUM Land Use Code, the International Building Code and /or industry reference guides for dimensional standards that are not provided in either of the two prior resources. The parking area has been separated from the trash and recycling area by structural columns, fencing and /or bollards, providing a physical delineation between the two areas as required by condition ' ' of the resolution approving Conceptual Commercial Design Review. This proposed trash and recycling area (which matches the existing) is six (6) feet by twenty -two (22) feet, oriented perpendicular to the alley and designed to allow for easy access from both the building and the alley. The function of this area provides building users with adequate access for depositing refuse and recycling material from the building -side (south) of the enclosed area. All receptacles will remain within the defined area and be wheeled into the alley for hauling by trash /recycling service providers via the alley -side (south) of the enclosure. This layout and prescribed function of the area provides for adequate access and easy use, while eliminating any and all potential conflicts with cars parked in the designated parking area. A meeting with Waste Management was held to determine adequate sizing for trash and recycling equipment. It was concluded that based on the estimated per use square footage allotments, the required container dimensions would adequately be accommodated in the proposed area. The following points were made by Waste Management: 1. A two (2) -yard volume trash dumpster would be more than adequate for the resulting refuse generation of the proposed uses of the building; 2. The residential components of the proposed building would generate no more than one -third (1/3)- yard of refuse on a weekly basis; 3. The majority of refuse from the office component would be in the form of paper recycling, which is easily accommodated in the 96- gallon containers represented in the attached layout drawing (NOTE: on -site recycling is not a requirement, rather a chosen provision by the applicant); 4. If a retail component were to occupy the main -level space, the majority of refuse generated would be cardboard, which could be adequately accommodated by the exhibited containers. If more cardboard generation occurred, the 96- gallon container for cardboard recycling could be replaced by a two (2) -yard dumpster, a dimension that is common to most high volume retail stores in the commercial core. 5. Pick -up and hauling of all containers would be accommodated through the screening gate to the rear of the proposed area adjacent to the alley. In addition to the recommendation to eliminate a parking stall for the sake of providing a more adequate trash and recycling area, it was communicated that staff recommends that the applicant shall pay the cash- Page 12 P47 Ir y DAVID JOHNSTON ARCH ITECTS cc 414 Euw Casper Avenue Suite 204 Aspen, CO 11411 111 970- 92S -3444 FAX 970- 920 -2;ab MEWOEANDW' in -lieu for the resulting deficiency in off - street parking. Contrary to these recommendations, the Land Use Code states that 'No development shall reduce the number of existing off - street parking spaces below the minimum number of existing spaces.".(Section 26.515.10.B). It is our conclusion that under the constraints of the site, the recommendation to eliminate one (1) of the existing stalls is excessive for a design scenario that is in functional compliance with parking design standards, improves the existing conditions of the building to be eliminated and meets the conditions of the Conceptual Commercial Design Review Resolution. If the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that one (1) parking stall is to be eliminated, it is strongly requested that no additional cash -in -lieu payment be required for the resulting deficiency in off- street parking and that only the deficit resulting from the additional net leasable area as calculated and presented in the Final Commercial Design and Parking Review application be required for payment Public Amenity Area: The public amenity area proposed in the final design satisfies condition "f of the resolution approving the subject projects Conceptual Commercial Design Review by providing a detached sidewalk along Hopkins Avenue. At no point within the approving resolution is it required that a detached sidewalk be Considered and evaluated for Final Commercial Design Review' Furthermore, the Parks and Engineering Departments made no recommendation that a detached sidewalk should be considered during the Design Review Committee meeting as indicated in the meeting notes from said meeting. In accordance with the recommendation by staff to provide bike racks, the area of the Spring Street entry court to the left (south) of the lobby door will be designed to accommodate and outfitted with bike racks, while still being adequately screened from the neighbors of the residential zone district to the east across Spring Street. It is requested that no recommendation is made for the inclusion of a parkway planting strip and a detached sidewalk along Spring Street, and that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the public amenity plan as proposed with the inclusion of bike racks at the described location. Ronf -top Mechanical Screening: Per staff comments dated 10.28.2010, all roof -top mechanical equipment will be screened in order to provide a visual barrier from surrounding and far -off view planes. Screening, in the form of wood and/or masonry walls, will meet the standards provided for in Section 26.575.020.B.1.d of the Code. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any clarifications. Sincerely, Ad� Adam C. Roy Page 13 P48 a / v I c < ,00'91 o 3„ o ;SO — — —�} p m 3e .16-,is NS !.... ,.. frail A y a is UI /111: I— it-MI �: 1 1 �\ N ' N � z , W 1,6 - , -J { 1; Z Q� N \ ` L OU LIJ co F i� J a Q I 1111 O a I�i1� a - 1 t „UL IL . l ,t � f W IL il 11 n' W € ; lid Z• M .k M 1 l ii w J r , L M CO € 1 11 � 111 LL 3 pp Ili 1 6 11\ „0 &NEI II 1,-117 ✓ C y � - C I I l \ 9 IOY 110 IJ § 000 F %, \ \\ \� \ \ \ \ \ \� \� \ N. ��t \ aSa 2 PA I II I i .!'i ti 4- ,... ,,,„,, ..... yi XXI g n z i ri 3 CC i ; \ c. F o F 4 O \ \ O�oo\ O\\\ O\\\\ O \O \� \ \�O \O� \O \ \0o�0 \O \ \�O \00 \\ \000000 \000 \ \00l I \ , , ;� S u C r I . P1 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner RE: Top of Mill Subdivision, Parcel 8, 8040 Greenline Review, Resolution No. _ , Series of 2010 — Public Hearing DATE: November 16, 2010 • APPLICANT /OWNER: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Parcel 8, LLC Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission grant 8040 Greenline review approval. REPRESENTATIVE: John Galambos of Galambos SUMMARY: Architects Inc., 314D AABC, The Applicant requests the Planning and Zoning Aspen, CO 81611. Commission approve the 8040 Greenline Review to permit landscaping and grading of Parcel 8, Top of LOCATION: Mill. Parcel 8, Top of Mill Subdivision, City and Townsite 0' ,,� : , of Aspen, CO, commonly known '.' •"` yr, __ ,. . as 946 S. Mill Street. '.,4S. . y r° r r .r +. CURRENT ZONING & USE L, Lodge with a Planned Unit 1 . � '` ¢ T .