Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20190122 AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING January 22, 2019 4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISIT II. ROLL CALL III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public IV. MINUTES A. January 15, 2019 V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 331-338 Midland Ave - Aspen Hills - Growth Management and Associated Reviews B. 222 S Cleveland St. - Special Review - Replacement of an ADU VII. OTHER BUSINESS VIII. BOARD REPORTS IX. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: #2 Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legal notice (affi d avit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clari fications of applicant 7) Public comments 8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met. Revised April 2, 2014 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2019 1 Staff Comments ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Commission Comments ................................................................................................................................ 2 Minutes ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Public Comment not on the Agenda ............................................................................................................. 2 813 W Smuggler - RDS Variation – Articulation of Building Mass ........................................................... 2 222 Cleveland St – Special Review – Variation to the ADU Design Standards .......................................... 5 Election of Chair and Vice Chair .................................................................................................................. 6 P1 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2019 2 At 4:30 p.m.; Skippy Mesirow called the regular meeting to order with Commissioners Spencer McKnight, Rally Dupps, Teraissa McGovern and Ruth Carver present. Jimmy Marcus arrived a few minutes later. Also present were Andrea Bryan and Linda Manning. Staff Comments Jennifer Phelan, community development, told the Commission there is a Council work session scheduled for February 26th. The first meeting in March would be on the 5th which is election day. There will be no meeting due to that. The second meeting is the 19th. We could schedule a meeting for the 26th. The board was in general agreement that day would work. Ms. Phelan will send out an email with the upcoming dates. Andrea Bryan, assistant city attorney, said there is a Council work session next Tuesday about small cells and 5G infrastructure. This is the new generation of wireless technology. Essentially it permits smaller cells in more locations. The federal government is limiting local control over what we can do to regulate these structures, particularly in the public right of way. We are in the process of evaluating our code. We are scheduling a meeting in February to talk to you about this. The goal is to have final code amendments adopted by the first council meeting in March to be effective by April 14th. Commission Comments None. Minutes Ms. McGovern moved to approve the minutes from December 18, 2018; seconded by Mr. McKnight. All in favor, motion carried. Public Comment not on the Agenda None. 813 W Smuggler - RDS Variation – Articulation of Building Mass Mr. Dupps stated he is also a neighbor and rents his property. He said that he can be fair and impartial. The applicant and board knows this and he will be participating in this hearing. Garrett Larimar, community development, stated this is an articulation of building mass variation of the Residential Design Standard. It was originally presented on December 18th. The property is zoned Residential and part of the Lot 3 Ranger Station Subdivision and located in the infill area. It is an undeveloped lot, 6,639 square feet. There is a 10 foot utility easement as well as the Si Johnson ditch that both run through the property. Both limit the developable portion of the lot. The lot size is 60 x 110 feet. A standard lot in this zone is 60 x 100 feet. The additional 10 feet was placed on the property to accommodate the utility easement at the rear of the property. The applicant submitted for an administrative review of the residential design standards and their design complies with all the other design standards besides the articulation of building mass. This standard is a non flexible standard. Any variation requires review and approval of the Planning & Zoning Commission. The standard reads that a principle building shall articulate mass to reduce bulk and mass and create building forms that are similar in scale of historic Aspen residential buildings. This standard provides three alternatives to comply with the standard. The first is a maximum sidewall depth. The principal building can be no more than 50 feet. There is no restriction on the articulation if all of the design falls within 50 feet as measured from the front most façade to the rear most facade. The second option is a one story ground level connection P2 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2019 3 between the primary mass and the secondary mass. This connector must happen no more than 45 feet from the front most wall of the building. There are set back requirements of five feet from the side wall of the primary mass to the connector. There must also be 10 feet between the primary and secondary structures. The third option is for a rear stepdown. The one story stepdown must occur no more than 45 feet as measured from the front most wall. It must be one story tall and must have a five foot set back from the primary mass sidewall. He showed the proposed site plan as well as renderings. Looking at the three options for satisfying the standard, the first is the 50 foot maximum sidewall. 84 feet 4 inches is well beyond option number one. The two story element portion of the building is 65 feet long. The code provides for a two story element no more than 45 feet long. This is well beyond the codes allowance for administrative approval. There is a one story stepdown at the rear, however there is no setback from the primary mass sidewall. The code does provide for variations. There are two review criteria that can be satisfied to meet a variation. The first is the design must provide an alternative approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard as well as the general intent statements listed in the Residential Design Standards. The second option is that it must be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. This is an or statement. They can satisfy one of the two review criteria. The general intent statement for the Residential Design Standard is broken down to three parts. The first is to connect to the street. The second is to respond to neighboring properties. Third is to reflect traditional building scale. All of the standards that address connection to the street have been satisfied. We are not concerned with the connection to the street. For the second intent statement, respond to neighboring properties, this is aimed at reducing the perceived mass and bulk of residential buildings as viewed from all sides and encourage the relationship to adjacent development from similar massing and scale. Staff is concerned with the proposed development that the perceived mass and bulk as viewed from the west façade is 65 feet of a two story building and 19 feet of a one story portion to the rear. That façade is right up against a five foot set back line. Staff feels that significantly effects the neighboring property to the west. For the third, reflect traditional building scale, it is intended to retain the scale and proportions of the historic architectural traditions while encouraging design flexibility. This is intended to encourage design creativity and contemporary architecture but at a scale that respects historic design traditions. Staff also feels the proposed design is not consistent with historic design and that 85 foot building length is not something that is commonly seen. Staff feels the general intent statements are not satisfied by this design. Moving to the articulation of building mass intent statement, there are four main elements that are important to this review. The first is does the standard seek to reduce the overall perceived mass and bulk of the building as viewed from all sides. The west façade is a five foot setback. It is an 84 foot building length with 65 feet being two stories. It does create negative outcomes for the property to the west. The second aspect addressing building should include massings and articulations that convey forms that are similar to historic residential buildings. Staff does not feel that portion of the intent statement has been satisfied by the design. Third mentions the standard is critical to the infill area. Small side and front setbacks are prevalent. The west is relatively close to the setback. The proximity of the adjacent property makes it important that this design breaks up articulation, massing and scale. Lastly, the design should change the plane of a building sidewall and step the primary building height down to one story or limit the overall depth of the structure. Staff is concerned given the 85 foot developable area of the lot and the overall length is developed almost to that mark, it has not been satisfied. The second portion looks for a variation to be necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. There was an additional 10 feet added to the lot to accommodate the utility easement. We feel the primary encumbrance is the ditch easement. There are encumbrances on many lots in Aspen. That in itself it not unusual. Staff feels this criteria is not met. Applicant Rob Sinclair, representing the applicant, stated they presented at the last meeting and requested a continuance. At the time the chair and vice chair requested elaboration on some of the concerns on compliance with the prescriptive standards and how they would apply to this property. When designing the house we did not ignore the Residential Design Standards (RDS). The general intent statement from P3 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2019 4 the RDS ensures a strong connection between residences and streets. Ensures buildings provide articulation to break up bulk and mass and preserve historic neighborhood scale and character. Standards do not prescribe architectural style but do require that each home, while serving the needs of its owner contribute positively to the streetscape. RDS are intended to connect to the street, respond to neighboring properties, reflect traditional building scale. Connection to the street by establishing a visual and or physical connection between residences and streets and other public areas. We agree we comply with this standard. We don’t design any individual component in a vacuum. It has to be part of a cohesive design and a solution that responds to specific sites and uses for our client. We designed a strong physical and visual connection to the street. Respond to neighboring properties. Reduce perceived bulk and mass from all sides, encourage a relationship to adjacent development through similar massing and scale, create a sense of continuity through building form and setback along the streetscape, provide offsets or changes in plane or reduce the height near side lot lines. Our perceived bulk and mass is reduced from all sides. Our actual bulk and mass is physically and visually reduced by our design, especially on the street façade. Reflect traditional building scale. Retain scale and proportion in design that are keeping with Aspen historic architectural tradition but also encourage design flexibility. Encourage creative and contemporary architecture but at a scale that represents historic design traditions. Our design embodies traditional building scale and proportion with a simple two story gable roof and a contemporary wrap front porch element. Articulation of building mass is the standard of most concern to staff. Reduce overall perceived scale and mass from all sides. Design should promote light, air and access between adjacent properties. Design should articulate building walls by using multiple forms to break up large expansive wall planes. Buildings should include massing and articulation that conveys forms that are similar in massing to historic Aspen residential buildings. This standard is critical to the infill area where small side and front setbacks are prevalent. Design should change the plane of a building sidewall, step a primary building height down to one story in the rear or limit the overall depth of a structure. In regard to the intent statement, our building reduces the overall perceived bulk and mass from all sides. The design does promote light and air between adjacent properties. It articulates building walls by using multiple forms. The design changes the plane of the sidewalls and steps the height down to one story in the rear and limits the overall depth of the structure. While staff and I are reading the same code sections we argue that we meet all of them. The three options presented in the RDS as non flexible standards were reviewed and considered by us. We didn’t consider there were only three options. The variance option presented became the fourth option. 1 – stand alone building with free standing garage. There are accessibility issues where a free standing garage would not work. 2 – closest to being a possible solution. Would be fully in compliance but not a favorable option. 3 – given site constraints with ditch and utilities an attached garage is possible but we cannot articulate the 5 foot rear setback due to the retaining wall that has just been poured. The variation review standards provide an alternate design approach that meets the overall design of the standard as indicated in the intent statement or be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness due to unusual site constraints. We feel the design clearly meets the overall intent as well as the general intent statement. The site is clearly constrained and qualifies for reasons of fairness because of the ditch easement and the alley configuration. 30% of the site is constrained and unusable. When we raised this condition with staff they responded that you bought it that way. It does not excuse the commission from fairly applying the variance standard. The plans remain unchanged other than we have now responded to the additional setback. The garage is required to have a five foot setback. He showed illustrations of the proposed plan and a what it would look like if they designed Option 2. The existing plan has a primary structure 30 feet in length. The secondary structure is 35 feet. Option 2 has the same 30 foot living space. Behind that, after the 10 foot setback and step down is a 40 foot 2 story structure with the remainder of the programming elements backing up to the alley. This hasn’t been fully designed but does comply with P4 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2019 5 RDS Option 2. A final design may be five feet longer. He showed section cuts. In our opinion and reasonable interpretation of the code, Option 2 is a favorable solution. We were told at the last meeting the accessibility issues of the owner were not something the commission should be basing a decision on. Because of the alley access we’ve had to manipulate our floor plate and continuous access. We’ve had a hard time finding the code sections saying either or, or saying options. T Coverwaite, Sinclair Architects, said fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy the following standard. We asked staff what at least one meant. We did our best to look for attributes of all three. It also says the following options shall satisfy the standard, not is required. We absolutely feel the three options are compliant with the intents standards. They do not define the intent standards. They are three out of many ways to get to a solution that are compliant with the intent statements. The variance statement says provide a design alternative that satisfies the intent statement. We think you have the purview and latitude to look at the intent statements separate from the options. That is why we look at it as a fourth option. Going back to the notion of did we know the site was constrained, yes. Reading thought the RDS nowhere does it say an unusual site constraint must be a surprise. Nowhere does it say a variance can only be granted if compliance is impossible. Could we design to Option 2, probably. We don’t think it is as good for anyone. Ms. McGovern said the plans have not been updated to update the accessibility standards. Having the packet updated would have been helpful. Mr. Coverthwaite pointed out the changes from last time. Mr. Mesirow opened the public comment. There was none. Mr. Mesirow closed the public comment. Mr. Mesirow said he hasn’t seen any substantive changes from last time. Ms. McGovern said she does not see that they adjusted the design to address our concerns. Ms. Carver said it is a beautiful design. She does not see how in good conscious she can approve new construction. She cannot set a precedent to have a variance for what the rules are. Mr. Mesirow said he is hearing that this might be prettier, but our job is to enforce the rules. Ms. McGovern said this does not address the RDS. She does not think it sets a precedent. I cannot approve it. Mr. McKnight said he is alarmed a bit as how it looks and can meet the standard. It is a very good looking structure. We are making a decision based on the code. We don’t have the luxury of allowing it. Mr. Mesirow asked if they want to go back and meet the intent of 1 would you approve it. Ms. McGovern replied they wouldn’t be back here. There is a way to redo the design to get closer to the intent statements. Ms. Carver said there was something about the Forest Service designing the size of the lots and it is something they have to work with, Mr. Marcus said I could get there. The general massing, it is massive. From that angle it is what it is. If there was an attempt to step it down or an attempt to be thoughtful to honor that direction. It doesn’t come across to me. Ms. McGovern said there is lots of flexibility in the design. There is room to make it closer to compliance. Mr. Marcus said the block images are deceptive. You could make it a desirable design. There wasn’t a lot of intention to honor those guidelines. Mr. McKnight moved to deny the RDS variation for articulation of building mass for 813 W Smuggler; seconded by Ms. McGovern. All in favor, motion carried. 222 Cleveland St – Special Review – Variation to the ADU Design Standards Mr. Mesirow recused himself. Mr. McKnight opened the hearing for 222 Cleveland St. Ms. McGovern moved to continue to January 22, 2018; seconded by Mr. Marcus. All in favor, Motion carried. P5 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2019 6 Mr. McKnight closed the hearing. Mr. Mesirow rejoined the meeting Election of Chair and Vice Chair Mr. Mesirow said he has enjoyed working with you all, but I will not be reapplying for P&Z. Mr. Dupps nominate Teraissa for chair. Ms. McGovern nominate Spencer for chair. Ms. Carver nominated Teraissa for vice chair. Mr. Dupps nominated Spencer for vice chair. Mr. Mesirow called a vote for Mr. McKnight for Chair. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Mesirow called a vote for Ms. McGovern for Vice Chair. All in favor, motion carried. At 5:40 Ms. Carver moved to adjourn; seconded by Ms. McGovern. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning City Clerk P6 IV.A. TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Garrett Larimer, Planner THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: 331-338 Midland Ave Associated Land Use Reviews 12/4/18) MEETING DATE: January 22, 2019 *Special note: This meeting was continued from the application have been made, those changes are reflected in the memo, review criteria and resolution. APPLICANT: Aspen Hills Investors LLC, 3807; Aspen, CO 81612 REPRESENTATIVE: BendonAdams, 300 S Spring St. #202, Aspen, CO 81611 LOCATION: 331-338 Midland Ave. CURRENT ZONING: Residential Multi-Family (RMF) CURRENT USE: The property currently contains a multifamily residence with eight residential units. SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing to renovate the existing structure and convert the eight existing units to deed restricted affordable housing units and develop an additional six free market residential units on the remainder the site. The extent of the renovation to the existing structure will trigger demolition according to the Land Use Code. The existing structure is non-conforming and will require Special Review approval to maintain existing non conformities. MEMORANDUM City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Garrett Larimer, Planner Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director 338 Midland Ave – Aspen Hills Redevelopment – Multifamily Replacement and Associated Land Use Reviews; Resolution No. __, Series of 2019 January 22, 2019 This meeting was continued from the original hearing date on 12/4/18. Revisions to the application have been made, those changes are reflected in the memo, review criteria and resolution. Aspen Hills Investors LLC, P.O. Box 300 S Spring St. Family (RMF) The property currently contains a multifamily residence with eight residential units. ing to renovate the existing structure and convert the eight (8) existing units to deed restricted affordable housing units and develop an additional six (6) remainder of the site. The extent of the renovation to the existing structure will trigger demolition . The existing conforming and will require maintain existing non- PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Redevelopment of the property to include the renovation and deed restriction existing units. The application also proposes free market units on the remaining site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Zoning Commission request changes to the application application requires numerous variations and does not comply with the requirements in the Land Use C Figure 1: Vicinity Map Page 1 of 12 Multifamily Replacement and , Series of 2019 (Continued from original hearing date on 12/4/18. Revisions to the application have been made, those changes are reflected in the memo, review criteria and resolution. Redevelopment of the property to and deed restriction of the eight (8) also proposes six (6) additional free market units on the remaining site. recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission request changes to the application, as the application requires numerous variations and does not comply requirements in the Land Use Code. P7 VI.A. 331-338 Midland Ave – Redevelopment Application January 22, 2019 P&Z Page 2 of 12 REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: · Growth Management Reviews § Section 26.470.100.D – Affordable Housing, § Section 26.470.100.E – Multifamily Demolition and Replacement, § Section 26.470.080 – General Review Standards. Multiple Growth Management Reviews are required to rehabilitate the existing multifamily units and redevelop the site with a mix of free market and affordable housing units. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority. · Special Review § 26.430.040.A - Dimensional Requirements, § 26.430.030.B – Replacement of Non-Conforming Structures, § 26.430.040.I – Affordable Housing Unit Standards. Special Review is required to allow for the replacement of the existing structure, which is non-conforming due to its location in the setback and over the property line, in the same location after the demolition of the structure, as well as maintain undersized affordable housing units that exceed the allowable percentage of each unit below grade. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority. · Residential Design Standards – Multi-family Chapter 26.410 provides the design standards as they relate to multi-family housing. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority. Note: The project as submitted qualifies for administrative approval of the Residential Design Standards. The RDS approval is being combined with all other reviews to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. · Dimensional Variance § 26.314.040 – Standards Applicable to Variances A Dimensional Variance is required to allow for four (4) proposed parking spaces to be in the south setback. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority. LOCATION/BACKGROUND: The subject property, 331-338 Midland Ave., currently contains a multi-family residence located on a lot in the RMF zone district outside the Aspen Infill area. The 15,159 square foot parcel lies at the intersection of Midland Ave and Midland Park Place. The existing building was built in 1965 and was condominiumized in 1969. When the building was condominiumized the property lines were drawn around the structure without consideration for setbacks, and portions of the building are over the property lines. On the east side of the property the roof, utility equipment, and a window well are over the property line, and on the south side or the property the stairs that access the deck and the sidewalk to access the structure are over the property line. The applicant received approval via Resolution No. 5, Series of 2017 to renovate the existing structure, bring the building into compliance with APCHA standards, and develop the units as voluntary affordable housing units in order to establish Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits. If the current request is approved, the previous approval will be nullified once approval documents are recorded for this request. P8 VI.A. 331-338 Midland Ave – Redevelopment Application January 22, 2019 P&Z Page 3 of 12 Two of the eight units have been converted to 1-bedrrom units, the remaining six are 2-bedroom units. One unit that was converted to 1-bedroom unit received approval to eliminate the second bedroom, the second appears to have removed the bedroom without approval or a building permit. All eight units are stacked two story units with the bedrooms, bathroom, and laundry facilities in the lower level below grade, and the kitchen and living space on the upper floor. See existing floor plans below: Figure 2: Existing Floor Plans P9 VI.A. 331-338 Midland Ave – Redevelopment Application January 22, 2019 P&Z Page 4 of 12 The current parking arrangement for the property includes 8 head in spaces on the property. Tandem parking has been utilized on the property, but the 8 tandem parking spaces infringe beyond the property line into the right of way. Figure 3: Existing Site CURRENT PROPOSAL: The applicant is currently requesting approval to redevelop the parcel with a mix of free market and affordable housing units. A total of 14 units are proposed, 8 affordable housing units in the existing building and 6 free market units will be constructed on the remainder of the lot. The 8 existing units require renovations to improve the units to APCHA standards and to modernize the units to meet code requirements and marketability standards. Renovations that count toward the calculation of demolition include replacing the roof, the demolition of the upper level exterior walls, and the addition of lower level egress windows to some of the units. The revised application proposes to completely demolish the upper level of the existing structure and bump the exterior walls out varying amounts in order to increase the upper level net livable area in an effort to improve the above grade ratio for each unit. The roof is also being removed. The extent of work proposed triggers demolition. The land use code defines demolition as when more than 40% of the exterior wall and roof assemblies are demolished. This is a technical demolition rather than a total razing of the structure since the foundation is to remain, but still requires compliance with the land use code as if the building were entirely demolished. P10 VI.A. 331-338 Midland Ave – Redevelopment Application January 22, 2019 P&Z Page 5 of 12 Demolition of a multi-family residence triggers the multi-family replacement requirements as outlined in Section 26.470.100.E – Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi-Family housing, which provides three options to mitigate for the demolition of housing units. The applicant has chosen to meet the requirement by providing 100% of the units demolished be replaced as Resident Occupied (RO) deed restricted affordable housing units, which is allowed by the code. The code states that, “When this one-hundred percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the site may be free-market residential development with no additional affordable housing mitigation required as long as there is no increase in the number of free -market residential units on the parcel.” Additional free market units beyond what was demolished would be subject to affordable housing mitigation requirements, but this proposal has no additional free market units. The code encourages units to be deed restricted as for sale but may be permitted as rentals. Based on negotiations with APCHA the applicant has agreed to provide APCHA with a binding purchase option and first right of refusal for 5 of the 8 deed restricted units so APCHA can provide those 5 units as Category 5 deed restricted rental units. APCHA has expressed an interest in adding more rental units rather than for sale units based on current market demands. Three of the eight units will be resold to current tenants who must qualify for the RO deed restricted units under the APCHA qualification requirements. APCHA and the applicant reached a tentative agreement, which includes the conditions of the sale, that will be formalized by a development agreement. The development agreement will be required as a condition of approval if the Planning and Zoning Commission approves the request. The tentative agreement between APCHA and the applicant stipulates that an agreement to purchase the 5 units must occur by March 30, 2019 and closing must occur within 30 days upon completion of the project and receipt of a Certificate of Occupancy. If APCHA and the applicant don’t come to an agreement to purchase the units by the March 30th deadline, then the applicant will have the option to make the 5 units RO deed restricted for sale units or rental units at the applicant’s discretion. For full details on the agreement between APCHA and the applicant see the APCHA Board referral memo attached as Exhibit B. The application also includes the development of six free market units to be developed to the north and west of the existing building. Table 1 shows the proposed free market unit programming. The maximum free market unit size allowed in this zone district is 2500 square feet. The proposed dimensions of the project are included in Table 2 below. The allowable height and floor area for multi-family residential developments in the RMF zone district are based on density. The proposed density of the parcel is 1 unit for every 1,082.8 square feet of net lot area. This allows for a maximum height of 32 feet and a FAR of 1:1.25. See below for all dimensional information. It’s important to note, that the applicant is not applying for a PD and is subject to the dimensional requirements of the zone district. The application will be required to document compliance with Zoning requirements and representations made before this commission including height, floor area, and setbacks during the building permit review process. The chart below is the current proposal. Unit Beds Total Net Livable 1 4 1,920 sf 2 3 2,047 3 3 1,865 4 3 1,775 5 4 2,415 6 4 2,207 Total 16 12,229 Gross Lot Size 15,159 sf Table 1 – Free Market Unit Size Table 2: Proposed Dimensions P11 VI.A. 331-338 Midland Ave – Redevelopment Application January 22, 2019 P&Z Page 6 of 12 The applicant requested an interpolated historical grade analysis be reviewed as part of the application. The applicant’s engineer and surveyor submitted an interpolated grade analysis of the site to determine the pre- development topography. The City of Aspen Engineering Department reviewed the proposal and agreed that the proposed interpolated grade was likely consistent with the pre-development topography of the site. A multi- family development in the RMF zone district does not rely on a net lot area calculation to determine the allowed floor area of the site, the proposed density determines allowable Floor Area Ratio, so the approved interpolated grade will only be used to measure height when natural grade is the most restrictive. The Planning and Zoning Commission is not asked to consider or approve the interpolated grade request. The approved interpolated grade survey will be included as an attachment to the Resolution. The curb cut and site access in the proposal that accesses the parking facilities is the result of extensive negotiations with the City of Aspen Engineering Department, as the original design proposed two curb-cuts. All vehicular access will be through a single 18’ wide curb cut on Midland Ave that provides direct access to the carport and access to the enclosed parking garage. Land Use Reviews The development is subject to the underlying zone district and the projects conformance with the applicable review criteria is discussed in greater detail in Exhibits C-H. Special Review standards include: A. Replacement of Non-conforming structures: The renovation of the existing structure triggers demolition. The structure is non-conforming because it is in the setback and over the property line. In order to allow the for the non-conformity to continue after demolition, the Planning and Zoning Commission must approve the Special Review request. RMF Zone District Requirement Proposed Density Varies 1 unit per 1,082.8s.f. of lot area (greater than 1 unit per 1,500 sf. of lot area) FAR 1:1.25 1:1.25 Allowable floor area 18,949 square feet 18,949 square feet Height 32 feet – based on density 32 feet Setbacks (front, rear, side) 5 feet 5 feet – New Development, 0’ surrounding existing structure. Dimensional variance sought for parking in setback on south side of property. Units No limit 14 Total - 8 Deed Restricted, 6 free market Unit Sizes (net livable) Max 2,500 sf. Deed restricted avg. unit size = 844 sf. Free market avg. unit size = 2,049 sf. Parking 60% of the requirement, up to 40% can be provided through cash-in-lieu fee or alternative method. 26 total units required 17 parking spaces provided or 65.4%. Cash-in-lieu fee of $342,000 or equivalent mitigation required for remaining 9 units. P12 VI.A. 331-338 Midland Ave – Redevelopment Application January 22, 2019 P&Z Page 7 of 12 The review criteria for the replacement of non-conforming structures considers the following: 1. The dimensional requirements of the project and the zone district, including mass, height, density, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks, and the designs overall compatibility with the neighborhood. 2. The proposed development’s adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Examples of adverse impacts listed in the review criteria include shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood, or obstructing a view plane. 3. Whether there are special characteristics of the site which differentiate it from others in the same zone district. 4. Replacement of the non-conformity represents the minimum variance needed to make “reasonable use of the property.” 5. Not allowing the replacement of the non-conforming structure would cause “unnecessary hardship upon the owner by prohibiting reasonable use of the property.” The site is to be developed from setback to setback on all sides of the property, and over the property line on portions of the east and south property lines. A proposed retaining wall to the south of the covered parking and the wall to the east of the parking area are taller than allowed in a setback. The retaining wall measures 3 feet 6 inches tall and the wall running north/south measures 10 feet 4 inches tall, these proposed walls are new and are not part of the existing non-conforming development in the setback. This results in an increase in the non-conforming development on site and is prohibited by the Land Use Code. A dimensional variance would need to be approved to allow them to be constructed as proposed, or the design needs to be revised. Except for a tree on the northwest corner of the property, there is no open space, landscaping, green space, or on-site amenities provided at grade. Development that extends beyond the property line and is within the setback creates negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The renovations required to maintain the building are extensive, and significant measures are being taken to maintain the existing structure. The revised application proposes to demolish all of the existing structure with the exception of the foundation and to bump out the upper level wall in order to increase the net livable of the affordable units to improve the ratio of net livable above grade. Significant effort is being put into maintaining the non-conforming location of the building and the heightened reconstruction effort, compared to a remodel, will have significant construction impacts on the neighborhood. Requiring the development to comply with the setback requirements would not prohibit reasonable use of the property or eliminate the ability to meet the 100% Multi-family replacement requirement which would provide the applicant the same development rights. Redevelopment of the parcel could allow for a development pattern that meets the code, inclusive of setbacks, that would be more appropriate for the neighborhood. B. Affordable Housing Unit Design Standards Special Review is required for the affordable housing unit design standards because units A-7 and A-8’s finished floor levels are 100% below grade as measured by the land use code. The code requires that 50% of the finished floor be above finished or natural grade, whichever is higher. Interpolated (Historic) grade is used as natural grade and is above the finished floor of these two units. The applicant has revised the design so that units A-1 thru A-6 have a net livable ratio of at least 50% above grade. The application has improved as it relates to the ratio of net livable above and below grade, but since two of the eight units don’t comply, Special Review is required. P13 VI.A. 331-338 Midland Ave – Redevelopment Application January 22, 2019 P&Z Page 8 of 12 The Special Review criteria for varying the percentage of finished floor area above grade includes: 1. Proposed unit’s compatibility with the neighborhood 2. The amount of the unit below grade as an appropriate response to site topography 3. If the proposed units exceed the expectations of the APCHA Guidelines and promote livability “by demonstrating compliance with as many of the following conditions as possible.” a. Significant Storage b. Above average natural light c. Net livable sizes exceed minimum requirement d. Unit amenities (i.e. Outdoor space or private patios) The neighborhood consists of many multi-family units, and the units are compatible with the neighborhood, meeting criterion 1, above. The proposed development that surrounds the existing structure increases the degree to which the units are below grade. The units are currently partially below grade but under the current design proposal the lower level would be entirely below grade on the north side of the structure, with the only exception being code required egress window wells. While the applicant has requested, and Engineering has granted, the establishment of interpolated (natural) grade, the amount of below grade space is not a response to site topography and is instead a result of the new development proposed on site. The four units on the south side of the structure will have the same below grade condition, the four units on the north side of the building will increase the amount of each unit that is below finished grade as a result of the new development on site. Staff does not find that criterion 2, above, is met. The code also allows for variations to the ratio standard when additional site amenities are provided for the affordable units, as outlined in criterion 3, above. Staff has concerns related to this livability standard. Specifically, the proposal reduces the amount of natural light provided to the units due to shading from the new structure, the net livable sizes are below minimum requirements for 6 of the 8 units, and the proposal lacks general amenities. The roof overhang of the existing structure would further contribute to the shading of the affordable housing units. In response to the limited natural light, the applicant added 5 light tubes per unit to help increase the amount of natural light in the lower level of each affordable unit, and two skylights per unit to increase the amount of natural light for the upper level. The existing undeveloped lot area is reduced due to new structure. No outdoor living space or open space is provided except for circulation corridors. The applicant agreed at the APCHA Board hearing to add exterior storage for the affordable housing units. The applicant added storage above each parking space in the covered parking. The 5 spaces on the south side of the parking area have overhead storage cubbies that measure 24 inches tall and approximately 9 feet deep. The 3 units to the north measure approximately 24 inches tall and 17 feet deep. This leave approximately 7 feet 6 inches of clearance for the parking spaces. The amount of storage provided is not a significant amount and is not easily accessible. Staff has concerns about the quality and functionality of the storage units provided, see Figure 1 below for proposed storage (dimensions shown are approximate). It is important to note that the APCHA Board reviewed the proposal, and approved reductions to unit sizes and recommended in favor of the project. P14 VI.A. 331-338 Midland Ave – Redevelopment Application January 22, 2019 P&Z Page 9 of 12 C. Growth Management Reviews The application is subject to Growth Management reviews for the development of affordable housing. The Growth Management section outlines the number of units that need to be provided, affordable housing unit design standards, and whether the units are for sale or for rent. The application complies with the number of affordable housing units required by the demolition of the multifamily units. Special review is required because the units don’t meet the design requirements because two of the units are more than 50% below grade, as measured by the amount of finished floor above natural grade. This is discussed in more detail in the Special Review section above. The GMQS Affordable housing section requires that the units be deed restricted as for sale units. APCHA has expressed an interest in providing five units as rental units and considering the APCHA Board recommendation, Staff is supportive of providing five (5) units as rental units to be purchased by APCHA or another qualified organization. Staff is also supportive of allowing the three current residents to purchase the units as RO Deed Restricted units and maintain residency in those units, as long as they meet the APCHA residency requirements. D. Dimensional Variance During staff’s review of the revised application submitted after the original hearing for this application, it was noted by staff that four of the eight parking spaces in the carport are within the south setback, creating a 0’ setback for cars along a shared property line. In order to allow parking in a setback, the Planning and Zoning Commission needs to approve a dimensional variance for this aspect of the site plan. E. Parking and Transportation The application is required to comply with the parking and transportation requirements of the land use code. The development is subject to a minor Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) that evaluates the transportation demands of the proposed development and the alternative transportation methods or improvements offered. The TIA requirements have been discussed further since the original hearing. The applicant has presented alternatives to the Engineering Department that will comply with TIA requirements. The TIA report shows credit for an increased sidewalk buffer and increased sidewalk width, but a revised site plan was not included to verify both can be increased above the Engineering Standards. The Engineering Department communicated to the applicant that they can reconcile this at building permit. If there is not sufficient room to accommodate increases in the sidewalk width and buffer, bike parking is still an option for this site. The Engineering Department is willing to include satisfying the TIA requirements as a condition of approval to be reviewed and confirmed at building permit. N Figure 4: Storage Lockers P15 VI.A. 331-338 Midland Ave – Redevelopment Application January 22, 2019 P&Z Page 10 of 12 The proposal requires a total of 26 parking spaces, of which, only 60% are required by the code to be provided as on-site parking. Up to 40% can be provided via cash-in-lieu. The application proposes to provide onsite parking for approximately 65% of the parking requirement, and cash in-lieu for the remainder, which meets the parking requirements. Except for the location, the proposed parking spaces appear to comply with the dimensional requirements of a parking space in the land use code. This will be confirmed at building permit. F. Residential Design Standards The application meets the Multi-Family Residential Design Standards (RDS) requirements. The RDS approval qualifies for administrative review but is included in a combined review to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission for efficiency. Details on the specific requirements and how they’re satisfied are included in Exhibit G. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff’s main concerns include the following: 1. Replacement of nonconforming structures Given the significant redevelopment of the site, a design that complies with the requirement of the code should be required. The existing development that is to remain is over the property line and within the setback and that has a negative impact on the neighborhood. In addition to the existing development in the setback, there is new development proposed in the setback, both structure and parking, that doesn’t comply with the requirements of the code. The existing building’s encroachment in the setback and over the property line burdens the neighboring properties. The proposed parking and site walls in the setback don’t comply with the dimensional requirements of the Land Use Code for this zone district and would further exacerbate impacts on neighboring properties. As proposed, the amount of development on site can’t accommodate required elements of the development such as parking within setbacks, and the burden is being placed on neighboring properties with the lack of any buffer. If the applicant were required to comply with the requirements of the code, reasonable use of the property could still be achieved, and there would be less negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Staff recommends denial of the Special Review for the Replacement of a non-conforming structure. 2. Dimensional Variance The proposal requires Special Review approval for the replacement of the non-conforming structure after demolition. The review criteria for the replacement of non-conforming structures includes a condition that all other dimensional requirements are met. Not only would the existing non-conforming structure continue to burden the neighboring property by not providing a buffer between the development, but additional development is proposed that would further increase the burden felt by neighboring properties. Staff recommends denial of the Dimensional Variance. 3. Affordable housing The units don’t meet the requirements of the code, and the code provides the ability to vary the requirements of the unit design standards if adequate site amenities are provided. Additional storage has been provided by overhead cubbies above the parking spaces in the covered parking area. The layout of the proposed storage raises concerns from staff of the quality and usability of the proposed storage. Light tubes and skylight have also been added which addresses the natural light concern. Although the applicant has increased storage and improved the amount of natural light, it is staffs position that P16 VI.A. 331-338 Midland Ave – Redevelopment Application January 22, 2019 P&Z Page 11 of 12 sufficient site amenities are not provided that meet the land use code standards. Staff recommends denial of the Special Review request to vary the Affordable Housing Design Standards. Staff is supportive of increasing the supply of affordable housing in the community; without changes the proposed development does not create beneficial outcomes for the affordable housing units and neighborhood. REFERRAL COMMENTS: The application was referred to the Parks, Environmental Health, Transportation, Sanitation, Building, Engineering, and Zoning departments for review. Initial concerns for the land use application were communicated to the applicant and most have been addressed sufficiently and will be confirmed during the building permit review. The only remaining item from the referral’s review is the TIA clarification on sidewalk width and buffer. This will be finalized prior to building permit issuance per Engineering. The APCHA Board reviewed the proposal in their September 19, 2018 regular meeting and recommended in favor of the project. The board expressed concerns related to the amount of amenities, specifically outdoor storage. Their full recommendation is included as Exhibit B. RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission required additional changes to meet the standards of the code. Staff believes that the application does not satisfy the review criteria on a number of key requirements. Staff recommends ensuring that affordable housing units meets the design standard of the 50% above grade requirement or provide amenities to offset the grade standard, such as quality and functional storage or outdoor living spaces. Staff also recommends the project meet city standards, including setbacks, and that non-conformities not be memorialized. PROPOSED MOTION (WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): The draft Resolution is written in approval of the reviews requested by the applicant. Staff recommends denial of the application. If the Planning and Zoning Commission wishes to approve the request, the following motion can be used: “I move to approve Resolution No.