- ALAI ` - ` ° i Development Overlay (PUD), • . • - Top of Mill Subdivision. The lot ` = �, f �, + ; 4. is currently vacant and not i ar r landscaped. Note: the property is : `E;' V ,, .4 e � entitled to develop a single a ., ° family residence. .. :� �, r K r , f Aerial image of the subject property PROPOSED LAND USE: A vacant landscaped lot with a retaining wall. Re- grading of the site is also proposed. • Staff memo, 8040 Greenline Review 946 South Mill Street, Parcel 8 Top of Mill Page 1 of 3 P2 REVIEW PROCEDURE: Pursuant to Section 26.435.C, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny an "8040 Greenline Review." The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority. BACKGROUND: "8040 Greenline Review" is triggered by any development at or 150 feet below 8,040 feet in elevation. The Land Use Code defines "development as "the use or alteration of land or land uses and improvements inclusive of, but not limited to: ...2) ...the construction, erection, alteration or demolition of building or structures; or 3) the grading, excavation, clearing of land or the deposit or fill in preparation or anticipation of future development, but excluding landscaping." The applicant prdposes to re -grade the site and construct a retaining wall, which the Land Use Code recognizes as a structure. The Community Development Department determined that both the construction of a structure and the re- grading of the site required an "8040 Greenline Review." Ordinance No. 7, Series 2002, approved the Top of Mill Subdivision and set forth that all of the single - family residences to be constructed within the subdivision shall be required to obtain "8040 Greenline Review" approval prior to applying for a building permit. Ordinance No. 7 granted approval of the subdivision's compliance with nine of the eleven "8040 Greenline Review" requirements. The remaining two requirements, items 3 and 7 of Land Use Code Section 26.435.030.C, must be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission for compliance for eacli individual residence design. Both Parcels 7 and 8 of the Top of Mill Subdivision are under the same ownership. To date, Parcel 8 has been used for construction staging for Parcel 7. The applicant requests approval to landscape Parcel 8 which includes: re- grading to slightly flatten the lot, the construction of a retaining wall proposed to be clad with stone, and the addition of aspen trees and native grasses. There are no proposed buildings on the site: the applicant intends to use the subject parcel as a lawn for the residence located on the adjacent Parcel 7. • STAFF COMMENTS: The purpose of the "8040 Greenline Review" is to "reduce impacts on the natural watershed and surface runoff, minimize air pollution, reduce the potential for avalanche, unstable slope, rock fall and mud slide and ... that disturbance to existing terrain and natural land features be kept to a minimum." Staff finds that the proposed grading, retaining wall and landscaping are minimal impacts to the existing terrain and that the proposed retaining wall material and design will blend in with the open character of the mountain. Staff fords that the review criteria, attached as Exhibit A, are met. REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Engineering Department reviewed the application and found it compliant with the Top of Mill Subdivision PUD Grading and Drainage Plan. The Parks Department did not Staff memo, 8040 Greenline Review 946 South Mill Street, Parcel 8 Top o#Mill Page 2 of 3 P3 have any comments. The application is required to meet all applicable building permit requirements, including a Construction Management Plan if more than 400 square feet of soil is disturbed. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposal blends into the open mountain character, greatly improves the current condition of the lot and meets the applicable criteria for "8040 Greenline Review." Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission grant "8040 Greenline Review" approval. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2010, approving an "8040 Greenline Review." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - 8040 Greenline Review and Staff Findings Exhibit B - Photographs of current condition Exhibit C - Application Staff memo, 8040 Greenline Review 946 South Mill Street, Parcel 8 Top of Mill Page 3 of 3 P4 Resolution # (Series of 2010) RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING AN 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR THE TOP OF MILL SITE, PARCEL 8 OF THE TOP OF MILL SUBDIVISION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL NO. 2737-182-02-208 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Parcel 8, LLC, represented by John Galambos of Galambos Architects Inc., for an "8040 Greenline Review" for the property located at Lot 8, Top of Mill Subdivision/ PUD, commonly known as 946 South Mill Street; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned Lodge (L) with a PUD Overlay; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval, of the land use request; and, • WHERAS, pursuant to City Council Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2002, Section 2, . Number 17, the subject property is required to respond to only review standards 26.435.040.0 (3) and 26.435.040.0 (7) regarding 8040 Greenline Review, thereby precluding any further review of 8040 Greenline Review Standards 26.435.040.0 (1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11); and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 16, 2010 the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. Series of 2010, by a vote, approving an "8040 Greenline Review. "; 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, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards; and, WHEREAS, the 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 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 an "8040 Greenline Review" for the property located at the Top of Mill site, Parcel 8 of the Top of Mill Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. P &Z Resolution No. _ Series of 2010 946 S. Mill Street, Parcel 8 of the Top of Mill Subdivision • Section 2: • 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 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. Section3: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement P5 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 4: 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 day of November 2010. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: James R. True, Special Counsel Stan Gibbs, Chairman 1 ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Exhibit A: Approved site plan. P &Z Resolution No. — Series of 2010 946 S. Mill Street, Parcel 8 of the Top of Mill Subdivision ki191-1- -h) _..........._ P 6 IkIklklt‘;11 V4C1. lit Aim N 0.. _ 4 -- "I k " .,. , 1 , i ,A,N,„,,,,, N. \ N 411*---,,,,.:0Y.4./- i 1 ..„. ipy ,.•,_ i J\ N om . N , %c Ow: % w oot *.e;•:# ',) \\ 4 \ .. Ilp \\'‘\ * \ . , ,\ ,4•-- ''N 01\ of 1 o g \\ 1 vain t . 5 ______.--- .r,A74 , r '- '''''•■•-•111i : ---' , --J: „ . :‘ ,,:___::_ f isf s,_, i . - I ,- it" ss„, --„, ‘-„., „, r. ye . y i ri s ili ,s \ " s.„ --.:;--.„ "g Uri: z 1\ - \\' \\* •-------- T-- - \ - • 3 to a i I i h . . _ I * 4 I I I I I II I I % 4 i`oili4wAi4111 • _ `" r FF t t w ��'�_ _ r g }V,:, 1 t i s [ e }i � III: ? � _ � i e# j�� ! f xi n � P7 EXHIBIT A Section 26.435.030. Greenline Review: According to Section 26.435.030 of the Land Use Code, no development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set below. The property is located in the Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD. Ordinance No. 7, Series 2002, approved the Top of Mill Subdivision and set forth that all of the single- family residences to be constructed within the subdivision shall be required to obtain 8040 Greenline Review approval prior to applying for a building permit. Ordinance No. 7 granted approval of the subdivision's compliance with nine of the eleven 8040 Greenline requirements. The remaining two requirements, items 3 and 7, must be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission for compliance for each individual residence design. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the city. STAFF COMMENT: Staff finds that the proposed re- grading, retaining wall and landscaping do not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the city. This criterion is met. 7. Building height and hulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. STAFF COMMENT: There are no proposed buildings on the site. Staff finds that the proposed Aspen trees and native grasses are consistent with the natural landscape and open character of the mountain. The retaining wall (which qualifies as a structure) is proposed to be clad with a stone similar to the existing residence on the adjacent lot. The existing grade is proposed to be flattened in the middle of the lot to presumably create a more useable open space. Staff finds that the proposal is minimal in height and bulk :considering its function, blends into the open character of the mountain, and greatly improves the current condition of the vacant lot. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Exhibit A 8040 Greenline Review Standards Page 1 of 1 • • • . • ),), - oti '� y �.: a r •: ( r wry �` a � �fi \ i �4 ,r ta iv --...c , ...Cf -it!) i -; '' . ,:?...44 4 4. ' - Ai ........ . ,„,,,,,.. . . .„, ..„ ....; .... .. ... c.:. ,,, . .... ,s, ..,•-.; : I s-s • !As 4 ' , - .- . ..... . • , - I . , V -1 45 . t 47, • ' ' .. 4. g-. - 1 \ iftig ' k • ' •• ,....._4,.. ,.... 1 1 .. :0 . . tl 4, 1 , / i r , : , , ,,,„,. (1 ... f f :Z y y .(4./.7f 1 -.• 31i '-- ... j . +t ■ IV t.•i t • • F � • • :. • ..S l'h Veop • -- ....4 . 14 . • ,.. ,4i-i.• ' . 1 ■ Z ,_ j r., ‘ .,, . - .-_ . . Pgifitfr ' `/ .-. r • II o • 44 ' . .. 7ilt-Li!4.74! ‘1!ril4?1/ • ' \ 14 „. ,• ,.er _ ., 'fi ,44 , . ..., 4... i fir ' ,�� ` I ..r." .. . , \1111, i .: f .4) . . • ,.....,_ .: f r _. ,..1 . . .„,„, , . • : -.'.:.- _ ‘:: — -- . _ -7 t IX 411 " - . - - ' . 4111P7- - I, ; Is IS* , .. I " ' ' , i r i lli k 4, 1- il-'.. ' : iiv Illibl: Ito7 pi...,,,, . . ...,.....6 '',.-.-,.,. . --t ; - - . . lit. . & _., ,.....,r„ r e i L i • j , S' S i L i�'t • I ate 1 !17 z .`s - - 1 , a .,.... i + � �, S i X 5-. 'a tx yw rL.. � ' . . ,, ' w - i 2 x'.� Via- jg '� P_ L . . ...:....I.:: ,w,,,,*__„.....,:,....s...: i g a..a S .cwt '� 4 � <` n 1 � �-- ''.;.-= r __ s- ,,,., , - ,-.sue - t , . _. -: `- 's� > � a f`^ 3 P� `�'i.. Y�S t' nc �.G q . -,, t 7- ' ? 1� (� � ' � r te . 4 S t fir"-: i R. j+ t G r _ ,c 1 .1u-- ?'_ r .,., ; - s _ � �."'c -.y £ .� '£ - • f r lr GF ' s !' , i T 40 i . .. , i,. 4 , , , k .. � r 4 ti VI � 1•''' .. I I i • 1 i f ,�,�. j 1 4 r -" 4i = -1 e 1 , ', .,e • ■ ;' 4 ` ' . t _ ..—„, _ . o ff ; t . t E' ^.... So- 4 1 I If • ,.... "ataim..kr O i t • PARCEL 8, TOP OF MILL SUBDIVISION / PUD 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW APPLICATION AN APPLICATION FOR 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR PARCEL 5, TOP OF MILL SUBDIVISSTION /PUD Submitted By: PARCEL 8 LLC September 10, 2010 Prepared by: Galambos Architects Inc. 314 -D ABC Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 429.1286 PROJECT CONSULTANTS ARCHITECT The Office of Thierry W. Despont 10 Harrison Street New York, NY 10013 ARCHITECT OF RECORD Galambos Architects Inc. 314 -D ABC Aspen, CO 81611 CIVIL ENGINEER Schmueser Gordon Meyer Engineers and Surveyors 118 W 6 St. Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER KPFF Consulting Engineers 1601 Fifth Avenue, Sutie 1600 Seattle, WA 98101 SURVEYOR Schmueser Gordon Meyer Engineers and Surveyors 118 W 6 St. Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pre - application Conference Summary Authorization Letter from Applicant Title Certificate Site Plan Land Use Application and Signed Fee Agreement Vicinity Map 12 copies of Land Use Application Written Description Proposed Elevations Accurate Elevations (to mean sea level) Proposed Construction Techniques Plan with Existing and Proposed Grades Exterior Lighting Plan (not applicable) • CITY OF ASPEN PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Drew Alexander, 970.429.2739 DATE: 9/9/10 PROJECT: 946 South Mill, Parcel 8 REPRESENTATIVE: John Galambos, 970.429.1286 OWNER: Parcel 8 LLC TYPE OF APPLICATION: 8040 Greenline ESA DESCRIPTION: The owner of Parcel 8 Top of Mill Subdivision /PUD has proposed to landscape and grade the lot. This property is currently addressed with 946 S. Mill. The ownership includes the adjacent lot (to the south), 944 S. Mill, which has a completed single - family residence. The scope -of -work includes grading the site to establish more level conditions. Vegetative landscaping and a retaining wall are also planned, but the grading of the land is what triggers the 8040 Greenline Review. The Top of Mill Subdivision /PUD received approval for nine of the eleven 8040 Greenline criteria. The only criteria applicable for new development are numbers 3 and 7, which are Air Quality and Mountain Character respectively. 8040 Greenline Review is handled by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Community Development Staff is not recommending a referral for this application. Public noticing is required. Below is a link to the Land Use Code and Land Use Application for your convenience. Land Use Code: http: / /www. aspenoitkin. com /Departments /Com munity-Development/Plannina- and- Zoninq/Title -26- Land -Use- Code/ Land Use Application: http: / /www. aspen oitkin. com /Portals /0 /docs /Citv /Comdev/ Apps %20and %20Fees /landuseaooform. odf Land Use Code Section(sl 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.435.030 8040 Greenline Review Review by: Community Development Staff for complete application Planning and Zoning Commission for 8040 Greenline Public Hearing: Required Planning Fees: $1470 for a Minor Application Review. This includes six (6) hours of staff review time. Additional time over six (6) hours will be billed at $245 per hour Referral Fees: None Total Deposit: $1,470 Total Number of Application Copies: 12 Copies Includes appropriate drawing for board review (HPC = 12; PZ = 10; CC = 7; Referral Agencies = 1 /ea.; Planning Staff = 2) • To apply, submit the following information 0 Total Deposit for review of application. 0 Pre - application Conference Summary. 0 Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. El 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. CI A site plan depicting the proposed layout and the project's physical relationship to the land and its surroundings. p Completed Land Use application and signed fee agreement. An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City of Aspen. Twelve copies of the Land Use Application and all additional letters, maps, and agreements. C A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how a proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application C Proposed elevations of the development Accurate elevations On relation to mean sea level) of the lowest floor, including basement, of all new or substantially improved structures; a verification and recordation of the actual elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any structure is constructed; a demonstration that all new construction or substantial improvements will be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of any structure to be constructed or improved; a demonstation that the structure will have the lowerst floor, including basement, elevated to at least two (2) feet above the base flood elevation, all as certified by a registered professional engineer or architect. CJ A description of proposed construction techniques to be used. Plan with Existing and proposed grades at two -foot contours, with five -foot intervals for grades over ten (10) percent. As applicable, an exterior lighting plan showing location, height, type and luminous intensity of each above grade fixture. 