___, Series of 2018 to approve the Growth Managements, Special Review, Transportation and Parking, and Residential Design Standard review for the development proposal at 331-338 Midland Ave. as shown in Exhibit A.” Attachments: Exhibit A – Aspen Hills Proposed Development Plan Set Exhibit B – APCHA Board Referral Memo Exhibit C – GMQS Affordable Housing Review Criteria Exhibit D – GMQS General Review Criteria Exhibit E – GMQS Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi-Family Review Criteria Exhibit F – Special Review - Review Criteria Exhibit G – Residential Design Standards Review Criteria Exhibit H – Review Criteria Transportation and Parking Review Criteria Exhibit I – Application Exhibit J – DRC Round 1 Combined Comments Exhibit K – DRC Round 2 Combined Comments Exhibit L – Approved Interpolated Grade Survey P17 VI.A. 331-338 Midland Ave – Redevelopment Application January 22, 2019 P&Z Page 12 of 12 Exhibit M – Public Comment P18 VI.A. 331-338 Midland Ave Aspen Hills Development Resolution No. ___, Series 2019 Page 1 of 11 RESOLUTION NO. ___ (SERIES OF 2019) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN APPROVING GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS FOR DEMOLITION AND REDEVELOPMENT OF MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SPECIAL REVIEW, DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE, AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS CONDOMINIUM UNITS A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7 AND A-8, ASPEN HILLS, A CONDOMINIUM, ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF RECORDED JULY 15, 1969 IN PLAT BOOK 4 AT PAGE 8 AS RECEPTION NO. 136131 AND AS DEFINED AND DESCRIBED IN THE CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION FOR ASPEN HILLS, A CONDOMINIUM, RECORDED JULY 2, 1969 IN BOOK 241 AT PAGE 877 AS RECEPTION NO. 136011 AND FIRST AMENDMENT THERETO RECORDED SEPTEMBER 5, 1969 IN BOOK 243 AT PAGE 83 AS RECEPTION NO. 136864, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO AND COMMONLY KNOWN AS 331-338 MIDLAND AVENUE. PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: 2737-074-05-001 THROUGH 2737-074-05-008 AND 2737-074-05-801 WHEREAS, Mr. William Boehringer, CEO, Aspen Hills Investors, LLC, on behalf of the Aspen Hills Condominium Association, submitted an application for Growth Management Reviews for – Affordable Housing, Demolition and Redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing, Special Review, Dimensional Variance, and Residential Design Standards Approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission for the redevelopment of a mix of affordable housing and free market residential units at 331-338 Midland Avenue; and, WHEREAS, the property is located in the Multifamily Residential (RMF) zone district; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Transportation Department, Parking Department, Environmental Health and Parks Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting on July 25, 2018, and a second DRC meeting was held on August 22, 2018 to review a revised application; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority’s Board of Directors considered the application at their scheduled meeting on September 19, 2018 and provided a recommendation of approval; and, WHEREAS, the applicant was required to perform enhanced noticing and did so at a neighborhood outreach meeting on December 3rd, 2018; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the request and has provided a recommendation to deny the request; and, P19 VI.A. 331-338 Midland Ave Aspen Hills Development Resolution No. ___, Series 2019 Page 2 of 11 WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on December 4, 2018 and continued to the public hearing to January 22, 2019; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on January 22, 2019; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets the applicable review criteria and that the approval of the requests is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approves Resolution XX, Series of 2019, by a X to X (X - X) vote, granting approval of Growth Management, Special Review, a Dimensional Variance, and Residential Design Standards as identified herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: General Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the following requests, as represented in the application presented before the Commission: A. Growth Management Quota System approvals for the development of Affordable Housing, the Demolition and Replacement of Multi-Family Housing and the General Standards within the chapter. 26.470.050 - General requirements 26.470.100.D - Affordable Housing 26.470.100.E – Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing More specifically, this resolution approves the development of 14 units (8 deed- restricted affordable housing units and 6 free market units), as further detailed in this Resolution. P20 VI.A. 331-338 Midland Ave Aspen Hills Development Resolution No. ___, Series 2019 Page 3 of 11 B. Special Review for the replacement of a non-conforming structure and design of the affordable housing. 26.430.030.B - Replacement of Non-Conforming Structures 26.430.040.I – Affordable Housing Unit Standards C. Dimensional Variance for the four parking spaces in the south setback. 26.314.040 – Standards Applicable to Variances D. Residential Design Standards 26.410.040 – Multi-Family Residential Design Standards Section 2: Effectiveness of previous approvals; existing vested rights for Aspen Hills Condominiums All previous approvals for Aspen Hills Condominiums, including without limitation Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution No. 5, Series of 2017, remain in effect and are valid until the Development Agreements required by this Resolution are recorded in the real estate records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder (the County Records). In addition, any existing vested property rights for the Aspen Hills Condominiums, shall remain in effect until Development Agreements required by this Resolution are recorded in the County Records. Upon recordation in the County Records of the Development Agreements, all previous approvals related to the Aspen Hills Condominium shall all be superseded, replaced and released by this Resolution X, Series of 2019. Section 3: Affordable Housing: A. All units may be for sale or rent, per APCHA recommendation, and are approved as R.O. All purchases or renters shall meet APCHA Guidelines. The following dimensions for the affordable housing units are approved: Unit Bedrooms Minimum Net Livable (Sq. Ft.) 331 (A-1) 1 844 332 (A-2) 2 843 333 (A-3) 2 841 334 (A-4) 2 840 335 (A-5) 2 841 336 (A-6) 1 840 337 (A-7) 2 856 338 (A-8) 2 849 Total -- 6,754 P21 VI.A. 331-338 Midland Ave Aspen Hills Development Resolution No. ___, Series 2019 Page 4 of 11 The development will be required to comply with the affordable housing unit sizes as outlined above, no reduction in the affordable housing unit size will be allowed. B. The applicant and APCHA have reached a tentative agreement to provide 5 units (Units A-3, A-5, A-6, A-7, and A-8) as Category 5 rental units if the following conditions are met: 1. The applicant shall provide APCHA with a binding Purchase Option and First Right of Refusal, for APCHA (or its designated assignee(s), at APCHA’s discretion) to purchase any of such Rental Units. 2. Exercising such option for any rental unit must occur by March 30, 2019 and closing to occur within 30 days upon the applicant’s completion of the building upgrades and APCHA’s satisfaction of all improvements and recorded deed restriction. 3. Not all Rental Units must be purchased by the parties designated by APCHA; if contracted to be purchased separately, the five units may be contracted for purchase in the following sequence: A-8, A-6, A-5, A-3 then unit A-7. 4. The Purchase Option Pricing for an employer, including APCHA, shall be $580,000 for each Category 5 Rental unit. If an agreement to purchase is not completed by March 30, 2019 then this subsection B becomes null and void C. Other than the 3 units permitted to be sold to existing residents, if they meet APCHA Guidelines, any other affordable housing units that are for sale will be sold through APCHA per the Development Agreement between APCHA and the developer if not purchased by APCHA. D. Storage for the 8 existing units will need to be provided above each parking space in the carport. The minimum dimensions for each of the 8 storage units provided shall be: minimum 24” high, 8’ wide, and 9’ deep. The storage units are depicted in the Land Use application on file. E. A minimum of five (5) light tubes and two (2) skylights shall be provided for each of the affordable housing units. F. Regardless of who retains ownership of the affordable housing units, a development agreement shall be signed by APCHA and the developer within 180 days of the approval of this resolution. The development agreement shall include a complete list of renovations required to the existing structure, conditions of the deed restrictions, and conditions of approval for the building permit and subsequent receipt of a certificate of occupancy. No Certificates of Occupancy will be granted to any of the free market units without receiving Certificate of Occupancies for all affordable housing units. Section 4: Free Market Housing P22 VI.A. 331-338 Midland Ave Aspen Hills Development Resolution No. ___, Series 2019 Page 5 of 11 Six free-market units are approved with a total of 12,229 sq. ft. of net livable space, as defined in the Land Use Code. Minor adjustments to the individual unit sizes listed below to address building code requirements may be approved at building permit review if those meet the allowance in the underlying zone district. Free Market Residential Units: Unit Bedrooms Net Livable (Sq. Ft.) Unit 1 4 1,920 Unit 2 3 2,047 Unit 3 3 1,865 Unit 4 3 1,775 Unit 5 4 2,415 Unit 6 4 2,207 Section 5: Special Review – Replacement of non-conforming structures This approval grants Special Review to allow the redevelopment of the existing 8-unit multi-family structure in the same footprint, maintaining existing non-conformities. New non-conformities are not approved. A. Approval of this resolution allows for the 0’ setback lines around the southern and easterly portions of the existing structure. The applicant will be required to obtain easements for the portions of the structure that exist beyond the property line from adjacent property owners prior to permit submittal. The easement shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder prior to building permit submittal. The approved setbacks are identified in the following table: Setbacks Approved Resolution #___, Series 2019 Front (West) 5 feet Side (North/South) 5 feet Rear (East) 5 feet East Setback around existing structure 0 feet South Setback around existing structure 0 feet B. Special Review approval for variations to the affordable housing unit standard is granted. The applicant is granted a variation from the percentage of above grade finished floor required. The APCHA Board recommended approval of the Special Review request for P23 VI.A. 331-338 Midland Ave Aspen Hills Development Resolution No. ___, Series 2019 Page 6 of 11 the amount of each unit that exists below grade. The approved unit configuration is shown below: Unit Minimum Total Unit Size – Net Livable (Sq. Ft.) Maximum Below Grade Net Livable (Sq. Ft.) Maximum Percent of Unit Below Natural Grade 331 (A-1) 844 415 49.2% 332 (A-2) 843 415 49.2% 333 (A-3) 841 420 49.9% 334 (A-4) 840 420 50% 335 (A-5) 841 420 49.9% 336 (A-6) 840 420 50% 337 (A-7) 856 856 100% 338 (A-8) 849 849 100% Section 6: Residential Design Standards Approval of Residential Design Standards (Section 26.410.040), is granted as a combined review as part of this resolution. The application complies with all requirements of the Residential Design Standards for Multi-Family development. This resolution grants approval of the project under Residential Design Standards, limited to the project as presented. Section 7: Dimensional Variance Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the request of a dimensional variance to allow for four (4) standard parking spaces, located in the carport, to exist in the south setback. Section 8: Approval Documents Two development agreements are required by this approval. A. A Development Agreement per APCHA requirements as outlined in Section 3 shall be signed and recorded prior to the submission of any Building Permit. This development agreement will address conditions of the rehabilitation of the existing building and conditions of approval as discussed at the APCHA and Applicant Meeting and Tentative Agreement on September 11, 2018, and APCHA Board Recommendation of approval at the regularly scheduled meeting on September 19, 2018. P24 VI.A. 331-338 Midland Ave Aspen Hills Development Resolution No. ___, Series 2019 Page 7 of 11 B. The record owner shall submit a Development Agreement to the City meeting the requirements of Section 26.490.050, Development Agreement, within 180 days of this approval. The development agreement shall be reviewed to ensure each item and condition of the approval is documented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, the City Engineer, and the City Attorney prior to recordation. No building permit submission for the development of the lot shall be permitted until the Development Agreement recordation has occurred. The Development Agreement shall set forth a description of the proposed improvements and obligations of the parties. Section 9: Building Permit Application The building permit application shall be compliant with all other standards and requirements of the City of Aspen Municipal Code and all other adopted regulations. The building permit application shall include the following: 1. Signed Development Agreement between APCHA and the developer. 2. Signed Development Agreement between the City and the developer. 3. Easements for encroachments of the existing structure beyond property line on southern and easterly property boundaries to be recorded by the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. 4. All required documents and drawings, as determined by the City of Aspen staff, must be provided prior to the acceptance of the building permit for review. 5. Five light tubes and two skylights shall be shown for each of the eight existing units. 6. Overhead storage above each of the parking spaces in the carport shall be provided for each affordable housing unit. The minimum dimensions of each storage unit shall be: 24” in height, 9’ in length, and 8’ wide. Any and all building permits that are under review for the scope of work approved via Resolution No. 5, Series of 2017 will need to be cancelled and withdrawn. The withdrawn permits are not subject to a full refund of fees paid, the building department will retain applicable fees, including but not limited to, review fees for reviews completed. Section 10: Building Code Compliance: The building permit application will be required to comply with Ordinance 40, Series of 2016 and Colorado Revised Statues 9-5-101, as well as any applicable building codes in place at the time of permit submission. Section 11: Zoning Unless otherwise varied by the Planning and Zoning Commission, this approval does not exempt the project from compliance with applicable zoning regulations of the City of Aspen’s Land Use Code, including, but not limited to Section 26.575.020, Calculations and Measurements. P25 VI.A. 331-338 Midland Ave Aspen Hills Development Resolution No. ___, Series 2019 Page 8 of 11 Section 12: Parking The development requires a minimum of 26 parking spaces. The proposal includes 17 onsite parking spaces, and cash-in-lieu mitigation for the remaining 9 required spaces. 8 spaces will be provided in a covered carport, 9 spaces will be provided in an enclosed garage structure. Each affordable housing units shall be assigned one (1) space. Three of the 17 spaces are unassigned and to be provided as guest parking spaces with access from all residents on the property, including the affordable housing units. Four parking spaces are permitted within the south setback. All other aspects of the parking spaces will be required to comply with all other requirements of section 26.515.070 – Transportation and Parking Management Requirements. The parking areas are required to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. The cash-in-lieu fee required for mitigation of 9 spaces shall be calculated and subject to the rate schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. Section 13: Transportation The approved project is required to mitigate 5.5 total trips. The applicant and Engineering Department have discussed increasing the width of the sidewalk and/or buffer to satisfy the TIA requirements. The applicant will need to demonstrate both the sidewalk and buffer can be wider than the Engineering Design Standards require. If both the sidewalk and buffer cannot be wider than the minimum, additional TIA credits will be required. Final TIA mitigation methodology will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department and Transportation Department prior to issuance of a building permit. Section 14: Engineering A. The Applicant’s design shall be compliant with all sections of the Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. B. The project shall meet the Urban Runoff Management Plan Requirements. C. A major drainage report that meets URMP and Engineering Design Standards is required with building permit submittal. D. A detached sidewalk is required in the Midland Ave. right-of-way. Section 15: Environmental Health The project shall meet Aspen Municipal Code Section 12.06 Waste Reduction. Section 16: Parks A. Tree permit: The tree permit shall be submitted for approval prior to building permit submittal. Said permit shall outline protection of existing trees, drip line excavations and mitigation for any removals as referenced in Chapter 13.20 of the City Municipal Code. Fee-in-Lieu mitigation will be owed for approved tree removals. The applicant will be P26 VI.A. 331-338 Midland Ave Aspen Hills Development Resolution No. ___, Series 2019 Page 9 of 11 required to preserve the cottonwood tree in the NW corner of the property. A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees on site and their represented drip lines, as determined by the Parks Department. Air spading will be required around all trees on site or in the immediate vicinity on adjacent properties. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Section 13.20. B. The landscape plan will be reviewed by the City Forester and species and spacing will be determined for sustainability and long-term health of the tree, as well as their contribution to the community forest. Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW requirements, Chapter 21.20. There shall be no plantings within the City ROW which are not approved first by the City Parks Department. Final plans shall show compliance with these requirements. C. The project, including all vegetation and the green roof, is subject to the Water Efficient Landscape requirements. The applicant will be required to meet with the Parks Department to review the proposed design prior to the submission of a building permit. Section 17: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. Section 18: Fire Department All structures, regardless of size, shall have installed approved life safety systems (i.e. fire sprinklers and fire alarms), and meet adopted city standards. Section 19: Utilities Department Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards and with Title 25 of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Section 20: School Lands Dedication Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.620, School Lands Dedication, the Applicant shall pay a fee-in-lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance for the excavation/stabilization permit. The City of Aspen Community Development Department shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. Section 21: Impact Fees Pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.610, Impact Fees, the Applicant shall pay a Parks Development impact fee and Transportation Demand Management (TDM)/Air Quality impact fee assessed at the time of building permit submittal and paid at building permit issuance. The P27 VI.A. 331-338 Midland Ave Aspen Hills Development Resolution No. ___, Series 2019 Page 10 of 11 amount shall be calculated using the methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. Section 22: Vested Rights The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a vested property right attaching to and running with the lot each for a period of three (3) years. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property right. The vested rights granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. The period of time permitted by law to exercise the right of referendum to refer to the electorate this Section of this resolution granting vested rights; or, to seek judicial review of the grant of vested rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as set forth above. The rights of referendum described herein shall be no greater than those set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Section 23: 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. Section 24: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 25: 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 22nd day of January, 2019. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Planning and Zoning Commission _______________________________ ______________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Spencer McKnight, Chair ATTEST: P28 VI.A. 331-338 Midland Ave Aspen Hills Development Resolution No. ___, Series 2019 Page 11 of 11 _______________________________ Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager Exhibit A: Approved Plans Exhibit B: Approved Interpolated Grade Survey Exhibit C: Dimensional Table P29 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED TITLE SHEET 1.1 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I ASPEN HILLS PHASE II P30VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED GENERAL INFORMATION 1.2 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I 1. The Contract Documents include: (1) general notes; (2) architectural, mechanical, and structural drawings. All additional specifications, details, drawings, clarifications, or changes shall automatically become part of the Contract Documents. Any discrepancy between any components of any of the drawings shall be reported to the Architect immediately for clarification. 2. Alius Design Corps, LLC, shall not be liable in any way for problems which arise from failure, by any third party or any party to this Contract, to follow the design plans. The Contractor shall obtain and/or request guidance of Alius Design Corp., with respect to any errors, omissions, inconsistencies, or conflicts or unclear information which may be discovered or alleged. 3. The Plans and Specifications are the intellectual and other property of the Architect and shall not beused without the permission of same. 4. All work shall comply with all state and local codes, ordinances, rules, regulations and laws of building officials or authorities having jurisdiction. All work shall be performed to the highest standards or craftsmanship by all tradesman. Alius Design Corps, LLC., shall not be responsible for overseeing third party work, nor shall Alius Design Corps, LLC., be liable for any errors or omissions of third parties who perform work on the Project. 5. The Contract Documents represent the finished structure. They do not indicate the method of construction. The Contractor shall provide all measures necessary to protect the structure during construction. Observation visits to the site by the Structural Engineer or Architect shall not include inspection of the ____________, nor will the architect or structural engineer be responsible for the contractor's means, methods, techniques, sequences for procedure of construction, or the safety precautions and the techniques, sequences for procedure of construction, or any safety precautions. The Contractor and not the Architect shall be responsible for all Federal and OSHA regulations. 