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. September 10, 2010 City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Co 81611 I, Billie Ellis, Authorized Agent of Parcel 8, LLC, the owner of the property located at 946 S. Mill Street (Parcel 8, Top of Mill) authorize John Galambos of Galambos Architects Inc, to act on my behalf related to the City of Aspen's required 8040 Greenline Review Land Use Approval. Applicant's address is the following: JP management LLC 14 Funston Avenue San Francisco, CA 94129 (415) 796 -3115 Representative's address is the following: Galambos Architects Inc, 314D AABC, Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 429-1286 Thank You, Billie Ellis Authorized Agent of Parc , LLC - 1tO RECEPTION#: 556172, 02/0312009 at 11:03:24 AM, 1 OF 4, R $21.00 DF $750.00 Doc Code SPEC WD Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED ZUMA LLC, a Colorado limited liability company ( "Grantor"), for Ten ($10.00) Dollars and other valuable consideration, in hand paid, hereby sells and conveys to PARCEL 8 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ( "Grantee "), whose address is 301 Main Street, Suite 3300, Fort Worth, Texas 78102, Attention: Sherri L. Conn, the following real property located in Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado legally described as: - All of Parcel 8, TOP OF MILL SUBDIVISION /PUD, A PLANNED COMMUNITY, according to the Final Plat for Top of Mill Subdivislon/PUD, a Planned Community, recorded August 18, 2002, (� in Plat Book 62 at page 4 as Reception No. 471099, in Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado and as further defined and described In the Master Declaration of Protective Covenants for Top of Mill recorded October ch 4, 2002 as Reception No. 473073, the First Amendment thereto (3 recorded October 18, 2002 as Reception No. 473629, Second Amendment thereto recorded March 13, 2003 as Reception No. 479906 and Third Amendment thereto recorded December 31, 2003 as Reception No. 493046 - TO HAVE AND TO HOLD with all its appurtenances and warrants title against all persons claiming under Grantor, SUBJECT TO AND EXCEPTING: 1. Real estate taxes for the year 2009 and payable in 2010 and all subsequent years not yet due or payable. 2. Existing building, land use and zoning regulations. 3. Those matters listed on Exhibit "A" annexed hereto and made a part hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has hereunto set its hand and seal as of February 3, 2009. ZUMA LLC By: Neil D. Karbank, Authorized Representative WRE T i =:■1;` CITY CF ASPEN DATE REP NO HRE'r'T PAID m/ � DATE REP NO. STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) On this 2d day of February, 2009, before the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, residing therein duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared NEIL D. KARBANK, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and he acknowledged that he executed the foregoing Special Warranty Deed In his capacity as an Authorized Representative of Zuma LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, as the act and deed of such limited • liability company, as Grantor. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year i this certificate first above written. Notary P C and for id County and State ; b IoN My comm res . „,,,� '+e st Jar W.�t'r:z's "t v kp fo tt:il:.. rr:r; r,v02,2019 1375000v2 1/23/2009 11:50:44 AM EXHIBIT "A" PERMITTED ENCUMBRANCES 1. Reservations and exceptions as follows: a) Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted. b) Right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States. As the same may be found in the United States Patents recorded April 12, 1901 in Book 136 at Page 281, May 20, 1949 in Book 175 at Page 177 and May 20, 1949 in Book 175 at Page 208. 2. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Plat of subject property recorded August 18, 2002 in Plat Book 62 at Page 4. 3. Terms conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Subdivision /PUD Agreement for Top of Mill Subdivision/PUD recorded August 18, 2002 as Reception No. 471100. 4. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Pretapping Agreement recorded August 30, 2002 as Reception No. 471764. 5. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in City of Aspen Water Main Extension Agreement recorded August 30, 2002 as Reception No. 471785 and First Addendum thereto recorded October 17, 2002 as Reception No. 473593. 6. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in License Agreement recorded October 1, 2002 as Reception No. 472877. 7. Those terms, conditions, provisions, obligations, easements, restrictions, assessments and all matters as set forth in Protective Covenants for Top of Mill recorded October 4, 2002 as Reception No. 473073, First Amendment thereto recorded October 18, 2002 as Reception No. 473629, Second Amendment thereto recorded March 13, 2003 as Reception No. 479906 and Third Amendment thereto recorded December 31, 2003 as Reception No. 493046, deleting therefrom any restrictions indicating. any preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. 1375000x5 2/2/2009 5;00:59 PM • 8. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Amended and Restated Grant of Easement recorded March 30,2004 as Reception No. 498015. 9. All matters as disclosed by Survey of Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer dated January 19, 2009 as Job No. 2000 - 140.006-02. All of the foregoing book, page and reception number references refer to the real property records of Pitkin County, Colorado. • • 1375000v5 2/2/2009 5:00:59 PM J J Z A > F —_ €11l' � ; i I ; i t il U a # a = li o i � 11 3 _Il < f ��I�� a 74 E f7 I ti f O `y k ~ i a ■ • EITT I t.. i / _ ti ,' - - -.--.- ':11.1.1111111,1111170ftimimitte\-- - - - - - - - es- % ' �� j{ . A 1 \ `\\ I Z 1 11 2 9„, ; ` F 3 a * i ry 3 °a {fWil 3 eroq , . e 111 O 16014. q {3} „ ', „ 1 \\` y i A AO P ©A --2111,_ "Or �>r \\I\ m. = 1 —� _ X44 !we W' / ; tftNi(gill:tlllNllt VP CD OC i s: 1 0 N � } �1{ i � O ' „ o fill j / l ry 1 yj.1 A I 41 -.c A 2 1 i \ \ \‘‘ ‘. >A.. ( 1\ :‘,\ o: \ • It ‘• :‘,1, 111 , \,, A 2 .47 : . \ / / V , \ „. ,, ., % / 4: X. ‘<-'%. ,„V - % /,, ,,,,, , ts ir ,'"- r j 4 ) �, ' Ityt Al t �aI \ / ‘'* 1.1 : .741:101kk*1 0 I I I ‘ 417 . I %Zki 44%4 444,1417,44 I / - - - lili.l. 411111k1/4 ■ \ . -IIIIIN71114klk .. ‘ ma tUW w _ C u Ia TQ°w°°i1Aua • !4JY adaP�l d i �� •�NJ 'SHSYDOSSV ONV NYIZOJ^j O3' O o C S �6 T co guTu 1 .r 1 1 _ zlij fy fdk:--1/ . �, O a ...,„ N,--) \ 7 %.,- ..-.4 A I I" I , �� ~' � ��; - �_ 1 ' � � 1 11.rliP \ I r � /I s , `' r ,.rte f,. :d _ 1 �. ,.. �' s rat ...,, ,:,,,,,.... :4........ • ..__....,,,141...... It........„ 0 .... 440*, IF.,-- - - -- 4t, „ ' ■ ' ' .... k r, ta .. . --... .?1 , .'...,; di �• , X 1111 i& no i NiteX!) ' ; ' ' ' ' .4 ::H l. 4.' s '.., 11111110 .,, , , ..„, 7 , ,.) A70 ,viziotilMagrk imor jr42 .isive dill, .: M ,,, . , .,,, i . ,,, It .., . � ,, . . y roxi . .,:f .. ,, , 1 i t -, .. , , _ . , , ,..,„„ _. , , ..„ „,___ .,. . . . . , . t - . . ....• ‘t.c; . ... Al.__ ._:-.1- - ------____, . , Po h i t `s t 1 1 ti 1 1 .1 II 1 1 1 - Ni E j a h ill $ i f° A P li li !.; re I k P, i 7 X " ' OW 114 BIT 11 z 1, t O4 111 1 11 g ii il 11 il I 1 i z / i il i 11 1 lt 1 14 A ji b O , 1 .713 k k ct g 1 11/11 11 I l c 1 . — -a Li ill il . 1 ! 3 ! i !i q 1i i ill ) : if i g 1 1 11 ! ir. 'a 111 I Jpil p 11 Willi t + $ j t °a \/ 111 d d 9 1 ! ill a 110 ' 1 • - 11 11 n JAI kl r li 1 14 ' Ill & ta 1 i il Pill / *4 \ API #f II . .-. i 1, 41 Tilly cia al O ?� v 61 Y� W a < a al A d 4 d .4 d w g .. '.