6. THE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE SCALED. Written dimensions must be used. In the event of a discrepancy in dimensions, the Architect should be timely notified for clarification. All dimensions on the drawings shall be verified against the existing conditions. All dimensions are to rough framing or face of concrete unless noted otherwise. 7. The Construction Documents are intended to include all labor, materials, equipment, and services required to complete all work described herein. It is the responsibility of the Contractor to bring to the attention of the Architect any conditions which will not permit construction according to these Construction Documents. 8. The Building Inspector shall be notified by the Contractor if there is need of an inspection as required by the I.R.C., or by any local code or ordinance. 9. LOT STAKED: The Contractor shall arrange for the building to be located and staked after demolition or site clearing, to be approved by the Architect. The Contractor shall review the lot staking and verify, to the best of his ability, its accuracy. The Contractor shall also check the grade where it meets the building to evaluate the consistency with the drawings during excavation. All work to be done by a certified surveyor. 10. RECORD DRAWINGS: Contractor shall maintain a complete set of blue/black-line prints of contract drawings and shop drawings for record mark-up purposes throughout the Contract time. Mark-up drawings during course of the work shall show changes and actual installation conditions, sufficient to form a complete record for Owner's purposes. 11. SOILS AND CONCRETE: The General Contractor shall arrange for a visual site inspection at the completion of excavation by a soils engineer, and the required concrete testing prior to any foundation work. 12. Property lines, utilities and topography shown is representative of information taken from a survey. Contractor shall notify Architect of any discrepancy or variation between the Drawings and actual site conditions. ABREVIATIONS A.F.F. ABOVE FINISH FLOOR ADJ. ADJUSTABLE ALT. ALTERNATE A.B. ANCHOR BOLTS & AND ARCH. ARCHITECTURAL @ AT BM. BEAM BM. PKT. BEAM POCKET BRG. BEARING BLK’G. BLOCKING BOT. BOTTOM BLDG. BUILDING B.O. BY OWNER CLG. CEILING CL. CENTER LINE CLR. CLEAR COL. COLUMN CONC. CONCRETE CONN. CONNECTION CONT. CONTINUOUS DTL. DETAILS DWL. DOWEL E.W. EACH WAY ELEV. ELEVATION EXISTG EXISTING EXT. EXTERIOR FLR. FLOOR FTG. FOOTING FND. FOUNDATION GA. GAUGE G.L. GLU-LAM G.W.B. GYPSUM WALL BOARD HORIZ. HORIZONTAL INFO. INFORMATION INSUL. INSULATION JST. JOIST N.I.C. NOT IN CONTRACT O.C. ON CENTER OPP. OPPOSITE PERF. PERFORATED PL. PLATE PLY. PLYWOOD PROP. LINE PROPERTY LINE REINF. REINFORCEMENT REQ. REQUIRED REV. REVISED SIM. SIMILAR S.F. SQUARE FEET STD. STANDARD THK. THICK T.P. TOP OF PLATE T.L. TOP OF LEDGE T.W. TOP OF WALL TOT. TOTAL TYP. TYPICAL U.N.O. UNLESS NOTED UTHERWISE V.I.F. VERIFY IN FIELD 033 LBB CLIENT WEB Capital LLC WilliamB@WEBCapLLC.com ARCHITECT Alius Design Corps, LLC 1331 East Sopris Creek Rd. Basalt, CO 81611 719.331.9211 michaeltedinger@gmail.com STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SKPE 298 Park Ave #301 Basalt, CO 81621 970.927.9510 skpe@sopris.net LAND USE/PLANNING BendonAdams 300 So. Spring St. #202 Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925.2855 chris@bendonadams.com PROJECT INFORMATION PRESIDING CODE .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2015 IBC TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1VB FULLY SPRINKLERED; NFPA 13 LOT SIZE .............................................................................................................................................................................. 15,000 +/- sq.ft. LOCAL ZONING .................................................................................................................................................................................... R/MF OCCUPANCY ................................................................................................................................................................... R-2 RESIDENTIAL PARCEL ID ............................................................................................................................................................................. 273718216101 GENERAL RENOVATION NOTES 1.0 All existing conditions must be verified by the contractor in the field. Unknown and varied conditions may be found. Notify the structural engineer and/or architect of any structural or architectural conditions found to vary from that indicated from the drawings. Design revisions may be required, and are to be expected as a process of remodel work. 2.0 All new work, details, surfaces, or finishes shall match adjacent existing surfaces unless noted or directed otherwise by the owner or interior designer. Contractor to verify with architect any conflict between existing and new conditions. 3.0 All electrical modifications and/or additions to be as directed by owner/lighting designer during construction. Contractor/lighting designer to verify electrical capacity and review new designs or alterations with architect, prior to implementation. 4.0 All interior electrical fixtures, plumbing fixtures and trim, cabinet design, and other finishes to be at the directive of the owner or interior designer unless noted otherwise in the drawings. Contractor to provide all necessary prep work for installation of any materials as required. 5.0 Structural engineering – if any modifications to the existing structural system are deemed necessary beyond these shown in the drawings, all existing conditions are to be verified in the field by a registered structural engineer before proceeding. The architect will not be responsible for any structural modifications not verified or approved by a structural engineer. 6.0 Contractor will verify and coordinate all openings through floors, ceilings, and walls with all architectural, structural, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical design and construction. CLIENT WEB Capital LLC WilliamB@WEBCapLLC.com ARCHITECT Alius Design Corps, LLC 1331 East Sopris Creek Rd. Basalt, CO 81611 719.331.9211 michaeltedinger@gmail.com STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SKPE 298 Park Ave #301 Basalt, CO 81621 970.927.9510 skpe@sopris.net LAND USE/PLANNING BendonAdams 300 So. Spring St. #202 Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925.2855 chris@bendonadams.com 5.1A PROJECT LOCATION ASPEN HILLS PHASE II REFERENCE GRID LINE SPOT ELEVATION WINDOW MARK DOOR MARK ROOM NUMBER DRAWING REVISION ASSEMBLY DETAIL CUT SECTION CUT EXTERIOR ELEVATION DETAIL CALLOUT INTERIOR ELEVATION ROOM 100 F11 1 T. O. RIDGE BEAM 123'-6 1/2" 4.4 1 1 7.1 8.1 1 2 3 4 VICINITY MAP SYMBOL & MATERIAL LEGEND PROJECT INFORMATION DRAWING INDEX PROJECT DIRECTORY CONSTRUCTION NOTES ABBREVIATIONS PHASE II PLANNING SUBMISSION 11/24/2018GENERAL NOTES 8 P31VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DEMOLITION CALCULATIONS 1.3 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I Demolition Calculations Roof Label Individual Roof Area in Plan (sq.ft.)Roof Slope Adjustment Factor Actual Area of Roof Used for Demo Calc (sq.ft.)Area of Roof to be Removed 1 2504 1:12 1.02 2554.08 2554.08 2 2504 1:12 1.02 2554.08 2554.08 Roof Surface Total (sq.ft.)5008.00 5108.16 5108.16 Roof + Wall Area Used for Demo Calculation (sq.ft.)9818 Surface Area to be Removed (sq. ft.)5192.16 Percentage of Surface Area to be Removed 52.88% Roof Demolition Demolition Totals 2,504 sq ft 2,504 sq ft EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE EXIST. ROOF TO BE DEMOLISHED Demolition Calculations Wall Label Existing Wall Area (sq.ft.( Area Reduced for Fenestration (sq.ft.) 05 1729 42 06 157 0 07 110 42 08 569 0 09 1617 0 10 628 0 Total Wall Surface Total (sq.ft.)4810.00 Total Area of Wall to be Removed (sq.ft.)84.00 Roof + Wall Area Used for Demo Calculation (sq.ft.)9818 Surface Area to be Removed (sq. ft.)5192.16 Percentage of Surface Area to be Removed 52.88% Wall Demolition Demolition Totals 1,729 sq ft 628 sq ft 569 sq ft 11 sq ft 11 sq ft 11 sq ft 9 sq ft 157 sq ft 110 sq ft 1,617 sq ft 11 sq ft11 sq ft11 sq ft9 sq ft 20'-0"106'-8"20'-0"37'-10"20'-0"19'-3" 106'-8"20'-0"20'-0"14'-0"14'-0"19'-3"92'-8" WALL 008 WALL 009WALL 010 WALL 005 WALL 006 WALL 007 UNIT A-1 UNIT A-2 UNIT A-3 UNIT A-4 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-6 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-8 WALL 005 WALL 010 WALL 08WALL 006 WALL 007 WALL 009 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"1 ROOF AREA 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"2 WALL DEMO AREAP32 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 1.4 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 490 sq ft 24 sq ft 158 sq ft 24 sq ft 166 sq ft 118 sq ft 418 sq ft 105 sq ft 103 sq ft 296 sq ft 208 sq ft 151 sq ft 159 sq ft 973 sq ft UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"221 sq ft 18'-6 1/2"91'-3" 115'-0"45-6"80'-2"2'-9"19'-10"45'-6"10'-9 1/4"8'-8"8'-6"18'-6 1/2" 105'-6 1/2"10'-9 1/4"2'-9 1/4"115'-0"8'-8"80'-2"2'-9" 105'-6 1/2"8'-8"19'-2" 13'-7"8'-8"13'-7"8'-0"91'-3"8'-0"41'-10"10'-0"41'-10"10'-0"10'-6"10'-0"10'-4"10'-0"29'-7 1/2"10'-0"20'-10"10'-0"15'-1"19'-10" 10'-6"10'-4"29'-7 1/2"20'-10"15'-1" 200 sq ft 200 sq ft 730 sq ft WALL 002 WALL 001 WALL 008 WALL 009WALL 010WALL 011WALL 012WALL 013 WALL 014 WALL 015 WALL 016 LINE OF HISTORIC GRADE (LOWER) LINE OF FINISH GRADE (LOWER) LINE OF FINISH GRADE (LOWER) LINE OF EXIST. GRADE (LOWER) WALL 005 WALL 006 WALL 007 LINE OF FINISH GRADE (LOWER)LINE OF FINISH GRADE (LOWER) LINE OF FINISH GRADE (LOWER) LINE OF FINISH GRADE (LOWER)LINE OF FINISH GRADE (LOWER)LINE OF FINISH GRADE (LOWER)LINE OF FINISH GRADE (LOWER)LINE OF FINISH GRADE (LOWER)LINE OFHISTORIC GRADE (VARIES) UNIT A-4 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-8 UNIT A-1 UNIT A-6 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-2 UNIT A-3 SHARED GARAGE UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 1 UNIT 1 WALL 001 WALL 002 WALL 004 WALL CALCULATION LEGEND EXPOSED WALL AREA ABOVE GRADE BURIED WALL AREA BELOW GRADE BELOW GRADE FLOOR AREA COUNTABLE TOWARD F.A.R. ABOVE GRADE FLOOR AREA COUNTABLE TOWARD F.A.R. DECK AREA WALL 008 WALL 003 WALL 006WALL 005 WALL 007 WALL 009 WALL 010 WALL 011 WALL 012 WALL 013 WALL 014 WALL 015 WALL 016 COVERED PARKING UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP TRASH 844 sq ft 19'-2"3,917 sq ft 8,023 sq ft 695 sq ft24 sq ft 23 sq ft 121 sq ft 18 sq ft17 sq ft117 sq ft 256 sq ft18 sq ft 132 sq ft WALL 003WALL 004 LINE OF HISTORIC GRADE (VARIES) LINE OF HISTORIC GRADE (VARIES) LINE OF HISTORIC GRADE (VARIES) 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A Lower Level Wall Label Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft) 1 973.00 221.00 2 490.00 0.00 3 695.00 168.00 4 24.00 0.00 5 844.00 152.00 6 166.00 0.00 7 118.00 0.00 8 158.00 24.00 9 730.00 274.00 10 321.00 321.00 11 200.00 200.00 12 218.00 218.00 13 286.00 286.00 14 208.00 208.00 15 151.00 151.00 16 159.00 132.00 Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft)5,741.00 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)2355.00 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)41.02% Lower Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)11,940.00 Parking Exemption (Sq Ft)3,500.00 (14*250) Lower Level Gross Floor Area for FAR Calc (Sq Ft)8,440.00 Lower Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,460 (8,400*.41) Deck Calculations Total Proposed Floor Area Calcuations Unit Main Level Second Level Third Level Roof Level Total Garage Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,460 Unit 1 284 284 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)9,790 Unit 2 256 256 Second Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)4,299 Unit 3 271 271 Third Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,399 Unit 4 259 319 Roof Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)0 Unit 5 104 282 386 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)0 2270<2273 allowable Unit 6 181 181 Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)18,948 Exterior Stairs (Main Level)573 573 Allowable Floor Area (Sq Ft)18,949 Total Deck Remaining Floor Area Available (Sq Ft)1 2270 Proposed Lower Level Floor Area Calculations (New Building + Exist. Building) Floor Area Calculations Aspen Hills Proposed Lower Level Wall Calculations (All building walls) 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"1 GARAGE LEVEL FLOOR AREAP33 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 1.5 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 398 sq ft 9 sq ft 19 sq ft 9 sq ft 5 sq ft 23 sq ft 70 sq ft 22 sq ft UP 19 x 7 37/64" = 12'-0" UP 19 x 7 37/64" = 12'-0" UP 15 x 7 13/32" = 9'-3" UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0" UP 21 x 6 55/64" = 12'-0"UP 32 x 7 9/32" = 19'-5"EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE AREA OF STAIRS @ ON GRADE WALKWAY ATTRIBUTABLE TO DECK DECK ABOVE PARKING BELOW DN DN DN DN DN 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A 3,596 sq ft 6,194 sq ft 18 sq ft DN 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 16 x 7" = 9'-4" UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0" UP 24 x 7 25/64" = 14'-9 1/2"UP 23 x 7 13/64" = 13'-9 1/2"UP 19 x 7 15/64" = 11'-5 1/2"UP 15 x 7 13/32" = 9'-3" EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A 4,299 sq ft LINE OF ROOF BELOW LINE OF ROOF BELOW DNDNDNDNLower Level Wall Label Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft) 1 973.00 221.00 2 490.00 0.00 3 695.00 168.00 4 24.00 0.00 5 844.00 152.00 6 166.00 0.00 7 118.00 0.00 8 158.00 24.00 9 730.00 274.00 10 321.00 321.00 11 200.00 200.00 12 218.00 218.00 13 286.00 286.00 14 208.00 208.00 15 151.00 151.00 16 159.00 132.00 Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft)5,741.00 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)2355.00 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)41.02% Lower Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)11,940.00 Parking Exemption (Sq Ft)3,500.00 (14*250) Lower Level Gross Floor Area for FAR Calc (Sq Ft)8,440.00 Lower Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,460 (8,400*.41) Deck Calculations Total Proposed Floor Area Calcuations Unit Main Level Second Level Third Level Roof Level Total Garage Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,460 Unit 1 284 284 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)9,790 Unit 2 256 256 Second Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)4,299 Unit 3 271 271 Third Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,399 Unit 4 259 319 Roof Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)0 Unit 5 104 282 386 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)0 2270<2273 allowable Unit 6 181 181 Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)18,948 Exterior Stairs (Main Level)573 573 Allowable Floor Area (Sq Ft)18,949 Total Deck Remaining Floor Area Available (Sq Ft)1 2270 Proposed Lower Level Floor Area Calculations (New Building + Exist. Building) Floor Area Calculations Aspen Hills Proposed Lower Level Wall Calculations (All building walls) Lower Level Wall Label Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft) 1 973.00 221.00 2 490.00 0.00 3 695.00 168.00 4 24.00 0.00 5 844.00 152.00 6 166.00 0.00 7 118.00 0.00 8 158.00 24.00 9 730.00 274.00 10 321.00 321.00 11 200.00 200.00 12 218.00 218.00 13 286.00 286.00 14 208.00 208.00 15 151.00 151.00 16 159.00 132.00 Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft)5,741.00 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)2355.00 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)41.02% Lower Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)11,940.00 Parking Exemption (Sq Ft)3,500.00 (14*250) Lower Level Gross Floor Area for FAR Calc (Sq Ft)8,440.00 Lower Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,460 (8,400*.41) Deck Calculations Total Proposed Floor Area Calcuations Unit Main Level Second Level Third Level Roof Level Total Garage Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,460 Unit 1 284 284 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)9,790 Unit 2 256 256 Second Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)4,299 Unit 3 271 271 Third Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,399 Unit 4 259 319 Roof Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)0 Unit 5 104 282 386 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)0 2270<2273 allowable Unit 6 181 181 Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)18,948 Exterior Stairs (Main Level)573 573 Allowable Floor Area (Sq Ft)18,949 Total Deck Remaining Floor Area Available (Sq Ft)1 2270 Proposed Lower Level Floor Area Calculations (New Building + Exist. Building) Floor Area Calculations Aspen Hills Proposed Lower Level Wall Calculations (All building walls) 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"2 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"1 SECOND LEVEL FLOOR AREA P34VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 1.6 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 104 sq ft UP 18 x 7 7/64" = 10'-8"UP 15 x 7 19/64" = 9'-1 27/64" EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE LINE OF ROOF BELOW LINE OF STAIR TOWER WALL; SHOWN CUT ON ROOF PLAN PROPERTY LINESETBACK UNIT 3 ROOF DECK UNIT 4 ROOF DECK UNIT 5 UNIT 6 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A 1,399 sq ft 284 sq ft 256 sq ft LINE OF ROOF BELOW LINE OF ROOF BELOW STAIR TOWER TYP. SEE ROOF PLAN FOR DECK PERIMETER DOUBLE HEIGHT VOLUME FOR UNITS 3/4 UNIT 1 ROOF DECK DN DN 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 282 sq ft 271 sq ft 259 sq ft 181 sq ft PERIMETER OF ROOF LINE OF ROOF BELOW; SEE ROOF PLAN FOR HEIGHTS AS ROOF STEPS EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE STAIR TOWER; TYP. LINE OF ROOF BELOW PROPERTY LINESETBACK UNIT 3 ROOF DECK UNIT 4 ROOF DECK UNIT 5 ROOF DECK UNIT 6 ROOF DECK 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A DN DNDN Lower Level Wall Label Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft) 1 973.00 221.00 2 490.00 0.00 3 695.00 168.00 4 24.00 0.00 5 844.00 152.00 6 166.00 0.00 7 118.00 0.00 8 158.00 24.00 9 730.00 274.00 10 321.00 321.00 11 200.00 200.00 12 218.00 218.00 13 286.00 286.00 14 208.00 208.00 15 151.00 151.00 16 159.00 132.00 Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft)5,741.00 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)2355.00 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)41.02% Lower Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)11,940.00 Parking Exemption (Sq Ft)3,500.00 (14*250) Lower Level Gross Floor Area for FAR Calc (Sq Ft)8,440.00 Lower Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,460 (8,400*.41) Deck Calculations Total Proposed Floor Area Calcuations Unit Main Level Second Level Third Level Roof Level Total Garage Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,460 Unit 1 284 284 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)9,790 Unit 2 256 256 Second Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)4,299 Unit 3 271 271 Third Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,399 Unit 4 259 319 Roof Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)0 Unit 5 104 282 386 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)0 2270<2273 allowable Unit 6 181 181 Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)18,948 Exterior Stairs (Main Level)573 573 Allowable Floor Area (Sq Ft)18,949 Total Deck Remaining Floor Area Available (Sq Ft)1 2270 Proposed Lower Level Floor Area Calculations (New Building + Exist. Building) Floor Area Calculations Aspen Hills Proposed Lower Level Wall Calculations (All building walls) Lower Level Wall Label Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft) 1 973.00 221.00 2 490.00 0.00 3 695.00 168.00 4 24.00 0.00 5 844.00 152.00 6 166.00 0.00 7 118.00 0.00 8 158.00 24.00 9 730.00 274.00 10 321.00 321.00 11 200.00 200.00 12 218.00 218.00 13 286.00 286.00 14 208.00 208.00 15 151.00 151.00 16 159.00 132.00 Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft)5,741.00 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)2355.00 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)41.02% Lower Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)11,940.00 Parking Exemption (Sq Ft)3,500.00 (14*250) Lower Level Gross Floor Area for FAR Calc (Sq Ft)8,440.00 Lower Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,460 (8,400*.41) Deck Calculations Total Proposed Floor Area Calcuations Unit Main Level Second Level Third Level Roof Level Total Garage Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,460 Unit 1 284 284 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)9,790 Unit 2 256 256 Second Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)4,299 Unit 3 271 271 Third Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,399 Unit 4 259 319 Roof Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)0 Unit 5 104 282 386 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)0 2270<2273 allowable Unit 6 181 181 Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)18,948 Exterior Stairs (Main Level)573 573 Allowable Floor Area (Sq Ft)18,949 Total Deck Remaining Floor Area Available (Sq Ft)1 2270 Proposed Lower Level Floor Area Calculations (New Building + Exist. Building) Floor Area Calculations Aspen Hills Proposed Lower Level Wall Calculations (All building walls) 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"2 THIRD LEVEL FLOOR AREA 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"1 ROOF LEVEL FLOOR AREA P35VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NET LIVABLE CALCULATIONS 1.7 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV IUP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"415 sq ft UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"420 sq ft 420 sq ft 422 sq ft 415 sq ft 420 sq ft 420 sq ft 422 sq ft UNIT A-1 UNIT A-2 UNIT A-3 UNIT A-4 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-6 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-8 SHARED GARAGE UNIT 2 & 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 1 TRASH ROOM UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP 211 sq ft 200 sq ft197 sq ft200 sq ft 164 sq ft 193 sq ft 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A Total Above/Below Grade Percentage Garage Level Main Level Second Level Third Level Roof Level Net Livable A-1 415 429 0 0 0 844.00 50.83% A-2 415 428 0 0 0 843.00 50.77% A-3 420 421 0 0 0 841.00 50.06% A-4 420 420 0 0 0 840.00 50.00% A-5 420 421 0 0 0 841.00 50.06% A-6 420 420 0 0 0 840.00 50.00% A-7 422 434 0 0 0 856.00 50.70% A-8 422 427 0 0 0 849.00 50.29% 1 164 1756 0 0 0 1,920.00 N/A 2 193 949 905 0 0 2,047.00 N/A 3 200 866 799 0 0 1,865.00 N/A 4 197 823 755 0 0 1,775.00 N/A 5 200 766 766 683 0 2,415.00 N/A 6 211 662 662 672 0 2,207.00 N/A Total Proposed Net Livable Area (Sq Ft)18,983 Net Livable Calculations Aspen Hills Proposed Net Livable Area Unit Floor Level 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 LOWER/GARAGE LEVEL NET LIVABLEP36 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NET LIVABLE CALCULATIONS 1.8 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 16 x 7" = 9'-4" UP 19 x 7 37/64" = 12'-0" UP 19 x 7 37/64" = 12'-0" UP 15 x 7 13/32" = 9'-3" UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0" UP 21 x 6 55/64" = 12'-0"UP 32 x 7 9/32" = 19'-5"EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK DN DN DN DN DN 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A 866 sq ft 428 sq ft 420 sq ft 420 sq ft 428 sq ft 429 sq ft 421 sq ft 421 sq ft 434 sq ft 823 sq ft 766 sq ft 662 sq ft 949 sq ft 1,756 sq ft UNIT A-1 UNIT A-2 UNIT A-3 UNIT A-4 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-6 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-8 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 1 DN Total Above/Below Grade Percentage Garage Level Main Level Second Level Third Level Roof Level Net Livable A-1 415 429 0 0 0 844.00 50.83% A-2 415 428 0 0 0 843.00 50.77% A-3 420 421 0 0 0 841.00 50.06% A-4 420 420 0 0 0 840.00 50.00% A-5 420 421 0 0 0 841.00 50.06% A-6 420 420 0 0 0 840.00 50.00% A-7 422 434 0 0 0 856.00 50.70% A-8 422 427 0 0 0 849.00 50.29% 1 164 1756 0 0 0 1,920.00 N/A 2 193 949 905 0 0 2,047.00 N/A 3 200 866 799 0 0 1,865.00 N/A 4 197 823 755 0 0 1,775.00 N/A 5 200 766 766 683 0 2,415.00 N/A 6 211 662 662 672 0 2,207.00 N/A Total Proposed Net Livable Area (Sq Ft)18,983 Net Livable Calculations Aspen Hills Proposed Net Livable Area Unit Floor Level 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL NET LIVABLE AREAP37 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NET LIVABLE CALCULATIONS 1.9 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 16 x 7" = 9'-4" UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0" UP 24 x 7 25/64" = 14'-9 1/2"UP 23 x 7 13/64" = 13'-9 1/2"UP 19 x 7 15/64" = 11'-5 1/2"UP 