� g ill lift 'J A 4 lei CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET THE Cm El ASPEN Attached is an Application for review of Development that requires Land Use Review pursuant to the City of Aspen Land Use Code. Included in this package are the following attachments: I. Development Application Fee Policy, Fee Schedule and Agreement for Payment Form 2. Land Use Application Form 3. Dimensional Requirements Form 4. Matrix of Land Use Application Requirements/Submittal Requirements Key 5. General Summary of Your Application Process 6. Public Hearing Notice Requirements 7. Affidavit of Notice All applications are reviewed based on the criteria established in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code. Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code is available at the City Clerk's Office on the second floor of City Hall and on the interne at www.aspenpitkin.com , City Departments, City Clerk, Municipal Code, and search Title 26. We strongly encourage all applicants to hold a pre - application conference with a Planner in the Community Development Department so that the requirements for submitting a complete application can be fully described. Also, depending upon the complexity of the development proposed, submitting one copy of the development application to the Case Planner to determine accuracy, insufficiencies, or redundancies can reduce the overall cost of materials and Staff time. Please recognize that review of these materials does not substitute for a complete review of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. While this application package attempts to summarize the key provisions of the Code as they apply to your type of development, it cannot possibly replicate the detail or the scope of the Code. If you have questions which are not answered by the materials in this package, we suggest that you contact the staff member assigned to your case or consult the applicable sections of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF ASPEN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FEE POLICY The City of Aspen, pursuant to Ordinance 52 (Series of 2007), has established a fee structure for the processing of land use applications. A flat fee or deposit is collected for land use applications based on the type of application submitted. Referral fees for other City departments reviewing the application will also be collected when necessary. One check including the deposit for Planning and referral agency fees must be submitted with each land use application, made payable to the City of Aspen. Applications will not be accepted for processing without the required application fee. A flat fee is collected by Community Development for Administrative Approvals which normally take a minimal and predictable amount of staff time to process. The fee is not refundable. A deposit is collected by Community Development when more extensive staff review is required, as hours are likely to vary substantially from one application to another. Actual staff time spent will be charged against the deposit. Several different staff members may charge their time spent on the case in addition to the case planner. Staff time is logged to the case and staff can provide a summary report of hours spent at the applicant's request. After the deposit has been expended, the applicant will be billed monthly based on actual staff hours. Applicants may accrue and be billed additional expenses for a planner's time spent on the case following any hearing or approvals, up until the applicant applies for a building permit. Current billings must be paid within 30 days or processing of the application will be suspended. If an applicant has previously failed to pay application fees as required, no new or additional applications will be accepted for processing until the outstanding fees are paid. In no case will Building Permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. When the case planner determines that the case is completed (whether approved or not approved), the case is considered closed and any remaining balance from the deposit will be refunded to the applicant. Applications which require a deposit must include an Agreement for Payment of Development Application Fees. The Agreement establishes the applicant as being responsible for payment of all costs associated with processing the application. The Agreement must be signed by the party responsible for payment and submitted with the application and fee in order for a land use case to be opened. The current complete fee schedule for land use applications is listed on the next page. CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Avreement for Payment of Cttv of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and ?Agin- S LL , (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for go 40 Sarni ins ES* (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that the City of Aspen has an adopted fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the Hill extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costa may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its fall costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY'a waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ 1;t70. 00 which is for 4 boors of Community Development staff time and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including poet approval review at a rate of $245.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing data APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY 01? ASPEN APPLICANT 011411 P C/A .At ` F Chris/tendon 1101b Billing Development Director Date: Billing Address and Telephone Number: No \ tortnent>Ais ealr . '1.1r,L� }L �i1�1 ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: #'rt ca - 8 t TGP c F M I Ll.- /q 4 to Si PA! LL fr Location: T%ES=[-El.• 17)?O'F Ma-L, ASTEN, Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) L - 3- ) 20 2 2 Oft APPLICANT: Name: ?ASC EL es I, Address: 0P MAMA /14 ?UNEST bN AVE, AM FPA► V i (fl, l% Phone #: Z1P', ° I412 ° I nioNC t F "cue , ?il ( C ") REPRESENTATIVE: Name: [$ ilN Ieik M S ARCH I TECI S INC. Address: %42 .$134. / 4SPEN t (0 1 St lQ R Phone #: Cl 701 42ci, t215(0 TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Temporary Use ❑ GMQS Allotment ❑ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Text/Map Amendment ❑ Special Review ❑ Subdivision ❑ Conceptual SPA El ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes ❑ Final SPA (& SPA Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane ❑ Commercial Design Review ❑ Lot Split ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion ❑ Residential Design Variance ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Other: ❑ Conditional Use EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) �MP'rf 1 oT PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) L- A141 Cr L Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ ❑ Pre - Application Conference Summary ❑ Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement ❑ Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form ❑ Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements - Including Written Responses to Review Standards ❑ 3 -D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 83" X 11" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3 -D model. Your pre - application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3 -D model. ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: 1A1c Ct- f- TDr CF M i i -li Applicant: ?AV—L. ) Lu Location: °111-(o 5 Ml Vt. CT Zone District: (/) Lot Size: I I 1 ( �-) e.7F Lot Area: / (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: h Proposed: o Number of residential units: Existing: p Proposed: ( e, Number of bedrooms: Existing: O Proposed: 0 Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: N/A Allowable: ND CNANE�EProposed.: 41..\ Principal bldg. height: Existing: _ M /,4 Allowablef4p ( o ul,FP roposed: Access. bldg. height: Existing: 1 /A Allowable:blo Cryqul.,t' Proposed: M /Q On - Site parking: Existing: NI J A Required: frs,10 emit( Proposed: N / 4 % Site coverage: Existing: 1.1 A, Required: NO CiAl Proposed: % Open Space: Existing: N /A Required: NO LNhNI, Proposed: MA, Front Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: fat) CHANbE. Rear Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: ND 0-1ANbE Combined F/R: Existing: Required: Proposed: 7-1D Ci-IANC ?E Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: NI D L H AM 6E.. Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: N D C1-11 Combined Sides: Existing: Required: Proposed: NC CHNJ&C Distance Between Existing Required: Proposed: Mb 1 1.104k Buildings Existing non - conformities or encroachments: N /pt Variations requested: N /� 4 U o. ° s 9 To 5 e b ° 5 a 10 N N N =O d1 Os 4 d! m h h L a. o. a '-' a a: 4 ' u 0 S .2 Q O a d C L _ C . E d d N. N T L y Q 9 9 9.o y.0 H . y a d = Q Q d w Z v S E u a L ° 0 L ° Ni ' a W u ° es e o e e e e e o o ... a '^ e d o 2 ry z 0. N N N I-. 1-1 N N .. N el N 1 - 1 N dJ N N a N W o a rt b 111 9 U a S m a a U 0 U W 5 > N N U C z U Zyo3 4 UU U U °4°4 g sf ? U 25 tsi pat' t 4 4 X3444 U8 vv 0 ca X a � ` ti an d C 4 a a a 0. p N a W p, N o 2 4 a E Q N f V ECj E s �� a c d � Cl" Q n a . y 4(N Q W 5 c a e c W E a L 0 a o U 7 U U p op Z'C ei e e 5 o E r E N. 5 e .4 9 w 1L . n E $ Cd M g " O .5 c c v In v, r" a s y 'p V1 in a . M M N p C rt .-' 5 d M en E I a ri N b a 4 ' H . 5 ❑ ' . . E N N N O e a O ° e a e a u a y tE a in . M M s y a N N N N a M •a a L O O O° .O.i ' + N t t o .� l• N N N a e ems! G _ c y rl .� M h a uo000 N N �. e N Vi Z W a a y r n n n r r r n e r r n n I n n n t- e M r n '2 O F d z' 4 .r e e .■ '+ - d Q° E z z 3 o 2 c S z er rs , _� ti, w W Z W 7 3 Q 2 E N t g 1:47 3 a rml °oa 3 Z a ac t O �q 3 V W a y u b {e w © M � n b °z 0 W ri x i., a o q A > a 9 a C > CC a V' g v1 V .a vi ti, 2 a E- o B N j } .2 k ) 4 f ) .2 § §\ a § ON VI } k \ } ' — 'u4± ] ) u ■!t�■ ■ ; ; , ts1a a'a — CU ;■m / ! ; _ \ \\ § ,, a \ \ $ § s 22§ vl 09 % $2§* } §§ § k \ Ow 2 # a, §2 2 ! ` 2) $ NI s ( c CC § () c 3 . §lE� 2 % / r. 4/s e t t 2 ° 2§ 2 \ 3 0 0. 0 0 0 0 vi na k\ 1-1 II - I.* I-, - 1 t--= t e \ \ \ 2 0 z / 0 CI _ § 2 t a k ii ) $ \ E )/ ; ; a ■ ) \ \\ � � z § > \\ a 2 k § 2 ] es) a } \\ ATTACHMENT 4- CONT'D- SUBMITTAL KEY 1. Land Use Application with 12. Accurate elevations (in relation to system in the area of the proposed Applicant's name, address and telephone mean sea level) of the lowest floor, subdivision. The contents of the plat shall number, contained within a letter signed including basement, of all new or be of sufficient detail to determine by the applicant stating the name, address, substantially improved structures; a whether the proposed subdivision will and telephone number of the verification and recordation of the actual meet the design standards pursuant to representative authorized to act on behalf elevation in relation to mean sea level to Land Use Code Section 26.480.060(3).20. of the applicant which any structure is constructed; a Subdivision GIS Data. demonstration that all new construction or 2. The street address and legal substantial improvements will be 21. A landscape plan showing location, description of the parcel on which anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or size, and type of proposed landscape development is proposed to occur. lateral movement of any structure to be features. constructed or improved; a demonstration 3. A disclosure of ownership of the that the structure will have the lowest 22. A subdivision plat which meets the parcel an which development is proposed floor, including basement, elevated to at terms of this chapter, and conforms to the to occur, consisting of a current certificate least two (2) feet above the base flood requirements of this title indicating that no from a title insurance company, or elevation, all as certified by a registered further subdivision may be granted for attorney licensed to practice in the State of professional engineer or architect. these lots nor will additional units be built Colorado, listing the names of all owners without receipt of applicable approvals of the property, and all mortgages, 13. A landscape plan that includes pursuant to this chapter and growth judgments, liens, easements, contracts and native vegetative screening of no less than management allocation pursuant to agreements affecting the parcel, and fifty (50) percent of the development as Chapter 26.470. demonstrating the owner's right to apply viewed from the rear (slope) of the parcel. for the Development Application. All vegetative screening shall be 23. The precise wording of any maintained in perpetuity and shall be proposed amendment 4. An 8 I /2" x 11" vicinity map locating replaced with the same or comparable the subject parcel within the City of material should it die. 24. Site Plan or plans drawn to a scale of Aspen. one (1 ") inch equals ten (10') feet or one 14. Site sections drawn by a registered (1 ") inch equals twenty (20') feet, 5. A site improvement survey including architect, landscape architect, or including before and "after" photographs topography and vegetation showing the engineer shall be submitted showing all (simulations) specifying the location of current status of the parcel certified by a existing and proposed site elements, the antennas, support structures, transmission registered land surveyor, licensed in the top of slope, and pertinent elevations buildings and/or other accessory uses, State of Colorado. (This requirement, or above sea level. access, parking, fences, signs, lighting, any part thereof, may be waived by the landscaped areas and all adjacent land Community Development Department if 15. Proposed elevations of the uses within one - hundred fifty (150') feet the project is determined not to warrant a development, including any rooftop Such plans and drawings should survey document.) equipment and how it will be screened. demonstrate compliance with the Review Standards of this Section. 6. A site plan depicting the proposed 16. Proposed elevations of the layout and the project's physical development, including any rooftop 25. FAA and FCC Coordination. relationship to the land and it's equipment and how it will be screened. Statements regarding the regulations of surroundings. the Federal Aviation Administration 17. A sketch plan of the site showing (FAA) and the Federal Communications 7. A written description of the existing and proposed features which are Commission (FCC). proposal and a written explanation of relevant to the review. how a proposed development complies 26. Structural Integrity Report from a with the review standards relevant to the 18. One (1) inch equals four hundred professional engineer licensed in the development application. (400) feet scale city map showing the State of Colorado. location of the proposed subdivision, all 8. Plan with Existing and proposed adjacent lands owned by or under option 27. Evidence that an effort was made to grades at two-foot contours, with five-foot to the applicant, commonly known locate on an existing wireless intervals for grades over ten (10) percent. landmarks, and the zone district in which telecommunication services facility the proposed subdivision and adjacent site including coverage/ interference 9. Proposed elevations of the development properties are located. analysis and capacity analysis and a brief statement as to other reasons for 10. A description of proposed 19. A plat which reflects the layout of success or no success. construction techniques to be used. the lots, blocks and structures in the proposed subdivision. The plat shall 28. Neighborhood block plan at II. A Plan with the 100 -year floodplain be drawn at a scale of one (1) equals one l " =50' (available from City Engineering line and the high