15 x 7 13/32" = 9'-3" EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK 1 B B 2 3 5 C C D D E E 4 A A 799 sq ft 766 sq ft755 sq ft 662 sq ft 905 sq ft LINE OF ROOF BELOW LINE OF ROOF BELOW UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6DNDNDNDNTotalAbove/Below Grade Percentage Garage Level Main Level Second Level Third Level Roof Level Net Livable A-1 415 429 0 0 0 844.00 50.83% A-2 415 428 0 0 0 843.00 50.77% A-3 420 421 0 0 0 841.00 50.06% A-4 420 420 0 0 0 840.00 50.00% A-5 420 421 0 0 0 841.00 50.06% A-6 420 420 0 0 0 840.00 50.00% A-7 422 434 0 0 0 856.00 50.70% A-8 422 427 0 0 0 849.00 50.29% 1 164 1756 0 0 0 1,920.00 N/A 2 193 949 905 0 0 2,047.00 N/A 3 200 866 799 0 0 1,865.00 N/A 4 197 823 755 0 0 1,775.00 N/A 5 200 766 766 683 0 2,415.00 N/A 6 211 662 662 672 0 2,207.00 N/A Total Proposed Net Livable Area (Sq Ft)18,983 Net Livable Calculations Aspen Hills Proposed Net Livable Area Unit Floor Level 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 SECOND LEVEL NET LIVABLE AREAP38 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NET LIVABLE CALCULATIONS 1.10 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 16 x 7" = 9'-4" X 3'-4" by 7'-2"UP 18 x 7 7/64" = 10'-8"UP 15 x 7 19/64" = 9'-1 27/64" EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE LINE OF ROOF BELOW LINE OF STAIR TOWER WALL; SHOWN CUT ON ROOF PLAN PROPERTY LINESETBACK 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A 683 sq ft 672 sq ft LINE OF ROOF BELOW LINE OF ROOF BELOW STAIR TOWER TYP. SEE ROOF PLAN FOR DECK PERIMETER UNIT 5 UNIT 6 DN DN Total Above/Below Grade Percentage Garage Level Main Level Second Level Third Level Roof Level Net Livable A-1 415 429 0 0 0 844.00 50.83% A-2 415 428 0 0 0 843.00 50.77% A-3 420 421 0 0 0 841.00 50.06% A-4 420 420 0 0 0 840.00 50.00% A-5 420 421 0 0 0 841.00 50.06% A-6 420 420 0 0 0 840.00 50.00% A-7 422 434 0 0 0 856.00 50.70% A-8 422 427 0 0 0 849.00 50.29% 1 164 1756 0 0 0 1,920.00 N/A 2 193 949 905 0 0 2,047.00 N/A 3 200 866 799 0 0 1,865.00 N/A 4 197 823 755 0 0 1,775.00 N/A 5 200 766 766 683 0 2,415.00 N/A 6 211 662 662 672 0 2,207.00 N/A Total Proposed Net Livable Area (Sq Ft)18,983 Net Livable Calculations Aspen Hills Proposed Net Livable Area Unit Floor Level 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 THIRD LEVEL NET LIVABLE AREAP39 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SITE PLAN 2.1 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 16 x 7" = 9'-4" UP 19 x 7 37/64" = 12'-0" UP 19 x 7 37/64" = 12'-0" UP 15 x 7 13/32" = 9'-3" UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0" UP 21 x 6 55/64" = 12'-0"UP 32 x 7 9/32" = 19'-5"A5.1 A5.1 F5.4 E5.3 E5.3 14.3 98'-4" 99'-6" 99'-6"99'-6" 101'-0" 101'-6" 99'-0"98'-0" 96'-6" 94'-0"92'-6"J5.3 EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK 797079557956795879607962796479667968DN DN DN DN DN K5.5 B5.1 B5.1 C5.1C5.1 D5.2 D5.2 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A I5.3 I5.3 DN UP UP DN DN DN DN DN DN N 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 SITE PLAN MAIN SITE 7965.5 = ARCH 100'-0"P40VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED TIA PLAN 2.2 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV IUP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"1'-4"18'-0"22'-6 39/64"18'-0"8'-6"8'-6"6"12'-6" 12'-6"10"12'-8" 26'-0"1'-4"10'-3 1/2"10"9'-8 5/8"1'-4"19'-8 29/64"10"10"20'-4"1'-4"150 sq ft 8.5'X18' STANDARD GARAGE ENTRANCE 8.5'X18' STANDARD; ASSIGNABLE 8.5'X18' STANDARD; ASSIGNABLE 8.5'X18' STANDARD; ASSIGNABLE EXIST. MECH. VAULT SEE CIVIL FOR NEW CURB AND WALK DETAILS 8.5'X18' STANDARD PROPERTY LINESETBACK MIDLAND AVE. UNIT A-1 UNIT A-2 UNIT A-3 UNIT A-4 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-6 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-8 7 SHARED GARAGE UNIT 2 & 3 8 1 2 3 4 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 1 65 TRASH ROOM UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP ADDIT. STORAGE AREA A5.1 A5.1 F5.4 E5.3 E5.3 14.3 14.2 14.2 J5.3 K5.5 B5.1 B5.1 C5.1C5.1 D5.2 D5.2 14.1 1 B B 2 3 5 C C D D E E 4 A A I5.3 I5.3 #DrgID#LayID N 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 TIA PLAN SITE 7965.5 = ARCH 100'-0" PEDESTRIAN DIRECTNESS FACTOR = WALKING DISTANCE/CROW'S FLIGHT DISTANCE : 167/134 = 1.24 FACTOR P41VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED HEIGHT OVER TOPOGRAPHY 2.3 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 16 x 7" = 9'-4" A5.1 F5.4 E5.3 E5.3 14.3 J5.3 17'-4" 17'-4 1/2"19'-5"19'-5"15'-8" 17'-6"17'-11"16'-5"13'-0" LOCATION FOR PLUMBING STACK VENTS, RADON VENT, GENERAL MECH. VENTING LOCATION; CHILLER STAIR ENCLOSURE EXIST. ROOF BELOW TRANSPARENT GLASS GAURD RAIL LOW WATER GREEN ROOF LINE OF ROOF BELOW; SEE ROOF PLAN FOR HEIGHTS AS ROOF STEPS EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE ELEVATION POINT 002 ELEVATION POINT 001 ELEVATION POINT 003 ELEVATION POINT 004 ELEVATION POINT 005 ELEVATION POINT 006 ELEVATION POINT 007ELEVATION POINT 008ELEVATION POINT 009ELEVATION POINT 010 ELEVATION POINT 011 ELEVATION POINT 012 ELEVATION POINT 013 ELEVATION POINT 014 ELEVATION POINT 015ELEVATION POINT 016 ELEVATION POINT 017 ELEVATION POINT 020 ELEVATION POINT 018 ELEVATION POINT 019 PROPERTY LINESETBACK AC AC DN AC UNIT 3 ROOF DECK UNIT 4 ROOF DECK UNIT 5 ROOF DECK UNIT 6 ROOF DECK UNIT 2 ROOF DECK AC K5.5 B5.1 B5.1 C5.1C5.1 D5.2 1 B B 2 3 5 C C D D E E 4 A A I5.3 19'-9 11/32"15'-3"ELEVATION POINT 002 ELEVATION POINT 001 ELEVATION POINT 003 ELEVATION POINT 004 ELEVATION POINT 005 ELEVATION POINT 006 ELEVATION POINT 007ELEVATION POINT 008ELEVATION POINT 009ELEVATION POINT 010 ELEVATION POINT 011 ELEVATION POINT 012 ELEVATION POINT 013 ELEVATION POINT 014 ELEVATION POINT 015ELEVATION POINT 016 ELEVATION POINT 017 ELEVATION POINT 020 ELEVATION POINT 018 ELEVATION POINT 019 DN AC UNIT 1 ROOF DECK AC DN DN 797079557956795879607962796479667968DN UNIT 6 001 7958.750 7960.500 Proposed 7988.250 27.750 002 7964.000 7964.500 Natural 7991.500 27.500 003 7965.250 7965.500 Natural 7995.417 30.167 004 7969.750 7968.000 Proposed 7995.417 27.417 005 7969.750 7968.000 Proposed 7995.417 27.417 006 7968.000 7968.000 Either 7995.417 27.417 007 7967.500 7966.000 Proposed 7995.417 29.417 008 7964.000 7964.750 Natural 7995.417 31.417 009 7962.000 7964.750 Natural 7991.500 29.5 010 7957.000 7964.750 Natural 7988.250 31.25 011 7957.000 7964.750 Natural 7986.000 29 012 7957.500 7964.750 Natural 7986.000 28.5 013 7958.000 7966.500 Natural 7986.000 28.000 014 7958.000 7955.500 Natural 7986.000 30.500 015 7957.750 7955.500 Proposed 7986.000 30.500 016 7956.250 7955.500 Proposed 7986.000 30.500 017 7955.500 7955.500 Either 7986.000 30.500 018 7955.750 7955.500 Proposed 7986.000 30.500 019 7957.900 7955.500 Proposed 7986.000 30.500 020 7957.000 7956.500 Proposed 7988.250 31.750 Height Over Topography Aspen Hills Elevation Point Elevation of Natural Grade Elevation of Proposed Grade Most Restrictive Roof Height Over Topography Actual Roof Height Over Most Restrictive 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 ROOF PLANP42 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED GRADE PLANE ESTABLISHMENT 2.4 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 18 x 7" = 10'-6" UP 19 x 7 37/64" = 12'-0" UP 19 x 7 37/64" = 12'-0" UP 15 x 7 13/32" = 9'-3" UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0" UP 21 x 6 55/64" = 12'-0"UP 32 x 7 9/32" = 19'-5"116'-7" 85'-6" 35'-5"5 1/2"71'-2 59/64"5 1/2"35'-5 25/64"5 1/2" 108'-11 31/32" 109'-0"38'-4 29/64"38'-4" 71'-0" 101'-0" 92'-6" 96'-10" 101'-0"99'-0"99'-9" 100'-0"100'-0" 89'-0"89'-0" 99'-6"100'-0"99'-4"98'-4" 89'-0"89'-0" EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE FACADE 1 FACADE 1 FACADE 2 FACADE 3 FACADE 1 AVERAGE LINE OF GRADE FACADE 2 AVERAGE LINE OF GRADE FACADE 4 FACADE 5AVERAGE LINE OF GRADE FACADE 3 AVERAGE LINE OF GRADE AVERAGE LINE OF GRADE FACADE 6AVERAGE LINE OF GRADE DN DN DN DN DN 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A FACADE 4 EXISTING BUILDING ALL FACADES MEASURED TOGETHER: 263'-10" FACADE 5 DN UP UP DN DN DN DNDN Facade 1 116.750 96.800 16.28%16.00 Facade 2 85.500 99.750 11.93%12.00 Facade 3 109.000 99.450 15.20%15.00 Facade 4 35.450 100.000 4.94%5.00 Facade 5 35.450 89.000 4.94%5.00 Facade 6 71.000 89.000 9.90%10.00 Existing Building 263.800 100.000 36.79%37.00 Weighted Average Grade Plane Establishment Aspen Hills Facade Length of Facade Average Arch Grade Percent of Building Length Grade Plane MethodologyWeight Stories Above Grade Per Grade Plane 003 97.732 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL PLAN-GRADE PLANE SITE 7965.5 = ARCH 100'-0"P43VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED GARAGE LEVEL PLAN 3.1 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV IUP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"1'-4"18'-0"22'-6 39/64"18'-0"8'-6"8'-6"6"12'-6" 12'-6"10"12'-8" 26'-0"1'-4"10'-3 1/2"10"9'-8 5/8"1'-4"19'-8 29/64"10"10"20'-4"1'-4"150 sq ft 8.5'X18' STANDARD GARAGE ENTRANCE 8.5'X18' STANDARD; ASSIGNABLE 8.5'X18' STANDARD; ASSIGNABLE 8.5'X18' STANDARD; ASSIGNABLE EXIST. MECH. VAULT SEE CIVIL FOR NEW CURB AND WALK DETAILS 8.5'X18' STANDARD UNDER STAIR STORAGE FOR A.H.U. PROPERTY LINESETBACK MIDLAND AVE. UNIT A-1 UNIT A-2 UNIT A-3 UNIT A-4 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-6 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-8 7 SHARED GARAGE UNIT 2 & 3 8 1 2 3 4 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 1 65 TRASH ROOM UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP ADDIT. STORAGE AREA A5.1 A5.1 F5.4 E5.3 E5.3 14.3 14.2 14.2 J5.3 K5.5 B5.1 B5.1 C5.1C5.1 D5.2 D5.2 14.1 1 B B 2 3 5 C C D D E E 4 A A I5.3 I5.3 LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 GARAGE LEVEL PLANP44 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 3.2 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 16 x 7" = 9'-4" UP 19 x 7 37/64" = 12'-0" UP 19 x 7 37/64" = 12'-0" UP 15 x 7 13/32" = 9'-3" UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0" UP 21 x 6 55/64" = 12'-0"UP 32 x 7 9/32" = 19'-5"A5.1 A5.1 F5.4 E5.3 E5.3 14.3 14.2 14.2 J5.3 EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE STAIR TO PARKING BELOW; NOT SERVING AS EGRESS OR EGRESS DISCHARGE COMPONENT STAIR TO GARAGE BELOW NO STEP; TRANSITION FROM SLAB ON DECK ABOVE GARAGE TO SLAB ON GRADE WINDOW WELL, TYP. LINE OF COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL PLANTER AREA SETBACK LINE ON GRADE WALKWAY; SERVES AS EGRESS COURT PROPERTY LINE YARD; ON GRADE, SERVES AS EXIT DISCHARGE 11'-4" EGRESS DIST.118'-6" TOTAL EGRESS PATH DISTANCE DN DN DN DN DN K5.5 B5.1 B5.1 C5.1C5.1 D5.2 D5.2 14.1 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A I5.3 I5.3 UNIT A-1 UNIT A-2 UNIT A-3 UNIT A-4 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-6 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-8 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 1 DN 3'-7" ON THE HORIZONTAL 3'-0" ON THE DIAGONAL 20'-6" ON THE HORIZONTAL 10'-4" ON THE DIAGONAL LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL PLANP45 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SECOND LEVEL PLAN 3.3 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 16 x 7" = 9'-4" UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0" UP 24 x 7 25/64" = 14'-9 1/2"UP 23 x 7 13/64" = 13'-9 1/2"UP 19 x 7 15/64" = 11'-5 1/2"UP 15 x 7 13/32" = 9'-3" A5.1 A5.1 F5.4 E5.3 E5.3 14.3 14.2 14.2 J5.3 5 1/2"23'-10 29/64" 11 1/2" 23'-0 1/2" 11 1/2" 23'-0 1/2" 11 1/2"22'-7 13/16"11 1/2"19'-5 15/64"5 5/64"0"5 1/2"31'-2 7/8"5 5/64"42'-1 23/32"24'-10 55/64"47'-2 15/64"5 21/64"23'-2 3/16"23'-0 19/64"5 1/2" EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK SEE SECTION 'F' FOR SKYLIGHTS K5.5 B5.1 B5.1 C5.1C5.1 D5.2 D5.2 14.1 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A I5.3 I5.3 LINE OF ROOF BELOW LINE OF ROOF BELOW UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6DNDNDNDN 10'-4" ON THE DIAGONAL 3'-7" ON THE HORIZONTAL 3'-0" ON THE DIAGONAL 19'-7" ON THE HORIZONTAL LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 SECOND LEVEL PLANP46 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THIRD LEVEL PLAN 3.4 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 18 x 7" = 10'-6" X 3'-4" by 7'-2"RGFUP 18 x 7 7/64" = 10'-8"UP 17 x 6 15/32" = 9'-2" A5.1 A5.1 F5.4 E5.3 E5.3 14.3 14.2 14.2 J5.3 11 1/2"22'-7 13/16"11 1/2"19'-5 15/64"5 5/64"32'-10"LINE OF ROOF BELOW EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE LINE OF ROOF BELOW LINE OF STAIR TOWER WALL; SHOWN CUT ON ROOF PLAN PROPERTY LINESETBACK UNIT 3 UNIT 2 ROOF DECK 31'-9" EGRESS DIST. K5.5 B5.1 B5.1 C5.1C5.1 D5.2 D5.2 14.1 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A I5.3 I5.3 LINE OF ROOF BELOW LINE OF ROOF BELOW STAIR TOWER TYP. SEE ROOF PLAN FOR DECK PERIMETER UNIT 5 UNIT 6 DN DN UNIT 1 ROOF DECK LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 THIRD LEVEL PLANP47 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ROOF PLAN 3.5 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 16 x 7" = 9'-4" A5.1 A5.1 F5.4 E5.3 E5.3 14.3 J5.3 17'-4" 17'-4 1/2"19'-5"19'-5"15'-8" 17'-6"17'-11"16'-5"13'-0" LOCATION FOR PLUMBING STACK VENTS, RADON VENT, GENERAL MECH. VENTING LOCATION; CHILLER STAIR ENCLOSURE EXIST. ROOF BELOW TRANSPARENT GLASS GAURD RAIL LOW WATER GREEN ROOF LINE OF ROOF BELOW; SEE ROOF PLAN FOR HEIGHTS AS ROOF STEPS EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE ELEVATION POINT 002 ELEVATION POINT 001 ELEVATION POINT 003 ELEVATION POINT 004 ELEVATION POINT 005 ELEVATION POINT 006 ELEVATION POINT 007ELEVATION POINT 008ELEVATION POINT 009ELEVATION POINT 010 ELEVATION POINT 011 ELEVATION POINT 012 ELEVATION POINT 013 ELEVATION POINT 014 ELEVATION POINT 015ELEVATION POINT 016 ELEVATION POINT 017 ELEVATION POINT 020 ELEVATION POINT 018 ELEVATION POINT 019 PROPERTY LINESETBACK AC AC DN AC UNIT 3 ROOF DECK UNIT 4 ROOF DECK UNIT 5 ROOF DECK UNIT 6 ROOF DECK UNIT 2 ROOF DECK AC K5.5 B5.1 B5.1 C5.1C5.1 D5.2 D5.2 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A I5.3 I5.3 19'-9 11/32"15'-3"ELEVATION POINT 002 ELEVATION POINT 001 ELEVATION POINT 003 ELEVATION POINT 004 ELEVATION POINT 005 ELEVATION POINT 006 ELEVATION POINT 007ELEVATION POINT 008ELEVATION POINT 009ELEVATION POINT 010 ELEVATION POINT 011 ELEVATION POINT 012 ELEVATION POINT 013 ELEVATION POINT 014 ELEVATION POINT 015ELEVATION POINT 016 ELEVATION POINT 017 ELEVATION POINT 020 ELEVATION POINT 018 ELEVATION POINT 019 DN AC UNIT 1 ROOF DECK AC DN DN 797079557956795879607962796479667968DN UNIT 6 LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 ROOF PLANP48 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED UNIT 6 EGRESS PLANS 3.6 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I AC 13'-4" ON THE HORIZONTAL DN 1'-1" ON THE DIAGONAL 1'-9" ON THE HORIZONTAL 7'-8" ON THE DIAGONAL 3'-5" ON THE HORIZONTAL UNIT 6 UP 15 x 7 3/8" = 9'-3" DN UNIT 6 UP UP DN 3'-7" ON THE HORIZONTAL 3'-0" ON THE DIAGONAL 20'-6" ON THE HORIZONTAL 10'-4" ON THE DIAGONAL UP 15 x 7 3/8" = 9'-3" UNIT 6 10'-4" ON THE DIAGONAL 3'-7" ON THE HORIZONTAL 3'-0" ON THE DIAGONAL 19'-7" ON THE HORIZONTAL RGFUP 18 x 7 7/64" = 10'-8"UP 15 x 7 19/64" = 9'-1 27/64"18'-6" ON THE HORIZONTAL4'-4" ON THE DIAGONAL UNIT 6 FLOOR LEVEL FEET INCHES ROOF 13 4 ROOF 1 1 ROOF 1 9 ROOF 7 8 ROOF 3 5 THIRD 4 4 THIRD 18 6 SECOND 10 4 SECOND 3 7 SECOND 3 0 SECOND 19 7 FIRST 10 4 FIRST 3 7 FIRST 3 0 FIRST 20 6 SUBTOTAL 118 72 TOTAL 124'-0" MEASUREMENT INCHES - FT/CONVERSION NOTES EGRESS DISTANCE TABLE 6 72 inches/12 = 6'-0" 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"4 UNIT 6 ROOF PLAN 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 UNIT 6 MAIN LEVEL PLAN 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 UNIT 6 SECOND LEVEL PLAN 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3 UNIT 6 THIRD LEVEL PLANP49 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NORTH ELEVATION 4.1 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES 3'-4"1'-85/8"2'-29/16"32'-0"THIRD STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE SECOND STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE FIRST STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE 2'-21/16"2'-513/16"2'-0"GLASS RAILING LINE OF WESTERN SETBACK LINE OF NATURAL GRADE STAIR TOWER; SEE ROOF PLAN LINE OF NATURAL GRADE OFFSET STAIR TOWER TO ROOF TYP. LINE OF FINISH GRADE OFFSET 97'-8" GRADE PLANE 0 4'8'12'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATIONP50 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WEST & EAST ELEVATION 4.2 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES B C D E 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 32'-0"THIRD STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE SECOND STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE FIRST STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE LINE OF GRADE GARAGE DOOR BEYOND LINE OF NATURAL GRADE SLOPING GRADE BEYOND GLASS RAILING TYP. SLOPING WALL BEYOND; SEE SHEET 5.5 FOR PROFILE STAIR TOWER AND BUILDING BEYOND 97'-8" GRADE PLANE E D C B 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 2'-0"32'-0"THIRD STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE SECOND STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE FIRST STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE LINE OF NATURAL GRADE LINE OF GRADE LINE OF NATURAL GRADE OFFSET STAIR TOWER BEYOND BUILDING BEYOND 97'-8" GRADE PLANE 0 4'8'12'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATION 0 4'8'12'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION P51VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WALL EXPOSURE CALCULATIONS 4.3 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I WALL SURFACE AREA WALL SURFACE AREA MINUS OPENING AREA OPENING AREA % OF OPENING AREA NORTH MAIN 1079.99 880.27 199.72 18.49% SECOND 1621.27 1234.09 387.18 23.88% THIRD 468.55 399.02 69.53 14.84% EAST MAIN 733.62 646.85 86.77 11.83% SECOND 287.63 261.85 25.78 8.96% THIRD 350.63 324.85 25.78 7.35% SECTION 'G'/SOUTH MAIN 1467.27 1309.47 157.8 10.75% WEST MAIN 1460.17 1104.39 355.78 24.37% WALL EXPOSURE AREA TABLE ELEVATION STORY CALCULATIONS 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 399.02 sq ft 880.27 sq ft 1,234.09 sq ft 1,079.99 sq ft 1,621.27 sq ft 468.55 sq ft MAIN LEVEL WALL SURFACE SECOND LEVEL WALL SURFACE THIRD LEVEL WALL SURFACE MAIN LEVEL WALL WALL SURFACE MINUS OPENINGS SECOND LEVEL WALL WALL SURFACE MINUS OPENINGS THIRD LEVEL WALL WALL SURFACE MINUS OPENINGS E D C B 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 421.44 sq ft 324.85 sq ft 462.43 sq ft 271.19 sq ft 287.63 sq ft 350.63 sq ft 261.85 sq ft 225.41 sq ft MAIN LEVEL WALL SURFACE SECOND LEVEL WALL SURFACE THIRD LEVEL WALL SURFACE MAIN LEVEL WALL WALL SURFACE MINUS OPENINGS SECOND LEVEL WALL WALL SURFACE MINUS OPENINGS THIRD LEVEL WALL WALL SURFACE MINUS OPENINGS 1 2 3 4 5 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 407.98 sq ft 901.49 sq ft 433.96 sq ft 1,033.31 sq ft MAIN LEVEL WALL SURFACE MAIN LEVEL WALL WALL SURFACE MINUS OPENINGS LINE OF HISTORIC GRADE LINE OF HISTORIC GRADE OFFSET B C D E 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 1,104.39 sq ft 1,460.17 sq ft MAIN LEVEL WALL SURFACE MAIN LEVEL WALL WALL SURFACE MINUS OPENINGS 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"1 SECTION 'G'/SOUTH ELEVATION 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATIONP52 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED RENDERINGS 4.4 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV IP53 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BUILDING SECTIONS 5.1 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I E D C B 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 3'-8"3'-8" 3'-8"32'-0"1'-211/16"1'-3"2'-27/8"UNIT 6 UNIT 6 SHARED GARAGE UNIT A-8 UNIT 6 UNIT 6 UNIT A-8 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-7 EGRESS COURT EXIT DISCHARGE AREA EXIT DISCHARGE AREA YARD EXIT DISCHARGE AREA YARD UNIT 6 1'-63/4"LINE OF NATURAL GRADE GLASS RAILING BUILDING BEYOND EXIT DISCHARGE AREA LINE OF FINISH GRADE LINE OF NATURAL GRADE OFFSET NEW WINDOW WELL LANDSCAPE RETAINING WALL 1 2 3 4 5 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 4'-35/8"2'-21/8"10'-2"10"19'-5"6'-7"32'-0" OFFSET FROM EXIST. GRADE SURFACE PARKING UNIT 1 SHARED GARAGE EGRESS COURT EGRESS STAIR GLASS RAILING SITE WALL BEYOND LINE OF NATURAL GRADE LINE OF NATURAL GRADE OFFSET STAIR TOWER TO ROOF TYP.; TOWERS ARE NOT AT THE EXTERIOR FACE OF THE BUILDING; SEE SECTIONS FOR HEIGHT COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION STORAGE AREA FOR AFFOR. UNITS LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A SECTION 'A' 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"B SECTION 'B'P54VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BUILDING SECTIONS 5.2 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES 1 2 3 4 5 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 29'-2"30'-5"10'-2"10"17'-111/4"1'-2"8'-8"8"10'-91/4"1'-23/4"9'-111/4"1'-23/4"8'-8"8"10'-91/4"1'-23/4"12'-31/4"1'-23/4"8'-8"8"10'-91/4"1'-23/4"13'-31/4"1'-23/4"8'-8"8"10'-81/4"1'-23/4"8'-01/4"1'-23/4"7'-81/4"1'-23/4"8'-8"8"1'-51/4"1'-23/4"8'-01/4"1'-23/4"8'-01/4"1'-23/4"7'-81/4"1'-23/4"SHARED GARAGE LINE OF NATURAL GRADE LINE OF NATURAL GRADE OFFSET UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6UNIT 1 BEDC 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 30'-5"8"10'-2"10"19'-5"32'-0"4'-213/16"8'-8"8"10'-91/4"1'-23/4"9'-111/4"1'-23/4"UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 2 UNIT 2SURFACE PARKING UNIT 1 LINE OF NATURAL GRADE LINE OF FINISH GRADE LINE OF NATURAL GRADE OFFSET STORAGE AREA FOR AFFOR. UNITS STORAGE AREA FOR AFFOR. UNITS 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"C SECTION 'C' 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"D SECTION 'D'P55VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BUILDING SECTIONS 5.3 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES 2'-0"2'-6"2'-2"16'-0" APPROX. VERTICAL CUT FOR SITE WALK RETAINING WALL APPROX. EDGE OF DRIPLINE BASED ON SURVEY NEW ON GRADE WALKWAY RETAINING WALL BEYOND LINE OF GRADE AT TREE BASE APPROX. DISTANCE FOR TRUNK TO DRIPLINE BASED ON SURVEY LINE OF NATURAL GRADE LINE OF NATURAL GRADE OFFSET BY 30" LANDSCAPE RETAINING WALL 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 10 13/16"1'-6 31/64"2'-3 7/16"4'-5 11/16"3'-10 47/64"8'-8"8"10'-9 1/4"1'-2 3/4"9'-11 1/4"1'-2 3/4"3"8'-8"8"10'-9 1/4"1'-2 3/4"12'-3 1/4"1'-2 3/4"8'-8"8"10'-9 1/4"1'-2 3/4"13'-3 1/4"1'-2 3/4"4"8'-8"8"10'-8 1/4"1'-2 3/4"8'-0 1/4"1'-2"3/4"7'-8 1/4"1'-2 3/4"9'-4"1'-5 1/4"1'-2 3/4"8'-0 1/4"1'-2 3/4"8'-0 1/4"1'-2 3/4"7'-8 1/4"1'-2 3/4"3"32'-0" OFFSET FROM EXIST. GRADE UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6UNIT 2 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 LINE OF NATURAL GRADE LINE OF FINISH GRADE LINE OF NATURAL GRADE OFFSET STAIR TOWER 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"J DETAIL SECTION 'J' 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"E SECTION 'E'P56VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BUILDING SECTIONS 5.4 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I 1 2 3 4 5 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 3'-8" EXIT DISCHARGE AREA UNIT 1 UNIT 1 UNIT 1 SURFACE PARKING UNIT A-1 UNIT A-1 UNIT A-3 UNIT A-3 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-7 CONVENIENCE STAIR TO SURFACE PARKING BUILDING BEYOND STORAGE AREA FOR AFFOR. UNITS NEW SKYLIGHTS LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES 1 2 3 4 5 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF LINE OF HISTORIC GRADE LINE OF HISTORIC GRADE OFFSET BUILDING BEYOND 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 SECTION 'F' 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"G SECTION 'G' SOUTH ELEVATIONP57 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BUILDING SECTIONS 5.5 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 32'-0"5'-0"LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 DETAIL SECTION 'K' 0 1/2''1''2''SCALE: 1' = 1'-0"1 0suntunnel01 5 LIGHT TUBES PER UNIT WILL BE INSTALLED FOR ADDED NATURAL LIGHT IN THE LOWER LEVELP58 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 3-D MODEL SECTIONS 5.6 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I MODEL SECTION 'A'MODEL SECTION 'B' SITE SECTION LEGEND P59VI.A. Exhibit CP60VI.A. Exhibit D Dimensional Table Gross Lot Size 15,159 sf RMF Zone District Requirement Proposed Density Varies 1 unit per 1,082.8s.f. of lot area (greater than 1 unit per 1,500 sf. of lot area) FAR 1:1.25 1:1.25 Allowable floor area 18,949 square feet 18,949 square feet Height 32 feet – based on density 32 feet Setbacks (front, rear, side) 5 feet 5 feet – New Development, 0’ surrounding existing structure. Dimensional variance sought for parking in setback on south side of property. Units No limit 14 Total - 8 Deed Restricted, 6 free market Unit Sizes (net livable) Max 2,500 sf. Deed restricted avg. unit size = 844 sf. Free market avg. unit size = 2,049 sf. Parking 60% of the requirement, up to 40% can be provided through cash-in-lieu fee or alternative method. 