water line. hundred (100) feet or larger. Architectural Department) Graphically show the front scales are not acceptable. Sheet size shall portions of all existing buildings on both be twenty-four (24) inches by thirty-six sides of the block and their setback from (36) inches. If it is necessary to place the the street in feet Identify parking and plat on more than a one (1) sheet, an index front entry for each building and locate shall be included on the first sheet. A any accessory dwelling units along the vicinity map shall also appear on the first alley. (Continued on next page.) sheet showing the subdivision as it relates to the rest of the city and the street • Indicate whether any portions of the 35. Exterior Lighting Plan. Show the houses immediately adjacent to the location, height, type and luminous subject parcel are one story (only one intensity of each above grade fixture. living level). Estimate the site illumination as measured in foot candles and include minimum, 29. Roof Plan. maximum, and average illumination. Additionally, provide comparable 30. Photographic panorama. Show examples already in the community that elevations of all buildings on both sides of demonstrate technique, specification, and/ the block, including present condition of or light level if they exist. the subject property. Label photos and mount on a presentation board 31. A condominium subdivLsion exemption plat drawn with permanent ink on reproducible mylar. Sheet size shall be twenty-four (24) inches by thirty-six (36) inches with an unencumbered margin of one and one-half (1 1/2) inches on the left hand side of the sheet and a one-half (1/2) inch margin around the other three (3) sides of the sheet pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480.090. 32. A description and site plan of the proposed development including a statement of the objectives to be achieved by the PUD and a description of the proposed land uses, densities, natural features, traffic and pedestrian circulation, off -street parking, open space areas, infrastructure improvements, and site drainage. 33. An architectural character plan generally indicating the use, massing, scale, and orientation of the proposed buildings. 34. A written description of the variance being requested. • ATTACHMENT 5 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURE 1. Attend pre - application conference. During this one -on -one meeting, staff will determine the review process which applies to your development proposal and will identify the materials necessary to review your application. 2. Submit Development Application. Based on your pre - application meeting, you should respond to the application package and submit the requested number of copies of the complete application and the appropriate processing fee to the Community Development Department. 3. Determination of Completeness. Within five working days of the date of your submission, staff will review the application, and will notify you in writing whether the application is complete or if additional materials are required. Please be aware that the purpose of the completeness review is to determine whether or not the information you have submitted is adequate to review the request, and not whether the information is sufficient to obtain approval. 4. Staff Review of Development Application. Once your application is determined to be complete, it will be reviewed by the staff for compliance with the applicable standards of the Code. During the staff review stage, the application will be referred to other agencies for comments. The Planner assigned to your case or the agency may contact you if additional information is needed or if problems are identified. A memo will be written by the staff member for signature by the Community Development Director. The memo will explain whether your application complies with the Code and will list any conditions which should apply if the application is to be approved. Final approval of any Development Application which amends a recorded document, such as a plat, agreement or deed restriction, will require the applicant to prepare an amended version of that document for review and approval by staff. Staff will provide the applicant with the applicable contents for the revised plat, while the City Attorney is normally in charge of the form for recorded agreements and deed restrictions. We suggest that you not go to the trouble or expense of preparing these documents until the staff has determined that your application is eligible for the requested amendment or exemption. 5. Board Review of Application. If a public hearing is required for the land use action that you are requesting, then the Planning Staff will schedule a hearing date for the application upon determination that the Application is complete. The hearing(s) will be scheduled before the appropriate reviewing board(s). The Applicant will be required to mail notice (one copy provided by the Community Development Department) to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property and post notice (sign available at the Community Development Department) of the public hearing on the site at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing date (please see Attachment 6 for instructions). The Planning Staff will publish notice of the hearing in the paper for land use requests that require publication. The Planning Staff will then formulate a recommendation on the land use request and draft a memo to the reviewing board(s). Staff will supply the Applicant with a copy of the Planning Staff's memo approximately 5 days prior to the hearing. The public hearing(s) will take place before the appropriate review boards. Public Hearings include a presentation by the Planning Staff, a presentation by the Applicant (optional), consideration of public comment, and the reviewing board's questions and decision. 6. Issuance of Development Order. If the land use review is approved, then the Planning Staff will issue a Development Order which allows the Applicant to proceed into Building Permit Application. 7. Receipt of Building Permit. Once you have received a copy of the signed staff approval, you may proceed to building permit review. During this time, your project will be examined for its compliance with the Uniform Building Code. It will also be checked for compliance with applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations which were not reviewed in detail during the one step review (this might include a check of floor area ratios, setbacks, parking, open space and the like). Fees for water, sewer, parks and employee housing will be collected if due. Any document required to be recorded, such as a plat, deed restriction or agreement, will need to be reviewed and recorded before a Building Permit is submitted. ATTACHMENT 6 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Three forms of notice are required by the Aspen Land Use Regulations: publication in the newspaper, posting of the property, and mailing to surrounding landowners. Following is a summary of the notice requirements, including identification of who is responsible for completing the notice. 1. Publication - Publication of notice in a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen is to be done at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. The legal notice will be written by the Community Development Department and we will place the notice in the paper within the appropriate deadline. 2. Posting - Posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the property is to be done fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. It is the applicant's responsibility to obtain a copy of the sign from the Community Development Department, to fill it in correctly and to bring proof to the hearing that posting took place (use attached affidavit). 3. Mailing - Mailing of notice is to be made to all owners of property within 300 feet of the subject development parcel by the applicant. It is the applicant's responsibility to obtain a copy of the notice from the Community Development Department, to mail it according to the following standards, and to bring proof to the hearing that the mailing took place (use attached affidavit). Notice to mineral Estate Owner. An Applicant for surface Development shall notify affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application for development. The applicant shall certify that the notice has been provided to the mineral estate owners. 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 public hearing. ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: , 200_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained 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 appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map 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. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 200_, by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: Notary Public ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL • WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The proposed development is landscaping of the site including re- grading the site and the installation of a low wall. There are no proposed structures on the site. There is an existing detention wall that is being clad with stone veneer. The lot is currently vacant and not landscaped. It has been used for staging for the construction of Parcel 7. The Applicant, need only comply with review standards number 3 and 7 of the Regulation. The applicable review standards and the proposed developments are summarized below. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the City. All entities and subcontractors involved in the construction of the proposed landscaping will be required to strictly adhere to the Covenant's requirements for excavation and construction if excavation goes below the I.D. barrier. This includes: removal of contaminated soils, dust suppression, landscaping, soil testing and restoration following construction. The measures to be undertaken will comply with all applicable requirements of the City's Environmental Health Department. The proposed development will also be subject to the City's TDM /Air Quality impact fee. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. There is not a built structure as part of this proposal. The landscaping will be designed in a way to blend into the hillside. The low wall is going to be clad with the same stone as the adjacent home, the same as the wall on the adjacent lot, and is of mountain character. DESCRIPTION OF CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES The proposed development is landscaping of the site including re- grading the site and the installation of a low wall. There are no proposed structures on the site. There is an existing detention wall that is being clad with stone veneer. The lot is currently vacant and not landscaped. It has been used for staging for the construction of Parcel 7. The construction techniques shall comply with all applicable City of Aspen requirements and the Covenant's requirements. m e = it P s t s f i sa 111 1 3 o d _ I 3 v “. 1 a % ..11r.1 t iii 3 i 2,2 ,I / = II Pit z 0 e w w 1 9 z I/ w 0 a a d z z fl o w $ 111 11011 11 : F . I o m 1.1[1 ,, ! IIIIIIII 1111 - j 1 5 11 to �� � ��1111111110� .. .21; =._ :: - - ." III:I (�IOIIIIIIINUI� = mi. = I, , _ - _;'- I� 4 mr. i `o 4 �z Z 9 A -6 .. —► _ 2 1 1 gU 8 4 s °s A ( . g3 t e^„ ' 11111 11 1 1 1 u a 00 oW 3 3 V� ij IL U, ` aW ul - z _ v z lit 1 ■r I■ I I = :cam w LIAM II E. ; iiiir 181811181 I . IL - j I a ., m 1 =_ F+ � z \ 1' ° a'. ■ I • 9 . — I! I K O I ,. -„� .a Ell = r ill "" . • 1 j � i b ` }4 4 clINI gaull .vz h 15 - a z �o z JW i 1111 3 b 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 .T . 1 i .N(6 1 It Ai • a L - k-- QQ . Hfb - .L t.l G ✓. .DWA IYB °Il 1 b.l Z r / s. v r ✓. '. ;, . m wmn ryluq I l t iThJI L ,' S---- 1 i ° ' I 1 i t 1 • 1 1 1 ■ •• a i I 0 ea 1 •unaosev aNV NY¢oYI ono a a g 1-..1 d moo ma 1 I 23 W. , ap 4r v „,,- Azgi i a) ce 7 il KA 1 I Alh,„ ..,, It ........„ ,,.,.., I x_x I� vu a ___ as er......_ __Ai‘ uniiiiiii.._ ,....\ ---- 4.110.._ ---=-___ _ tea w � �. gi a� aitt �� � ls .,;a►��_ id iris rarctim.....azgoirk” -------- ‘ .., ---,,.,, //hill 1 '''--., ' '' ''''b \ ei j , ,,, \ \ , -_, , , N, ;.,,,i, \ ,, ., . ___,....______ ; , -------,,,„,„ -,,,,, ,-...„ - . ,,, 51 ----->-- 4 1■1 c ti \ /11 ,,, ,, . . I / *,/). e 0424Vet i gr \ \ •, t i :�\ -e a ' IRIj I I i i ij i u ! ' x a $ - - to II l� x a i I: 1 1:. _ - . k k k x 1/ 1 l a11411 li i; ll t H ' 1 1 0 ti 1 I 11 I 1 I li il ii 1 hal Pa .„, 3 i m i 1 I II I El 111 11 ill 1: a 1 it I J Q z w = 3 .• c z z V � �I I c Q § y 2 - a- L 1811 l Q = E, .g $a x � ' %/ o DO _ _ I' 0 z 'a 0 Z 2 a $s ag 2,--= .qo o c' g o /, I`\ Z - e- B l x oz J 0. � � y 1 7 ■ - 44 � 1 • e . ,. . \ • tr., y F __ • p r : .. • ta" . • ,`�'- y.� a y a T: � t . - At 1. s t . • • 3R. mil .,{. -.. 4kito!,4...' t ' i y‘ . " :: C. (4 .. ire;. ,;4 .., r , .k. 0 LI . . . . .. x -------------- / , ,t i os - 9 0 , .. .. 0 0 9 1 71. 0 3 . P T. E- 0 0 .. , • ..... • " 4 -1 0 • I 0 3 t le 2 la 1 0 ,z) er. • urena V LI Pr r 0 , 0 r C.1 9 C ' re to t, # / # a l io ; I # • it • 7 7fr---rrer c3 21 . .... I i / I I i I / r I i xt.--■' Alr fa / - -4. tn tc al 1 1 j ' ', It% taj ra 0_ .., • it, z . . . . . . . . . . . . ' 0 ) 0 .r. / \ , r , / (5 Ci * *41 i \iii\ 7 ' 7 0 ' t (2 i L ‘ 1 ett ‘ . / ' : . :::-;....." _lora+ .°.2•In 4. 7i , et Q 31 . i . . • . • ' 100 1 r 2 2 2 i IN ' . • ' r I I I • • / — . . . . tr • 7 2 .. .. • / : I I e: : • - . . . -.7 / / . . . .... - - • - - . . . ‘ ' . • • r . it /7 / ....... ., °... ' in .. ...... ... • . . / * , ... ..... .. - - . • . . . . 2 . ... 7 : : : I,* .................. r ............ / . . - - g:. • c,Lo i . : . . . . . . . .. e0 0 • • e r : • - - '0 - en I • - 1 ,i,•., I . t a . • • - , - „ . . . . . . . . • . I I / i/ . , •-• / / / 1 I .1 • • • P 4 / . . csa.t. .. : .......... .... __ f . . t' • : • , • , : : • • . . . , ...K. .. ........ .,. • - • . . . , u) ----.. / . . . : • 0 • . . : • " • • .' • .• ,,. . . . . . • • cy 11 •• .• • . . r . • V/ A l e, 1/4 / k ciLloo.-- 4, • - . .• / ...- , . • . .. • - - - • to ..1 r .•••• IrJ et 2 '46 52 , , • 7 QS ell : ar . • . ' S 0.0000 00110 1Y /Sr -: ' erbicr.t.■ %-- . r % ,t 13 0 .9.. ep : . 7 : . • . 9 -- 2 eu Li 2 : : . 1 et •'• 7 • . . . . . : : • 7 : • . . : . . . .. . . .• .. , . : . • • - ../..4.:;:::..: ......... i / . .. : . 0 di 22 • . , i ... . . - • ' • • . . - .. : . : : , ..• , ..• , : , .... „: rA -...., e . . . . . a c - ----- . . .„ ..• .: //y.„4:: , i .• ...• t 2 . . . .• • . . . . • \ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .• , ... __ : : .. . . . . • : . . . • • • • • • • __ .• : at t \ El s - . . , . :. i . • .. • ..• ; . . . • . . - . • . • - • . ...., ... . . . . • : . : 2 : . < .9 . . . . ; • C Z .... .... / ...• ..• : ..' ' ' • E; .c6 I N"' 41/4 u . . . . . : : : : : . : • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 4 4, " . .• .. 0 eu 6 • .- - . - • .... .• , L. ../ ..... ...? ., :,. ... ... ..: .... • • . . . .: .. . „: . ... .. : . -, , ... ... ... . ,......• : ..... ... ... ././ ° I 0 k . . . 2 U - .• .., z # : • to k • k / tr ° £ a I i a 0 0 dri i O M �J N IA ,I}Q M 2 J( 1 O ` - - =4. 1 i i / / 1 I so r 1 ` N. / i I , f / O / 4 / � r •- 1 L I 4°- IS 1. iii? 0 t 'm / A / r % A i r a tu 1 , i u e >a 11 X 1 i r 1 t I I I / / / r / 1 / 1n , Jsn i i 0 N 0% 4. • M I 0 VAT, d o I I I ei I 1 � r I I I • I kC I 1 1 1 1 1 t - gnn 4 01,1 w ira 3