26 total units required 17 parking spaces provided or 65.4%. Cash-in-lieu fee of $342,000 or equivalent mitigation required for remaining 9 units. P61 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED TITLE SHEET 1.1 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I ASPEN HILLS PHASE II P62VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED GENERAL INFORMATION 1.2 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I 1. The Contract Documents include: (1) general notes; (2) architectural, mechanical, and structural drawings. All additional specifications, details, drawings, clarifications, or changes shall automatically become part of the Contract Documents. Any discrepancy between any components of any of the drawings shall be reported to the Architect immediately for clarification. 2. Alius Design Corps, LLC, shall not be liable in any way for problems which arise from failure, by any third party or any party to this Contract, to follow the design plans. The Contractor shall obtain and/or request guidance of Alius Design Corp., with respect to any errors, omissions, inconsistencies, or conflicts or unclear information which may be discovered or alleged. 3. The Plans and Specifications are the intellectual and other property of the Architect and shall not beused without the permission of same. 4. All work shall comply with all state and local codes, ordinances, rules, regulations and laws of building officials or authorities having jurisdiction. All work shall be performed to the highest standards or craftsmanship by all tradesman. Alius Design Corps, LLC., shall not be responsible for overseeing third party work, nor shall Alius Design Corps, LLC., be liable for any errors or omissions of third parties who perform work on the Project. 5. The Contract Documents represent the finished structure. They do not indicate the method of construction. The Contractor shall provide all measures necessary to protect the structure during construction. Observation visits to the site by the Structural Engineer or Architect shall not include inspection of the ____________, nor will the architect or structural engineer be responsible for the contractor's means, methods, techniques, sequences for procedure of construction, or the safety precautions and the techniques, sequences for procedure of construction, or any safety precautions. The Contractor and not the Architect shall be responsible for all Federal and OSHA regulations. 6. THE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE SCALED. Written dimensions must be used. In the event of a discrepancy in dimensions, the Architect should be timely notified for clarification. All dimensions on the drawings shall be verified against the existing conditions. All dimensions are to rough framing or face of concrete unless noted otherwise. 7. The Construction Documents are intended to include all labor, materials, equipment, and services required to complete all work described herein. It is the responsibility of the Contractor to bring to the attention of the Architect any conditions which will not permit construction according to these Construction Documents. 8. The Building Inspector shall be notified by the Contractor if there is need of an inspection as required by the I.R.C., or by any local code or ordinance. 9. LOT STAKED: The Contractor shall arrange for the building to be located and staked after demolition or site clearing, to be approved by the Architect. The Contractor shall review the lot staking and verify, to the best of his ability, its accuracy. The Contractor shall also check the grade where it meets the building to evaluate the consistency with the drawings during excavation. All work to be done by a certified surveyor. 10. RECORD DRAWINGS: Contractor shall maintain a complete set of blue/black-line prints of contract drawings and shop drawings for record mark-up purposes throughout the Contract time. Mark-up drawings during course of the work shall show changes and actual installation conditions, sufficient to form a complete record for Owner's purposes. 11. SOILS AND CONCRETE: The General Contractor shall arrange for a visual site inspection at the completion of excavation by a soils engineer, and the required concrete testing prior to any foundation work. 12. Property lines, utilities and topography shown is representative of information taken from a survey. Contractor shall notify Architect of any discrepancy or variation between the Drawings and actual site conditions. ABREVIATIONS A.F.F. ABOVE FINISH FLOOR ADJ. ADJUSTABLE ALT. ALTERNATE A.B. ANCHOR BOLTS & AND ARCH. ARCHITECTURAL @ AT BM. BEAM BM. PKT. BEAM POCKET BRG. BEARING BLK’G. BLOCKING BOT. BOTTOM BLDG. BUILDING B.O. BY OWNER CLG. CEILING CL. CENTER LINE CLR. CLEAR COL. COLUMN CONC. CONCRETE CONN. CONNECTION CONT. CONTINUOUS DTL. DETAILS DWL. DOWEL E.W. EACH WAY ELEV. ELEVATION EXISTG EXISTING EXT. EXTERIOR FLR. FLOOR FTG. FOOTING FND. FOUNDATION GA. GAUGE G.L. GLU-LAM G.W.B. GYPSUM WALL BOARD HORIZ. HORIZONTAL INFO. INFORMATION INSUL. INSULATION JST. JOIST N.I.C. NOT IN CONTRACT O.C. ON CENTER OPP. OPPOSITE PERF. PERFORATED PL. PLATE PLY. PLYWOOD PROP. LINE PROPERTY LINE REINF. REINFORCEMENT REQ. REQUIRED REV. REVISED SIM. SIMILAR S.F. SQUARE FEET STD. STANDARD THK. THICK T.P. TOP OF PLATE T.L. TOP OF LEDGE T.W. TOP OF WALL TOT. TOTAL TYP. TYPICAL U.N.O. UNLESS NOTED UTHERWISE V.I.F. VERIFY IN FIELD 033 LBB CLIENT WEB Capital LLC WilliamB@WEBCapLLC.com ARCHITECT Alius Design Corps, LLC 1331 East Sopris Creek Rd. Basalt, CO 81611 719.331.9211 michaeltedinger@gmail.com STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SKPE 298 Park Ave #301 Basalt, CO 81621 970.927.9510 skpe@sopris.net LAND USE/PLANNING BendonAdams 300 So. Spring St. #202 Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925.2855 chris@bendonadams.com PROJECT INFORMATION PRESIDING CODE .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2015 IBC TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1VB FULLY SPRINKLERED; NFPA 13 LOT SIZE .............................................................................................................................................................................. 15,000 +/- sq.ft. LOCAL ZONING .................................................................................................................................................................................... R/MF OCCUPANCY ................................................................................................................................................................... R-2 RESIDENTIAL PARCEL ID ............................................................................................................................................................................. 273718216101 GENERAL RENOVATION NOTES 1.0 All existing conditions must be verified by the contractor in the field. Unknown and varied conditions may be found. Notify the structural engineer and/or architect of any structural or architectural conditions found to vary from that indicated from the drawings. Design revisions may be required, and are to be expected as a process of remodel work. 2.0 All new work, details, surfaces, or finishes shall match adjacent existing surfaces unless noted or directed otherwise by the owner or interior designer. Contractor to verify with architect any conflict between existing and new conditions. 3.0 All electrical modifications and/or additions to be as directed by owner/lighting designer during construction. Contractor/lighting designer to verify electrical capacity and review new designs or alterations with architect, prior to implementation. 4.0 All interior electrical fixtures, plumbing fixtures and trim, cabinet design, and other finishes to be at the directive of the owner or interior designer unless noted otherwise in the drawings. Contractor to provide all necessary prep work for installation of any materials as required. 5.0 Structural engineering – if any modifications to the existing structural system are deemed necessary beyond these shown in the drawings, all existing conditions are to be verified in the field by a registered structural engineer before proceeding. The architect will not be responsible for any structural modifications not verified or approved by a structural engineer. 6.0 Contractor will verify and coordinate all openings through floors, ceilings, and walls with all architectural, structural, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical design and construction. CLIENT WEB Capital LLC WilliamB@WEBCapLLC.com ARCHITECT Alius Design Corps, LLC 1331 East Sopris Creek Rd. Basalt, CO 81611 719.331.9211 michaeltedinger@gmail.com STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SKPE 298 Park Ave #301 Basalt, CO 81621 970.927.9510 skpe@sopris.net LAND USE/PLANNING BendonAdams 300 So. Spring St. #202 Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925.2855 chris@bendonadams.com 5.1A PROJECT LOCATION ASPEN HILLS PHASE II REFERENCE GRID LINE SPOT ELEVATION WINDOW MARK DOOR MARK ROOM NUMBER DRAWING REVISION ASSEMBLY DETAIL CUT SECTION CUT EXTERIOR ELEVATION DETAIL CALLOUT INTERIOR ELEVATION ROOM 100 F11 1 T. O. RIDGE BEAM 123'-6 1/2" 4.4 1 1 7.1 8.1 1 2 3 4 VICINITY MAP SYMBOL & MATERIAL LEGEND PROJECT INFORMATION DRAWING INDEX PROJECT DIRECTORY CONSTRUCTION NOTES ABBREVIATIONS PHASE II PLANNING SUBMISSION 11/24/2018GENERAL NOTES 8 P63VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DEMOLITION CALCULATIONS 1.3 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I Demolition Calculations Roof Label Individual Roof Area in Plan (sq.ft.)Roof Slope Adjustment Factor Actual Area of Roof Used for Demo Calc (sq.ft.)Area of Roof to be Removed 1 2504 1:12 1.02 2554.08 2554.08 2 2504 1:12 1.02 2554.08 2554.08 Roof Surface Total (sq.ft.)5008.00 5108.16 5108.16 Roof + Wall Area Used for Demo Calculation (sq.ft.)9818 Surface Area to be Removed (sq. ft.)5192.16 Percentage of Surface Area to be Removed 52.88% Roof Demolition Demolition Totals 2,504 sq ft 2,504 sq ft EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE EXIST. ROOF TO BE DEMOLISHED Demolition Calculations Wall Label Existing Wall Area (sq.ft.( Area Reduced for Fenestration (sq.ft.) 05 1729 42 06 157 0 07 110 42 08 569 0 09 1617 0 10 628 0 Total Wall Surface Total (sq.ft.)4810.00 Total Area of Wall to be Removed (sq.ft.)84.00 Roof + Wall Area Used for Demo Calculation (sq.ft.)9818 Surface Area to be Removed (sq. ft.)5192.16 Percentage of Surface Area to be Removed 52.88% Wall Demolition Demolition Totals 1,729 sq ft 628 sq ft 569 sq ft 11 sq ft 11 sq ft 11 sq ft 9 sq ft 157 sq ft 110 sq ft 1,617 sq ft 11 sq ft11 sq ft11 sq ft9 sq ft 20'-0"106'-8"20'-0"37'-10"20'-0"19'-3" 106'-8"20'-0"20'-0"14'-0"14'-0"19'-3"92'-8" WALL 008 WALL 009WALL 010 WALL 005 WALL 006 WALL 007 UNIT A-1 UNIT A-2 UNIT A-3 UNIT A-4 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-6 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-8 WALL 005 WALL 010 WALL 08WALL 006 WALL 007 WALL 009 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"1 ROOF AREA 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"2 WALL DEMO AREAP64 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 1.4 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 490 sq ft 24 sq ft 158 sq ft 24 sq ft 166 sq ft 118 sq ft 418 sq ft 105 sq ft 103 sq ft 296 sq ft 208 sq ft 151 sq ft 159 sq ft 973 sq ft UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"221 sq ft 18'-6 1/2"91'-3" 115'-0"45-6"80'-2"2'-9"19'-10"45'-6"10'-9 1/4"8'-8"8'-6"18'-6 1/2" 105'-6 1/2"10'-9 1/4"2'-9 1/4"115'-0"8'-8"80'-2"2'-9" 105'-6 1/2"8'-8"19'-2" 13'-7"8'-8"13'-7"8'-0"91'-3"8'-0"41'-10"10'-0"41'-10"10'-0"10'-6"10'-0"10'-4"10'-0"29'-7 1/2"10'-0"20'-10"10'-0"15'-1"19'-10" 10'-6"10'-4"29'-7 1/2"20'-10"15'-1" 200 sq ft 200 sq ft 730 sq ft WALL 002 WALL 001 WALL 008 WALL 009WALL 010WALL 011WALL 012WALL 013 WALL 014 WALL 015 WALL 016 LINE OF HISTORIC GRADE (LOWER) LINE OF FINISH GRADE (LOWER) LINE OF FINISH GRADE (LOWER) LINE OF EXIST. GRADE (LOWER) WALL 005 WALL 006 WALL 007 LINE OF FINISH GRADE (LOWER)LINE OF FINISH GRADE (LOWER) LINE OF FINISH GRADE (LOWER) LINE OF FINISH GRADE (LOWER)LINE OF FINISH GRADE (LOWER)LINE OF FINISH GRADE (LOWER)LINE OF FINISH GRADE (LOWER)LINE OF FINISH GRADE (LOWER)LINE OFHISTORIC GRADE (VARIES) UNIT A-4 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-8 UNIT A-1 UNIT A-6 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-2 UNIT A-3 SHARED GARAGE UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 1 UNIT 1 WALL 001 WALL 002 WALL 004 WALL CALCULATION LEGEND EXPOSED WALL AREA ABOVE GRADE BURIED WALL AREA BELOW GRADE BELOW GRADE FLOOR AREA COUNTABLE TOWARD F.A.R. ABOVE GRADE FLOOR AREA COUNTABLE TOWARD F.A.R. DECK AREA WALL 008 WALL 003 WALL 006WALL 005 WALL 007 WALL 009 WALL 010 WALL 011 WALL 012 WALL 013 WALL 014 WALL 015 WALL 016 COVERED PARKING UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP TRASH 844 sq ft 19'-2"3,917 sq ft 8,023 sq ft 695 sq ft24 sq ft 23 sq ft 121 sq ft 18 sq ft17 sq ft117 sq ft 256 sq ft18 sq ft 132 sq ft WALL 003WALL 004 LINE OF HISTORIC GRADE (VARIES) LINE OF HISTORIC GRADE (VARIES) LINE OF HISTORIC GRADE (VARIES) 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A Lower Level Wall Label Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft) 1 973.00 221.00 2 490.00 0.00 3 695.00 168.00 4 24.00 0.00 5 844.00 152.00 6 166.00 0.00 7 118.00 0.00 8 158.00 24.00 9 730.00 274.00 10 321.00 321.00 11 200.00 200.00 12 218.00 218.00 13 286.00 286.00 14 208.00 208.00 15 151.00 151.00 16 159.00 132.00 Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft)5,741.00 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)2355.00 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)41.02% Lower Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)11,940.00 Parking Exemption (Sq Ft)3,500.00 (14*250) Lower Level Gross Floor Area for FAR Calc (Sq Ft)8,440.00 Lower Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,460 (8,400*.41) Deck Calculations Total Proposed Floor Area Calcuations Unit Main Level Second Level Third Level Roof Level Total Garage Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,460 Unit 1 284 284 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)9,790 Unit 2 256 256 Second Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)4,299 Unit 3 271 271 Third Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,399 Unit 4 259 319 Roof Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)0 Unit 5 104 282 386 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)0 2270<2273 allowable Unit 6 181 181 Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)18,948 Exterior Stairs (Main Level)573 573 Allowable Floor Area (Sq Ft)18,949 Total Deck Remaining Floor Area Available (Sq Ft)1 2270 Proposed Lower Level Floor Area Calculations (New Building + Exist. Building) Floor Area Calculations Aspen Hills Proposed Lower Level Wall Calculations (All building walls) 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"1 GARAGE LEVEL FLOOR AREAP65 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 1.5 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 398 sq ft 9 sq ft 19 sq ft 9 sq ft 5 sq ft 23 sq ft 70 sq ft 22 sq ft UP 19 x 7 37/64" = 12'-0" UP 19 x 7 37/64" = 12'-0" UP 15 x 7 13/32" = 9'-3" UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0" UP 21 x 6 55/64" = 12'-0"UP 32 x 7 9/32" = 19'-5"EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE AREA OF STAIRS @ ON GRADE WALKWAY ATTRIBUTABLE TO DECK DECK ABOVE PARKING BELOW DN DN DN DN DN 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A 3,596 sq ft 6,194 sq ft 18 sq ft DN 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 16 x 7" = 9'-4" UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0" UP 24 x 7 25/64" = 14'-9 1/2"UP 23 x 7 13/64" = 13'-9 1/2"UP 19 x 7 15/64" = 11'-5 1/2"UP 15 x 7 13/32" = 9'-3" EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A 4,299 sq ft LINE OF ROOF BELOW LINE OF ROOF BELOW DNDNDNDNLower Level Wall Label Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft) 1 973.00 221.00 2 490.00 0.00 3 695.00 168.00 4 24.00 0.00 5 844.00 152.00 6 166.00 0.00 7 118.00 0.00 8 158.00 24.00 9 730.00 274.00 10 321.00 321.00 11 200.00 200.00 12 218.00 218.00 13 286.00 286.00 14 208.00 208.00 15 151.00 151.00 16 159.00 132.00 Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft)5,741.00 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)2355.00 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)41.02% Lower Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)11,940.00 Parking Exemption (Sq Ft)3,500.00 (14*250) Lower Level Gross Floor Area for FAR Calc (Sq Ft)8,440.00 Lower Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,460 (8,400*.41) Deck Calculations Total Proposed Floor Area Calcuations Unit Main Level Second Level Third Level Roof Level Total Garage Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,460 Unit 1 284 284 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)9,790 Unit 2 256 256 Second Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)4,299 Unit 3 271 271 Third Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,399 Unit 4 259 319 Roof Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)0 Unit 5 104 282 386 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)0 2270<2273 allowable Unit 6 181 181 Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)18,948 Exterior Stairs (Main Level)573 573 Allowable Floor Area (Sq Ft)18,949 Total Deck Remaining Floor Area Available (Sq Ft)1 2270 Proposed Lower Level Floor Area Calculations (New Building + Exist. Building) Floor Area Calculations Aspen Hills Proposed Lower Level Wall Calculations (All building walls) Lower Level Wall Label Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft) 1 973.00 221.00 2 490.00 0.00 3 695.00 168.00 4 24.00 0.00 5 844.00 152.00 6 166.00 0.00 7 118.00 0.00 8 158.00 24.00 9 730.00 274.00 10 321.00 321.00 11 200.00 200.00 12 218.00 218.00 13 286.00 286.00 14 208.00 208.00 15 151.00 151.00 16 159.00 132.00 Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft)5,741.00 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)2355.00 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)41.02% Lower Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)11,940.00 Parking Exemption (Sq Ft)3,500.00 (14*250) Lower Level Gross Floor Area for FAR Calc (Sq Ft)8,440.00 Lower Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,460 (8,400*.41) Deck Calculations Total Proposed Floor Area Calcuations Unit Main Level Second Level Third Level Roof Level Total Garage Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,460 Unit 1 284 284 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)9,790 Unit 2 256 256 Second Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)4,299 Unit 3 271 271 Third Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,399 Unit 4 259 319 Roof Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)0 Unit 5 104 282 386 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)0 2270<2273 allowable Unit 6 181 181 Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)18,948 Exterior Stairs (Main Level)573 573 Allowable Floor Area (Sq Ft)18,949 Total Deck Remaining Floor Area Available (Sq Ft)1 2270 Proposed Lower Level Floor Area Calculations (New Building + Exist. Building) Floor Area Calculations Aspen Hills Proposed Lower Level Wall Calculations (All building walls) 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"2 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"1 SECOND LEVEL FLOOR AREA P66VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 1.6 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 104 sq ft UP 18 x 7 7/64" = 10'-8"UP 15 x 7 19/64" = 9'-1 27/64" EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE LINE OF ROOF BELOW LINE OF STAIR TOWER WALL; SHOWN CUT ON ROOF PLAN PROPERTY LINESETBACK UNIT 3 ROOF DECK UNIT 4 ROOF DECK UNIT 5 UNIT 6 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A 1,399 sq ft 284 sq ft 256 sq ft LINE OF ROOF BELOW LINE OF ROOF BELOW STAIR TOWER TYP. SEE ROOF PLAN FOR DECK PERIMETER DOUBLE HEIGHT VOLUME FOR UNITS 3/4 UNIT 1 ROOF DECK DN DN 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 282 sq ft 271 sq ft 259 sq ft 181 sq ft PERIMETER OF ROOF LINE OF ROOF BELOW; SEE ROOF PLAN FOR HEIGHTS AS ROOF STEPS EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE STAIR TOWER; TYP. LINE OF ROOF BELOW PROPERTY LINESETBACK UNIT 3 ROOF DECK UNIT 4 ROOF DECK UNIT 5 ROOF DECK UNIT 6 ROOF DECK 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A DN DNDN Lower Level Wall Label Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft) 1 973.00 221.00 2 490.00 0.00 3 695.00 168.00 4 24.00 0.00 5 844.00 152.00 6 166.00 0.00 7 118.00 0.00 8 158.00 24.00 9 730.00 274.00 10 321.00 321.00 11 200.00 200.00 12 218.00 218.00 13 286.00 286.00 14 208.00 208.00 15 151.00 151.00 16 159.00 132.00 Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft)5,741.00 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)2355.00 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)41.02% Lower Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)11,940.00 Parking Exemption (Sq Ft)3,500.00 (14*250) Lower Level Gross Floor Area for FAR Calc (Sq Ft)8,440.00 Lower Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,460 (8,400*.41) Deck Calculations Total Proposed Floor Area Calcuations Unit Main Level Second Level Third Level Roof Level Total Garage Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,460 Unit 1 284 284 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)9,790 Unit 2 256 256 Second Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)4,299 Unit 3 271 271 Third Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,399 Unit 4 259 319 Roof Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)0 Unit 5 104 282 386 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)0 2270<2273 allowable Unit 6 181 181 Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)18,948 Exterior Stairs (Main Level)573 573 Allowable Floor Area (Sq Ft)18,949 Total Deck Remaining Floor Area Available (Sq Ft)1 2270 Proposed Lower Level Floor Area Calculations (New Building + Exist. Building) Floor Area Calculations Aspen Hills Proposed Lower Level Wall Calculations (All building walls) Lower Level Wall Label Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft) 1 973.00 221.00 2 490.00 0.00 3 695.00 168.00 4 24.00 0.00 5 844.00 152.00 6 166.00 0.00 7 118.00 0.00 8 158.00 24.00 9 730.00 274.00 10 321.00 321.00 11 200.00 200.00 12 218.00 218.00 13 286.00 286.00 14 208.00 208.00 15 151.00 151.00 16 159.00 132.00 Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft)5,741.00 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)2355.00 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)41.02% Lower Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)11,940.00 Parking Exemption (Sq Ft)3,500.00 (14*250) Lower Level Gross Floor Area for FAR Calc (Sq Ft)8,440.00 Lower Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,460 (8,400*.41) Deck Calculations Total Proposed Floor Area Calcuations Unit Main Level Second Level Third Level Roof Level Total Garage Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,460 Unit 1 284 284 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)9,790 Unit 2 256 256 Second Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)4,299 Unit 3 271 271 Third Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,399 Unit 4 259 319 Roof Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)0 Unit 5 104 282 386 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)0 2270<2273 allowable Unit 6 181 181 Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)18,948 Exterior Stairs (Main Level)573 573 Allowable Floor Area (Sq Ft)18,949 Total Deck Remaining Floor Area Available (Sq Ft)1 2270 Proposed Lower Level Floor Area Calculations (New Building + Exist. Building) Floor Area Calculations Aspen Hills Proposed Lower Level Wall Calculations (All building walls) 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"2 THIRD LEVEL FLOOR AREA 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"1 ROOF LEVEL FLOOR AREA P67VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NET LIVABLE CALCULATIONS 1.7 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV IUP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"415 sq ft UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"420 sq ft 420 sq ft 422 sq ft 415 sq ft 420 sq ft 420 sq ft 422 sq ft UNIT A-1 UNIT A-2 UNIT A-3 UNIT A-4 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-6 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-8 SHARED GARAGE UNIT 2 & 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 1 TRASH ROOM UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP 211 sq ft 200 sq ft197 sq ft200 sq ft 164 sq ft 193 sq ft 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A Total Above/Below Grade Percentage Garage Level Main Level Second Level Third Level Roof Level Net Livable A-1 415 429 0 0 0 844.00 50.83% A-2 415 428 0 0 0 843.00 50.77% A-3 420 421 0 0 0 841.00 50.06% A-4 420 420 0 0 0 840.00 50.00% A-5 420 421 0 0 0 841.00 50.06% A-6 420 420 0 0 0 840.00 50.00% A-7 422 434 0 0 0 856.00 50.70% A-8 422 427 0 0 0 849.00 50.29% 1 164 1756 0 0 0 1,920.00 N/A 2 193 949 905 0 0 2,047.00 N/A 3 200 866 799 0 0 1,865.00 N/A 4 197 823 755 0 0 1,775.00 N/A 5 200 766 766 683 0 2,415.00 N/A 6 211 662 662 672 0 2,207.00 N/A Total Proposed Net Livable Area (Sq Ft)18,983 Net Livable Calculations Aspen Hills Proposed Net Livable Area Unit Floor Level 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 LOWER/GARAGE LEVEL NET LIVABLEP68 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NET LIVABLE CALCULATIONS 1.8 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 16 x 7" = 9'-4" UP 19 x 7 37/64" = 12'-0" UP 19 x 7 37/64" = 12'-0" UP 15 x 7 13/32" = 9'-3" UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0" UP 21 x 6 55/64" = 12'-0"UP 32 x 7 9/32" = 19'-5"EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK DN DN DN DN DN 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A 866 sq ft 428 sq ft 420 sq ft 420 sq ft 428 sq ft 429 sq ft 421 sq ft 421 sq ft 434 sq ft 823 sq ft 766 sq ft 662 sq ft 949 sq ft 1,756 sq ft UNIT A-1 UNIT A-2 UNIT A-3 UNIT A-4 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-6 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-8 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 1 DN Total Above/Below Grade Percentage Garage Level Main Level Second Level Third Level Roof Level Net Livable A-1 415 429 0 0 0 844.00 50.83% A-2 415 428 0 0 0 843.00 50.77% A-3 420 421 0 0 0 841.00 50.06% A-4 420 420 0 0 0 840.00 50.00% A-5 420 421 0 0 0 841.00 50.06% A-6 420 420 0 0 0 840.00 50.00% A-7 422 434 0 0 0 856.00 50.70% A-8 422 427 0 0 0 849.00 50.29% 1 164 1756 0 0 0 1,920.00 N/A 2 193 949 905 0 0 2,047.00 N/A 3 200 866 799 0 0 1,865.00 N/A 4 197 823 755 0 0 1,775.00 N/A 5 200 766 766 683 0 2,415.00 N/A 6 211 662 662 672 0 2,207.00 N/A Total Proposed Net Livable Area (Sq Ft)18,983 Net Livable Calculations Aspen Hills Proposed Net Livable Area Unit Floor Level 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL NET LIVABLE AREAP69 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NET LIVABLE CALCULATIONS 1.9 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 16 x 7" = 9'-4" UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0" UP 24 x 7 25/64" = 14'-9 1/2"UP 23 x 7 13/64" = 13'-9 1/2"UP 19 x 7 15/64" = 11'-5 1/2"UP 15 x 7 13/32" = 9'-3" EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK 1 B B 2 3 5 C C D D E E 4 A A 799 sq ft 766 sq ft755 sq ft 662 sq ft 905 sq ft LINE OF ROOF BELOW LINE OF ROOF BELOW UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6DNDNDNDNTotalAbove/Below Grade Percentage Garage Level Main Level Second Level Third Level Roof Level Net Livable A-1 415 429 0 0 0 844.00 50.83% A-2 415 428 0 0 0 843.00 50.77% A-3 420 421 0 0 0 841.00 50.06% A-4 420 420 0 0 0 840.00 50.00% A-5 420 421 0 0 0 841.00 50.06% A-6 420 420 0 0 0 840.00 50.00% A-7 422 434 0 0 0 856.00 50.70% A-8 422 427 0 0 0 849.00 50.29% 1 164 1756 0 0 0 1,920.00 N/A 2 193 949 905 0 0 2,047.00 N/A 3 200 866 799 0 0 1,865.00 N/A 4 197 823 755 0 0 1,775.00 N/A 5 200 766 766 683 0 2,415.00 N/A 6 211 662 662 672 0 2,207.00 N/A Total Proposed Net Livable Area (Sq Ft)18,983 Net Livable Calculations Aspen Hills Proposed Net Livable Area Unit Floor Level 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 SECOND LEVEL NET LIVABLE AREAP70 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NET LIVABLE CALCULATIONS 1.10 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 16 x 7" = 9'-4" X 3'-4" by 7'-2"UP 18 x 7 7/64" = 10'-8"UP 15 x 7 19/64" = 9'-1 27/64" EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE LINE OF ROOF BELOW LINE OF STAIR TOWER WALL; SHOWN CUT ON ROOF PLAN PROPERTY LINESETBACK 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A 683 sq ft 672 sq ft LINE OF ROOF BELOW LINE OF ROOF BELOW STAIR TOWER TYP. SEE ROOF PLAN FOR DECK PERIMETER UNIT 5 UNIT 6 DN DN Total Above/Below Grade Percentage Garage Level Main Level Second Level Third Level Roof Level Net Livable A-1 415 429 0 0 0 844.00 50.83% A-2 415 428 0 0 0 843.00 50.77% A-3 420 421 0 0 0 841.00 50.06% A-4 420 420 0 0 0 840.00 50.00% A-5 420 421 0 0 0 841.00 50.06% A-6 420 420 0 0 0 840.00 50.00% A-7 422 434 0 0 0 856.00 50.70% A-8 422 427 0 0 0 849.00 50.29% 1 164 1756 0 0 0 1,920.00 N/A 2 193 949 905 0 0 2,047.00 N/A 3 200 866 799 0 0 1,865.00 N/A 4 197 823 755 0 0 1,775.00 N/A 5 200 766 766 683 0 2,415.00 N/A 6 211 662 662 672 0 2,207.00 N/A Total Proposed Net Livable Area (Sq Ft)18,983 Net Livable Calculations Aspen Hills Proposed Net Livable Area Unit Floor Level 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 THIRD LEVEL NET LIVABLE AREAP71 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SITE PLAN 2.1 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 16 x 7" = 9'-4" UP 19 x 7 37/64" = 12'-0" UP 19 x 7 37/64" = 12'-0" UP 15 x 7 13/32" = 9'-3" UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0" UP 21 x 6 55/64" = 12'-0"UP 32 x 7 9/32" = 19'-5"A5.1 A5.1 F5.4 E5.3 E5.3 14.3 98'-4" 99'-6" 99'-6"99'-6" 101'-0" 101'-6" 99'-0"98'-0" 96'-6" 94'-0"92'-6"J5.3 EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK 797079557956795879607962796479667968DN DN DN DN DN K5.5 B5.1 B5.1 C5.1C5.1 D5.2 D5.2 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A I5.3 I5.3 DN UP UP DN DN DN DN DN DN N 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 SITE PLAN MAIN SITE 7965.5 = ARCH 100'-0"P72VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED TIA PLAN 2.2 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV IUP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"1'-4"18'-0"22'-6 39/64"18'-0"8'-6"8'-6"6"12'-6" 12'-6"10"12'-8" 26'-0"1'-4"10'-3 1/2"10"9'-8 5/8"1'-4"19'-8 29/64"10"10"20'-4"1'-4"150 sq ft 8.5'X18' STANDARD GARAGE ENTRANCE 8.5'X18' STANDARD; ASSIGNABLE 8.5'X18' STANDARD; ASSIGNABLE 8.5'X18' STANDARD; ASSIGNABLE EXIST. MECH. VAULT SEE CIVIL FOR NEW CURB AND WALK DETAILS 8.5'X18' STANDARD PROPERTY LINESETBACK MIDLAND AVE. UNIT A-1 UNIT A-2 UNIT A-3 UNIT A-4 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-6 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-8 7 SHARED GARAGE UNIT 2 & 3 8 1 2 3 4 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 1 65 TRASH ROOM UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP ADDIT. STORAGE AREA A5.1 A5.1 F5.4 E5.3 E5.3 14.3 14.2 14.2 J5.3 K5.5 B5.1 B5.1 C5.1C5.1 D5.2 D5.2 14.1 1 B B 2 3 5 C C D D E E 4 A A I5.3 I5.3 #DrgID#LayID N 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 TIA PLAN SITE 7965.5 = ARCH 100'-0" PEDESTRIAN DIRECTNESS FACTOR = WALKING DISTANCE/CROW'S FLIGHT DISTANCE : 167/134 = 1.24 FACTOR P73VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED HEIGHT OVER TOPOGRAPHY 2.3 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 16 x 7" = 9'-4" A5.1 F5.4 E5.3 E5.3 14.3 J5.3 17'-4" 17'-4 1/2"19'-5"19'-5"15'-8" 17'-6"17'-11"16'-5"13'-0" LOCATION FOR PLUMBING STACK VENTS, RADON VENT, GENERAL MECH. VENTING LOCATION; CHILLER STAIR ENCLOSURE EXIST. ROOF BELOW TRANSPARENT GLASS GAURD RAIL LOW WATER GREEN ROOF LINE OF ROOF BELOW; SEE ROOF PLAN FOR HEIGHTS AS ROOF STEPS EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE ELEVATION POINT 002 ELEVATION POINT 001 ELEVATION POINT 003 ELEVATION POINT 004 ELEVATION POINT 005 ELEVATION POINT 006 ELEVATION POINT 007ELEVATION POINT 008ELEVATION POINT 009ELEVATION POINT 010 ELEVATION POINT 011 ELEVATION POINT 012 ELEVATION POINT 013 ELEVATION POINT 014 ELEVATION POINT 015ELEVATION POINT 016 ELEVATION POINT 017 ELEVATION POINT 020 ELEVATION POINT 018 ELEVATION POINT 019 PROPERTY LINESETBACK AC AC DN AC UNIT 3 ROOF DECK UNIT 4 ROOF DECK UNIT 5 ROOF DECK UNIT 6 ROOF DECK UNIT 2 ROOF DECK AC K5.5 B5.1 B5.1 C5.1C5.1 D5.2 1 B B 2 3 5 C C D D E E 4 A A I5.3 19'-9 11/32"15'-3"ELEVATION POINT 002 ELEVATION POINT 001 ELEVATION POINT 003 ELEVATION POINT 004 ELEVATION POINT 005 ELEVATION POINT 006 ELEVATION POINT 007ELEVATION POINT 008ELEVATION POINT 009ELEVATION POINT 010 ELEVATION POINT 011 ELEVATION POINT 012 ELEVATION POINT 013 ELEVATION POINT 014 ELEVATION POINT 015ELEVATION POINT 016 ELEVATION POINT 017 ELEVATION POINT 020 ELEVATION POINT 018 ELEVATION POINT 019 DN AC UNIT 1 ROOF DECK AC DN DN 797079557956795879607962796479667968DN UNIT 6 001 7958.750 7960.500 Proposed 7988.250 27.750 002 7964.000 7964.500 Natural 7991.500 27.500 003 7965.250 7965.500 Natural 7995.417 30.167 004 7969.750 7968.000 Proposed 7995.417 27.417 005 7969.750 7968.000 Proposed 7995.417 27.417 006 7968.000 7968.000 Either 7995.417 27.417 007 7967.500 7966.000 Proposed 7995.417 29.417 008 7964.000 7964.750 Natural 7995.417 31.417 009 7962.000 7964.750 Natural 7991.500 29.5 010 7957.000 7964.750 Natural 7988.250 31.25 011 7957.000 7964.750 Natural 7986.000 29 012 7957.500 7964.750 Natural 7986.000 28.5 013 7958.000 7966.500 Natural 7986.000 28.000 014 7958.000 7955.500 Natural 7986.000 30.500 015 7957.750 7955.500 Proposed 7986.000 30.500 016 7956.250 7955.500 Proposed 7986.000 30.500 017 7955.500 7955.500 Either 7986.000 30.500 018 7955.750 7955.500 Proposed 7986.000 30.500 019 7957.900 7955.500 Proposed 7986.000 30.500 020 7957.000 7956.500 Proposed 7988.250 31.750 Height Over Topography Aspen Hills Elevation Point Elevation of Natural Grade Elevation of Proposed Grade Most Restrictive Roof Height Over Topography Actual Roof Height Over Most Restrictive 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 ROOF PLANP74 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED GRADE PLANE ESTABLISHMENT 2.4 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 18 x 7" = 10'-6" UP 19 x 7 37/64" = 12'-0" UP 19 x 7 37/64" = 12'-0" UP 15 x 7 13/32" = 9'-3" UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0" UP 21 x 6 55/64" = 12'-0"UP 32 x 7 9/32" = 19'-5"116'-7" 85'-6" 35'-5"5 1/2"71'-2 59/64"5 1/2"35'-5 25/64"5 1/2" 108'-11 31/32" 109'-0"38'-4 29/64"38'-4" 71'-0" 101'-0" 92'-6" 96'-10" 101'-0"99'-0"99'-9" 100'-0"100'-0" 89'-0"89'-0" 99'-6"100'-0"99'-4"98'-4" 89'-0"89'-0" EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE FACADE 1 FACADE 1 FACADE 2 FACADE 3 FACADE 1 AVERAGE LINE OF GRADE FACADE 2 AVERAGE LINE OF GRADE FACADE 4 FACADE 5AVERAGE LINE OF GRADE FACADE 3 AVERAGE LINE OF GRADE AVERAGE LINE OF GRADE FACADE 6AVERAGE LINE OF GRADE DN DN DN DN DN 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A FACADE 4 EXISTING BUILDING ALL FACADES MEASURED TOGETHER: 263'-10" FACADE 5 DN UP UP DN DN DN DNDN Facade 1 116.750 96.800 16.28%16.00 Facade 2 85.500 99.750 11.93%12.00 Facade 3 109.000 99.450 15.20%15.00 Facade 4 35.450 100.000 4.94%5.00 Facade 5 35.450 89.000 4.94%5.00 Facade 6 71.000 89.000 9.90%10.00 Existing Building 263.800 100.000 36.79%37.00 Weighted Average Grade Plane Establishment Aspen Hills Facade Length of Facade Average Arch Grade Percent of Building Length Grade Plane MethodologyWeight Stories Above Grade Per Grade Plane 003 97.732 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL PLAN-GRADE PLANE SITE 7965.5 = ARCH 100'-0"P75VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED GARAGE LEVEL PLAN 3.1 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV IUP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"1'-4"18'-0"22'-6 39/64"18'-0"8'-6"8'-6"6"12'-6" 12'-6"10"12'-8" 26'-0"1'-4"10'-3 1/2"10"9'-8 5/8"1'-4"19'-8 29/64"10"10"20'-4"1'-4"150 sq ft 8.5'X18' STANDARD GARAGE ENTRANCE 8.5'X18' STANDARD; ASSIGNABLE 8.5'X18' STANDARD; ASSIGNABLE 8.5'X18' STANDARD; ASSIGNABLE EXIST. MECH. VAULT SEE CIVIL FOR NEW CURB AND WALK DETAILS 8.5'X18' STANDARD UNDER STAIR STORAGE FOR A.H.U. PROPERTY LINESETBACK MIDLAND AVE. UNIT A-1 UNIT A-2 UNIT A-3 UNIT A-4 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-6 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-8 7 SHARED GARAGE UNIT 2 & 3 8 1 2 3 4 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 1 65 TRASH ROOM UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP ADDIT. STORAGE AREA A5.1 A5.1 F5.4 E5.3 E5.3 14.3 14.2 14.2 J5.3 K5.5 B5.1 B5.1 C5.1C5.1 D5.2 D5.2 14.1 1 B B 2 3 5 C C D D E E 4 A A I5.3 I5.3 LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 GARAGE LEVEL PLANP76 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 3.2 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 16 x 7" = 9'-4" UP 19 x 7 37/64" = 12'-0" UP 19 x 7 37/64" = 12'-0" UP 15 x 7 13/32" = 9'-3" UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0" UP 21 x 6 55/64" = 12'-0"UP 32 x 7 9/32" = 19'-5"A5.1 A5.1 F5.4 E5.3 E5.3 14.3 14.2 14.2 J5.3 EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE STAIR TO PARKING BELOW; NOT SERVING AS EGRESS OR EGRESS DISCHARGE COMPONENT STAIR TO GARAGE BELOW NO STEP; TRANSITION FROM SLAB ON DECK ABOVE GARAGE TO SLAB ON GRADE WINDOW WELL, TYP. LINE OF COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL PLANTER AREA SETBACK LINE ON GRADE WALKWAY; SERVES AS EGRESS COURT PROPERTY LINE YARD; ON GRADE, SERVES AS EXIT DISCHARGE 11'-4" EGRESS DIST.118'-6" TOTAL EGRESS PATH DISTANCE DN DN DN DN DN K5.5 B5.1 B5.1 C5.1C5.1 D5.2 D5.2 14.1 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A I5.3 I5.3 UNIT A-1 UNIT A-2 UNIT A-3 UNIT A-4 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-6 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-8 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 1 DN 3'-7" ON THE HORIZONTAL 3'-0" ON THE DIAGONAL 20'-6" ON THE HORIZONTAL 10'-4" ON THE DIAGONAL LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL PLANP77 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SECOND LEVEL PLAN 3.3 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 16 x 7" = 9'-4" UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0" UP 24 x 7 25/64" = 14'-9 1/2"UP 23 x 7 13/64" = 13'-9 1/2"UP 19 x 7 15/64" = 11'-5 1/2"UP 15 x 7 13/32" = 9'-3" A5.1 A5.1 F5.4 E5.3 E5.3 14.3 14.2 14.2 J5.3 5 1/2"23'-10 29/64" 11 1/2" 23'-0 1/2" 11 1/2" 23'-0 1/2" 11 1/2"22'-7 13/16"11 1/2"19'-5 15/64"5 5/64"0"5 1/2"31'-2 7/8"5 5/64"42'-1 23/32"24'-10 55/64"47'-2 15/64"5 21/64"23'-2 3/16"23'-0 19/64"5 1/2" EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK SEE SECTION 'F' FOR SKYLIGHTS K5.5 B5.1 B5.1 C5.1C5.1 D5.2 D5.2 14.1 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A I5.3 I5.3 LINE OF ROOF BELOW LINE OF ROOF BELOW UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6DNDNDNDN 10'-4" ON THE DIAGONAL 3'-7" ON THE HORIZONTAL 3'-0" ON THE DIAGONAL 19'-7" ON THE HORIZONTAL LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 SECOND LEVEL PLANP78 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THIRD LEVEL PLAN 3.4 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 18 x 7" = 10'-6" X 3'-4" by 7'-2"RGFUP 18 x 7 7/64" = 10'-8"UP 17 x 6 15/32" = 9'-2" A5.1 A5.1 F5.4 E5.3 E5.3 14.3 14.2 14.2 J5.3 11 1/2"22'-7 13/16"11 1/2"19'-5 15/64"5 5/64"32'-10"LINE OF ROOF BELOW EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE LINE OF ROOF BELOW LINE OF STAIR TOWER WALL; SHOWN CUT ON ROOF PLAN PROPERTY LINESETBACK UNIT 3 UNIT 2 ROOF DECK 31'-9" EGRESS DIST. K5.5 B5.1 B5.1 C5.1C5.1 D5.2 D5.2 14.1 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A I5.3 I5.3 LINE OF ROOF BELOW LINE OF ROOF BELOW STAIR TOWER TYP. SEE ROOF PLAN FOR DECK PERIMETER UNIT 5 UNIT 6 DN DN UNIT 1 ROOF DECK LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 THIRD LEVEL PLANP79 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ROOF PLAN 3.5 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 16 x 7" = 9'-4" A5.1 A5.1 F5.4 E5.3 E5.3 14.3 J5.3 17'-4" 17'-4 1/2"19'-5"19'-5"15'-8" 17'-6"17'-11"16'-5"13'-0" LOCATION FOR PLUMBING STACK VENTS, RADON VENT, GENERAL MECH. VENTING LOCATION; CHILLER STAIR ENCLOSURE EXIST. ROOF BELOW TRANSPARENT GLASS GAURD RAIL LOW WATER GREEN ROOF LINE OF ROOF BELOW; SEE ROOF PLAN FOR HEIGHTS AS ROOF STEPS EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE ELEVATION POINT 002 ELEVATION POINT 001 ELEVATION POINT 003 ELEVATION POINT 004 ELEVATION POINT 005 ELEVATION POINT 006 ELEVATION POINT 007ELEVATION POINT 008ELEVATION POINT 009ELEVATION POINT 010 ELEVATION POINT 011 ELEVATION POINT 012 ELEVATION POINT 013 ELEVATION POINT 014 ELEVATION POINT 015ELEVATION POINT 016 ELEVATION POINT 017 ELEVATION POINT 020 ELEVATION POINT 018 ELEVATION POINT 019 PROPERTY LINESETBACK AC AC DN AC UNIT 3 ROOF DECK UNIT 4 ROOF DECK UNIT 5 ROOF DECK UNIT 6 ROOF DECK UNIT 2 ROOF DECK AC K5.5 B5.1 B5.1 C5.1C5.1 D5.2 D5.2 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A I5.3 I5.3 19'-9 11/32"15'-3"ELEVATION POINT 002 ELEVATION POINT 001 ELEVATION POINT 003 ELEVATION POINT 004 ELEVATION POINT 005 ELEVATION POINT 006 ELEVATION POINT 007ELEVATION POINT 008ELEVATION POINT 009ELEVATION POINT 010 ELEVATION POINT 011 ELEVATION POINT 012 ELEVATION POINT 013 ELEVATION POINT 014 ELEVATION POINT 015ELEVATION POINT 016 ELEVATION POINT 017 ELEVATION POINT 020 ELEVATION POINT 018 ELEVATION POINT 019 DN AC UNIT 1 ROOF DECK AC DN DN 797079557956795879607962796479667968DN UNIT 6 LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 ROOF PLANP80 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED UNIT 6 EGRESS PLANS 3.6 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I AC 13'-4" ON THE HORIZONTAL DN 1'-1" ON THE DIAGONAL 1'-9" ON THE HORIZONTAL 7'-8" ON THE DIAGONAL 3'-5" ON THE HORIZONTAL UNIT 6 UP 15 x 7 3/8" = 9'-3" DN UNIT 6 UP UP DN 3'-7" ON THE HORIZONTAL 3'-0" ON THE DIAGONAL 20'-6" ON THE HORIZONTAL 10'-4" ON THE DIAGONAL UP 15 x 7 3/8" = 9'-3" UNIT 6 10'-4" ON THE DIAGONAL 3'-7" ON THE HORIZONTAL 3'-0" ON THE DIAGONAL 19'-7" ON THE HORIZONTAL RGFUP 18 x 7 7/64" = 10'-8"UP 15 x 7 19/64" = 9'-1 27/64"18'-6" ON THE HORIZONTAL4'-4" ON THE DIAGONAL UNIT 6 FLOOR LEVEL FEET INCHES ROOF 13 4 ROOF 1 1 ROOF 1 9 ROOF 7 8 ROOF 3 5 THIRD 4 4 THIRD 18 6 SECOND 10 4 SECOND 3 7 SECOND 3 0 SECOND 19 7 FIRST 10 4 FIRST 3 7 FIRST 3 0 FIRST 20 6 SUBTOTAL 118 72 TOTAL 124'-0" MEASUREMENT INCHES - FT/CONVERSION NOTES EGRESS DISTANCE TABLE 6 72 inches/12 = 6'-0" 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"4 UNIT 6 ROOF PLAN 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 UNIT 6 MAIN LEVEL PLAN 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 UNIT 6 SECOND LEVEL PLAN 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3 UNIT 6 THIRD LEVEL PLANP81 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NORTH ELEVATION 4.1 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES 3'-4"1'-85/8"2'-29/16"32'-0"THIRD STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE SECOND STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE FIRST STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE 2'-21/16"2'-513/16"2'-0"GLASS RAILING LINE OF WESTERN SETBACK LINE OF NATURAL GRADE STAIR TOWER; SEE ROOF PLAN LINE OF NATURAL GRADE OFFSET STAIR TOWER TO ROOF TYP. LINE OF FINISH GRADE OFFSET 97'-8" GRADE PLANE 0 4'8'12'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATIONP82 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WEST & EAST ELEVATION 4.2 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES B C D E 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 32'-0"THIRD STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE SECOND STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE FIRST STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE LINE OF GRADE GARAGE DOOR BEYOND LINE OF NATURAL GRADE SLOPING GRADE BEYOND GLASS RAILING TYP. SLOPING WALL BEYOND; SEE SHEET 5.5 FOR PROFILE STAIR TOWER AND BUILDING BEYOND 97'-8" GRADE PLANE E D C B 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 2'-0"32'-0"THIRD STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE SECOND STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE FIRST STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE LINE OF NATURAL GRADE LINE OF GRADE LINE OF NATURAL GRADE OFFSET STAIR TOWER BEYOND BUILDING BEYOND 97'-8" GRADE PLANE 0 4'8'12'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATION 0 4'8'12'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION P83VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WALL EXPOSURE CALCULATIONS 4.3 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I WALL SURFACE AREA WALL SURFACE AREA MINUS OPENING AREA OPENING AREA % OF OPENING AREA NORTH MAIN 1079.99 880.27 199.72 18.49% SECOND 1621.27 1234.09 387.18 23.88% THIRD 468.55 399.02 69.53 14.84% EAST MAIN 733.62 646.85 86.77 11.83% SECOND 287.63 261.85 25.78 8.96% THIRD 350.63 324.85 25.78 7.35% SECTION 'G'/SOUTH MAIN 1467.27 1309.47 157.8 10.75% WEST MAIN 1460.17 1104.39 355.78 24.37% WALL EXPOSURE AREA TABLE ELEVATION STORY CALCULATIONS 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 399.02 sq ft 880.27 sq ft 1,234.09 sq ft 1,079.99 sq ft 1,621.27 sq ft 468.55 sq ft MAIN LEVEL WALL SURFACE SECOND LEVEL WALL SURFACE THIRD LEVEL WALL SURFACE MAIN LEVEL WALL WALL SURFACE MINUS OPENINGS SECOND LEVEL WALL WALL SURFACE MINUS OPENINGS THIRD LEVEL WALL WALL SURFACE MINUS OPENINGS E D C B 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 421.44 sq ft 324.85 sq ft 462.43 sq ft 271.19 sq ft 287.63 sq ft 350.63 sq ft 261.85 sq ft 225.41 sq ft MAIN LEVEL WALL SURFACE SECOND LEVEL WALL SURFACE THIRD LEVEL WALL SURFACE MAIN LEVEL WALL WALL SURFACE MINUS OPENINGS SECOND LEVEL WALL WALL SURFACE MINUS OPENINGS THIRD LEVEL WALL WALL SURFACE MINUS OPENINGS 1 2 3 4 5 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 407.98 sq ft 901.49 sq ft 433.96 sq ft 1,033.31 sq ft MAIN LEVEL WALL SURFACE MAIN LEVEL WALL WALL SURFACE MINUS OPENINGS LINE OF HISTORIC GRADE LINE OF HISTORIC GRADE OFFSET B C D E 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 1,104.39 sq ft 1,460.17 sq ft MAIN LEVEL WALL SURFACE MAIN LEVEL WALL WALL SURFACE MINUS OPENINGS 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"1 SECTION 'G'/SOUTH ELEVATION 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATIONP84 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED RENDERINGS 4.4 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV IP85 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BUILDING SECTIONS 5.1 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I E D C B 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 3'-8"3'-8" 3'-8"32'-0"1'-211/16"1'-3"2'-27/8"UNIT 6 UNIT 6 SHARED GARAGE UNIT A-8 UNIT 6 UNIT 6 UNIT A-8 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-7 EGRESS COURT EXIT DISCHARGE AREA EXIT DISCHARGE AREA YARD EXIT DISCHARGE AREA YARD UNIT 6 1'-63/4"LINE OF NATURAL GRADE GLASS RAILING BUILDING BEYOND EXIT DISCHARGE AREA LINE OF FINISH GRADE LINE OF NATURAL GRADE OFFSET NEW WINDOW WELL LANDSCAPE RETAINING WALL 1 2 3 4 5 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 4'-35/8"2'-21/8"10'-2"10"19'-5"6'-7"32'-0" OFFSET FROM EXIST. GRADE SURFACE PARKING UNIT 1 SHARED GARAGE EGRESS COURT EGRESS STAIR GLASS RAILING SITE WALL BEYOND LINE OF NATURAL GRADE LINE OF NATURAL GRADE OFFSET STAIR TOWER TO ROOF TYP.; TOWERS ARE NOT AT THE EXTERIOR FACE OF THE BUILDING; SEE SECTIONS FOR HEIGHT COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION STORAGE AREA FOR AFFOR. UNITS LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A SECTION 'A' 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"B SECTION 'B'P86VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BUILDING SECTIONS 5.2 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES 1 2 3 4 5 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 29'-2"30'-5"10'-2"10"17'-111/4"1'-2"8'-8"8"10'-91/4"1'-23/4"9'-111/4"1'-23/4"8'-8"8"10'-91/4"1'-23/4"12'-31/4"1'-23/4"8'-8"8"10'-91/4"1'-23/4"13'-31/4"1'-23/4"8'-8"8"10'-81/4"1'-23/4"8'-01/4"1'-23/4"7'-81/4"1'-23/4"8'-8"8"1'-51/4"1'-23/4"8'-01/4"1'-23/4"8'-01/4"1'-23/4"7'-81/4"1'-23/4"SHARED GARAGE LINE OF NATURAL GRADE LINE OF NATURAL GRADE OFFSET UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6UNIT 1 BEDC 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 30'-5"8"10'-2"10"19'-5"32'-0"4'-213/16"8'-8"8"10'-91/4"1'-23/4"9'-111/4"1'-23/4"UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 2 UNIT 2SURFACE PARKING UNIT 1 LINE OF NATURAL GRADE LINE OF FINISH GRADE LINE OF NATURAL GRADE OFFSET STORAGE AREA FOR AFFOR. UNITS STORAGE AREA FOR AFFOR. UNITS 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"C SECTION 'C' 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"D SECTION 'D'P87VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BUILDING SECTIONS 5.3 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES 2'-0"2'-6"2'-2"16'-0" APPROX. VERTICAL CUT FOR SITE WALK RETAINING WALL APPROX. EDGE OF DRIPLINE BASED ON SURVEY NEW ON GRADE WALKWAY RETAINING WALL BEYOND LINE OF GRADE AT TREE BASE APPROX. DISTANCE FOR TRUNK TO DRIPLINE BASED ON SURVEY LINE OF NATURAL GRADE LINE OF NATURAL GRADE OFFSET BY 30" LANDSCAPE RETAINING WALL 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 10 13/16"1'-6 31/64"2'-3 7/16"4'-5 11/16"3'-10 47/64"8'-8"8"10'-9 1/4"1'-2 3/4"9'-11 1/4"1'-2 3/4"3"8'-8"8"10'-9 1/4"1'-2 3/4"12'-3 1/4"1'-2 3/4"8'-8"8"10'-9 1/4"1'-2 3/4"13'-3 1/4"1'-2 3/4"4"8'-8"8"10'-8 1/4"1'-2 3/4"8'-0 1/4"1'-2"3/4"7'-8 1/4"1'-2 3/4"9'-4"1'-5 1/4"1'-2 3/4"8'-0 1/4"1'-2 3/4"8'-0 1/4"1'-2 3/4"7'-8 1/4"1'-2 3/4"3"32'-0" OFFSET FROM EXIST. GRADE UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6UNIT 2 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 LINE OF NATURAL GRADE LINE OF FINISH GRADE LINE OF NATURAL GRADE OFFSET STAIR TOWER 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"J DETAIL SECTION 'J' 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"E SECTION 'E'P88VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BUILDING SECTIONS 5.4 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I 1 2 3 4 5 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 3'-8" EXIT DISCHARGE AREA UNIT 1 UNIT 1 UNIT 1 SURFACE PARKING UNIT A-1 UNIT A-1 UNIT A-3 UNIT A-3 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-7 CONVENIENCE STAIR TO SURFACE PARKING BUILDING BEYOND STORAGE AREA FOR AFFOR. UNITS NEW SKYLIGHTS LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES 1 2 3 4 5 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF LINE OF HISTORIC GRADE LINE OF HISTORIC GRADE OFFSET BUILDING BEYOND 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 SECTION 'F' 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"G SECTION 'G' SOUTH ELEVATIONP89 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BUILDING SECTIONS 5.5 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 32'-0"5'-0"LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 DETAIL SECTION 'K' 0 1/2''1''2''SCALE: 1' = 1'-0"1 0suntunnel01 5 LIGHT TUBES PER UNIT WILL BE INSTALLED FOR ADDED NATURAL LIGHT IN THE LOWER LEVELP90 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 3-D MODEL SECTIONS 5.6 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 01/04/2019P&Z REV I MODEL SECTION 'A'MODEL SECTION 'B' SITE SECTION LEGEND P91VI.A. Exhibit B APCHA Board Referral Memo pg. 1 LAND USE MEMORANDUM TO: Garrett Larimer, Community Development Department FROM: APCHA Board of Directors THRU: Mike Kosdrosky, Executive Director DATE: October 2, 2018 RE: Proposed Aspen Hills Subdivision Affordable Housing Project 331-338 Midland Avenue, Aspen, CO PROJECT Aspen Hills Investors, LLC (applicant) is seeking approval on a new project proposal to repurpose the Aspen Hills Subdivision’s eight existing free market units to deed restricted affordable workforce housing units and develop six new free-market housing units to the north and west of the existing building. Bill Boehringer is the Manager of Aspen Hills Investors and has authorized BendonAdams to represent him. BACKGROUND Previous Review and Conditions of Approval The APCHA Board reviewed and made affordable housing recommendations to the City of Aspen’s Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) on a different version of this project in early 2017. The previous proposal requested Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, or Housing Credits, which had been officially approved through Resolution 5 (Series of 2017). Resolution 5 (Series of 2017) approved the applicant under the previous land use application to develop affordable workforce housing via the conversion of eight free-market units (six two- bedroom units and two one-bedroom units) into eight affordable housing units (all two- bedroom units) with the following conditions: A development agreement shall be formulated between Aspen Pitkin Housing Authority and the Applicant incorporating the conditions that the APCHA board recommended in its letter dated January 19, 2017. No building permits may be accepted for improvements to this property until a development agreement is approved and signed between the Aspen Pitkin Housing Authority and the Applicant. The applicant has been approved to receive 18 Housing Credits in exchange for eight two- bedroom affordable housing units. The units will be deed-restricted as for-sale or rent Category 3 units with the Housing Department. Prior to issuing the credits, an appropriate deed restriction shall be approved by APCHA and recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder for each dwelling unit. If the units are P92 VI.A. pg. 2 finalized at a mix of for-sale and rental units, a legal instrument in the form acceptable to the City Attorney must be presented to ensure the permanent affordability. In its letter dated January 19, 2017 to the City’s Community Development, APCHA recommended eighteen conditions of approval under the Housing Credits Program. The conditions were very specific because this was the first project under the Housing Credits Program to consider the redevelopment and conversion of older free market housing stock into newly deed restricted rental and for sale inventory. APCHA wrote: Final acceptance of this project must be approved by APCHA and the City of Aspen prior to and as a condition of issuance of a Development Order and Building Permit by the City of Aspen. A Development Order shall not be issued by the City of Aspen until the APCHA and the applicant enter into a binding development agreement containing the following requirements: 1. Final acceptance and approval is subject to APCHA's and the City of Aspen's complete satisfaction of the scope of work based on additional reports and standards spelled out in the Housing Guidelines, the SGMS, and PVCMl's report of recommendations to APCHA dated January 13, 2017. 2. Approval is further subject to the applicant providing to APCHA sufficient third-party reports detailing the current physical conditions of the building and units and proposed upgrades necessary to satisfy APCHA requirements in APCHA's sole subjective discretion, which requirements will later be specified by APCHA for the applicant. 3. Any amended or additional reports shall be reviewed by APCHA, its consultants, and the City of Aspen. Any third-party consultant hired by APCHA to review or make recommendations on this project shall be reimbursed by applicant. 4. The APCHA, its consultants, and the City of Aspen, shall work with the applicant to establish agreeable technical specifications for the required upgrades. 5. The applicant shall reimburse APCHA for any third-party inspections and reports, including legal consultation associated with drafting and approving a Development Agreement. This shall be incorporated into the Development Agreement. 6. The building permit for the required upgrades shall not be issued by the City of Aspen unless the permit demonstrates the required upgrades are in accordance with the agreed-upon specifications, which will necessitate a third-party construction consultant to review the building permit application on behalf of APCHA. P93 VI.A. pg. 3 7. A Certificate of Occupancy or Letter of Completion for the required upgrades and rehabilitation work shall not be issued unless the improvements have been made in accordance to the scope of work and specifications agreed to prior to Building Permit. APCHA will rely on third party consultant and the City's Building Department to inspect and accept the improvements and standards set forth by APCHA for affordable housing conversion at the expense of the applicant. 8. Prior to APCHA formally accepting the units and authorizing the City of Aspen to issue Housing Certificates, the applicant must complete upgrades to the building and units and establish new Association documents and appropriately fund reserves to meet the satisfaction of APCHA staff. 9. Per the Housing Guidelines and applicant's request, all converted units will be Category 3. 10. Applicant shall convert Unit #331 (one-bedroom unit) that is illegally non- conforming to a two-bedroom unit. 11. A final Capital Reserve Study completed by a certified third party will be required upon acceptance of the project after any rehabilitation and construction for HOA designated common area components and systems. The report shall be given to the HOA and to APCHA by a certified reserve specialist at the time of Certificate of Occupancy or a Certificate of Completion, or within one month of either. Housing Credits shall not be issued by the City of Aspen until the Capital Reserve Study is completed and accepted by APCHA. 12. The applicant and the APCHA shall enter into a development agreement outlining the use of and cost allocation for any third-party reviews or inspections. APCHA reserves the right to bill applicant for direct costs attributable to project review and legal fees with no additional administrative charge. Housing Credits shall not be issued by the City of Aspen Community Development Department until all outstanding costs and fees are reimbursed to or paid on behalf of APCHA for third party review services. 13. The applicant has the option of retaining the units as rental units or selling the units through the lottery system. Once a unit has been sold to a qualified employee, the unit will remain as an ownership unit and shall be sold through APCHA has stated in the deed restriction. 14. The applicant has the option of maintaining three of the units for current owners, either as rentals or ownership. The current owners shall be allowed to remain in the units, shall not be required to meet the minimum P94 VI.A. pg. 4 occupancy requirements, and shall not be required to meet the maximum assets. However, at such time the current owner (which shall be known as an Exempt Tenant or Exempt Owner) makes the decision to sell or vacate their unit, it shall be opened to fully qualified, top priority households only per the Housing Guidelines. Also, the applicant shall only be eligible to collect 1.75 FTE Housing Credits for any two- bedroom unit occupied by a single-person household. The applicant may be issued the outstanding balance of .5 FTE Housing Credits once the unit has been occupied by a qualified 2-person household. 15. If at any time a rental unit is found to be out of compliance, and upon completion of APCHA's Notice of Violation {NOV) process, any remaining units occupied as rentals shall be listed for sale with APCHA and sold through the lottery system. 16. The developer shall obtain approval of all condominium documents to APCHA for review prior to acceptance. These shall include, but may not be limited to, the following: • Articles of Incorporation • By-Laws • Condominium Declaration • Condo Plat Map • Nine required governance policies required by the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA). • Budget 17. At the closing on all units, the developer shall provide to each new homeowner a binder that will include, but may not be limited to, the following: • All condominium documents stated above; • All mechanical warranties, all warranties for appliances, etc., that are available from any additional work completed by the developer 18. The Development Order shall provide the APCHA the reasonable right to not accept the project into the affordable housing inventory if the applicant fails to prove to APCHA's complete satisfaction that the physical condition is safe and acceptable under the standards agreed to, and/or has sufficient capital reserve funds to help safeguard the future affordability and replacement cost of common area components by the Association and its homeowners. P95 VI.A. pg. 5 New Project Proposal Aspen Hills Subdivision was constructed in 1965 with eight two-bedroom units later converted into condominiums in 1969. The site is 15,160 SF and located in the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zone. According to the applicant, due to the uncertainty of the Housing Credit market, it would like the opportunity to revise its previous proposal and submit a new one that would provide mix of free market and deed restricted units. In its April 5, 2018, Amended August 9, 2018, letter, the applicant wants to repurpose the eight Aspen Hills Subdivision units into permanent deed restricted workforce housing to meet its affordable housing mitigation requirements under Section 26.470.100 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. The mitigation is required for building six free market homes to the north and west of the site on the adjacent parcel. The applicant requests a mix of rental and for-sale housing at the RO category designation. The applicant also continues to have an agreement with three of the eight existing free market owners to have the right to remain in their newly deed restricted units. DISCUSSION Existing Conditions The existing project consists of a total eight units (six two-bedroom units and two one- bedroom units (one unit is non-conforming and did not receive building permit approval to remove a bedroom). APCHA Employee Housing Guidelines (Guidelines) state that the minimum square footage for a two-bedroom is 900 square feet and 700 for a one-bedroom. According to the applicant, the existing units average approximately 887 SF of net livable area. The previous development approval required a complete capital assessment and energy audit. The results have been used to establish a scope of work to improve and bring the refurbished deed restricted units up to current building code standards. An updated and revised Development Agreement will be negotiated with APCHA prior to any permit approval for the free market development of this project. Mitigation by Right Under Section 26.470.070.5 of the City’s Land Use Code, Demolition or redevelopment of multi- family housing, the applicant is required to mitigate 100% for the demolition free market housing units. This is to ensure the continued vitality of the community and a critical mass of local working residents, while providing no net loss of density (total number of units) between the existing development and proposed development. Section 26.470.070.5.1.a of the City’s Land Use code states: One-hundred-percent replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-market multifamily housing, the applicant shall have the option to construct replacement housing consisting of no less than one hundred percent (100%) of the number of units, bedrooms and net livable area demolished. The replacement units shall be deed restricted as resident occupied affordable housing, pursuant to the P96 VI.A. pg. 6 Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to Subsection D, Affordable housing, of this Section. When this one-hundred-percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the site may be free-market residential development with no additional affordable housing mitigation required as long as there is no increase in the number of free-market residential units on the parcel. Based on this section of the Code, the applicant will mitigate for the demolition of the eight free-market multi-family units and convert them into deed restricted housing. Also, the applicant is required under the Code to deed restrict these newly deed restricted units as for sale units unless given permission to turn them into rental units. The only way these units can become rental units is if the City, APCHA, or an employer or nonprofit organization with the City’s and APCHA’s permission, can purchase them and rent them. APCHA and Applicant Meeting and Tentative Agreement APCHA staff met with the applicant and the applicant’s representative on Tuesday, September 11, 2018 tentatively agreeing to revising the current Development Agreement pending APCHA board review and recommendation, and ultimately final approval by the P&Z. The conditions were based on the following understanding: · The applicant has a right under the City’s Land Use Code to mitigate for its proposed development project by converting all eight free market units into RO deed restricted units; · APCHA prefers as a matter of policy that all eight units eventually become Category rental units, not for sale RO units, based on need and housing inventory statistics; and · Both APCHA and the applicant want to strike a balance in response to APCHA’s preferences in relation to housing supply and demand, while also providing financially viable options for the applicant. Therefore, both APCHA and the applicant agree on the following: That the Five “Non-Exempt” Units Under the Existing Applicant’s Purchase Agreement: a) Shall be converted to Category-5 Rental Units. b) Shall be two-bedroom units, except Unit A-6 which shall remain a one-bedroom configuration. c) Developer shall provide APCHA with a binding Purchase Option and First Right of Refusal, for APCHA (or its designated assignee(s), at APCHA’s discretion) to purchase any of such Rental units. Exercise of such option for any Rental unit must occur by March 30, 2019 and closing to occur within 30 days upon developer’s completion of the building upgrades and APCHA’s satisfaction of all improvements and recorded deed restriction. Not all the Rental Units must be purchased by the parties designated by APCHA; if contracted to be purchased separately, the five units may be contracted for purchase in the following sequence: Unit A-8, A-6, A-5, A-3, then Unit A-7. P97 VI.A. pg. 7 d) The Purchase Option Pricing for an employer shall be $580,000 for each Category 5 Rental unit (discounted from $650,000 RO value). e) If an employer(s) designated by APCHA has not executed the Purchase Option for any of these five units by March 30, 2019, then the developer shall have the option of making these remaining unsold units RO designation, at either Ownership or Rental units, at developer’s discretion. That the Three “Exempt” Units Under the Existing Applicant’s Purchase Agreement (aka units for current Legacy Owner-occupants (Units A-1, A-2, A-4)): · To be approved for conversion to Category-5, Cat-4, or Cat-3, Ownership units; the Category designation shall be at developer’s discretion. · All Legacy units shall be two-bedroom units, except Unit A-2 which shall remain as its current one-bedroom configuration. · If all the five “non-exempt” units above are sold as Rental units to an employer(s) at the discretion of APCHA pursuant to the above Purchase Option timing, the deed restrictions for each of these 3 Legacy units will require the following provisions apply upon future sale to a third party other than such owner’s direct family descendant: a) APCHA shall have a First Right of Refusal to purchase any of such three units; such right shall be assignable by APCHA to a party designated at APCHA’s discretion. b) If APCHA’s designee(s) were to purchase any of these units, then APCHA shall have the right to amend the Category designation, as well as amend whether such unit remains as an Ownership unit or Rental unit. c) For any sale to a third party other than to APCHA or APCHA’s designated party(s), the unit shall convert to a Rental unit at the same Category designation as stipulated by the developer within the initial deed restriction. d) Note: Any direct descendant wishing to purchase one of these Legacy units shall meet all APCHA qualifications for such unit Category. RECOMMENDATIONS APCHA Board reviewed the application at their Regular Meeting held September 19, 2018 and recommended approval of this project based on the conditions and terms provided above under APCHA and Applicant Meeting and Tentative Agreement, with the following conditions to be met by the applicant: 1. The units will remain as six two-bedroom and two one-bedroom units. 2. Final acceptance of this project must be approved by APCHA and the City of Aspen prior to and as a condition of issuance of a Development Order and Building Permit by the City of Aspen. 3. The building permit for the required upgrades shall not be issued by the City of Aspen unless the permit demonstrates the required upgrades are in accordance with the agreed-upon specifications, which will necessitate a third-party P98 VI.A. pg. 8 construction consultant to review the building permit application on behalf of APCHA. 4. A Certificate of Occupancy or Letter of Completion for the required upgrades and rehabilitation work shall not be issued unless the improvements have been made in accordance to the scope of work and specifications agreed to prior to Building Permit. APCHA will rely on third party consultant and the City’s Building Department to inspect and accept the improvements and standards set forth by APCHA for affordable housing conversion at the expense of the applicant. 5. Per the Tentative Agreement listed above, the five “non-exempt” units will convert to units will be Category 5 rental and/or ownership units. 6. A final Capital Reserve Study completed by a certified third party will be required upon acceptance of the project after any rehabilitation and construction for HOA designated common area components and systems. 7. The applicant and the APCHA shall enter into an amended development agreement outlining the use of and cost allocation for any third-party reviews or inspections. APCHA reserves the right to bill applicant for direct costs attributable to project review with no additional administrative charge. 8. A separate HOA will be created for the affordable housing project separate from the free-market units. Should the units become ownership units, the developer shall obtain approval of all condominium documents by APCHA. These shall include, but may not be limited to, the following: a. Articles of Incorporation b. By-Laws c. Condominium Declaration d. Condo Plat Map e. Nine required governance policies required by the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA). f. Budget g. HOA be provided a copy of an updated Reserve Study The APCHA reserves the right not to accept the project into the affordable housing inventory if the applicant fails to prove to APCHA’s complete satisfaction that the physical condition is safe and acceptable under the standards agreed to, and/or has sufficient capital reserve funds to help safeguard the future affordability and replacement cost of common-area components by the Association and its homeowners. P99 VI.A. Exhibit C GMQS Affordable Housing Review Criteria Page 1 of 2 Summary of Review Criteria for Section 26.470.100, Calculations 1) 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. MET GMQS Review - Affordable Housing D. 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 general requirements outlined in Section 26.470.080. P100 VI.A. Exhibit C GMQS Affordable Housing Review Criteria Page 2 of 2 Section 26.470.100 D. 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 general requirements outlined in Section 26.470.080. 1) 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 land use code states that affordable housing units “shall” be for sale units but later notes that the “may” be for rent. The instances where rental may be appropriate include when the rental units are owned by APCHA, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, or “other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency.” The APCHA Board at their regularly scheduled meeting recommended approval of a mix of rental and for sale units due to current market demands. APCHA has a tentative agreement that allows them first option to buy the units and offer 5 of the 8 units as rental units. If the agreement to purchase is not finalized by March 30, 2019 then the applicant has the ability to offer the units as for sale or for rent. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P101 VI.A. Exhibit D GMQS General Review Standards Review Criteria Page 1 of 9 Summary of Review Criteria for Section 26.470.080, General Review Standards A. Sufficient Allotments: Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.040.B. Applications for multi-year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.110.A shall be required to meet this standard for the growth management years from which the allotments are requested. MET B. Development Conformance: The proposed development conforms to the requirements and limitations of this Title, of the zone district or a site-specific development plan, any adopted regulatory master plan, as well as any previous approvals, including the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Planned Development – Project Review approval, as applicable. NOT MET C. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. 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. MET GMQS Review - General Review Standards All Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards. P102 VI.A. Exhibit D GMQS General Review Standards Review Criteria Page 2 of 9 D. Affordable Housing Mitigation. 1) For commercial development, sixty-five percent (65%) of the employees generated by the additional commercial net leasable space, according to Section 26.470.050.B, Employee generation rates, shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. DOES NOT APPLY 2) For lodge development, sixty-five percent (65%) of the employees generated by the additional lodge pillows, according to Section 26.470.050.B, Employee generation rates, shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. For the redevelopment or expansion of existing lodge uses, see section 26.470.100.H. DOES NOT APPLY 3) For the redevelopment of existing commercial net leasable space that did not previously mitigate (see Section 26.470.070.F), the mitigation requirements for affordable housing shall be phased at 15% beginning in 2017, and by 3% each year thereafter until 65% is reached, as follows: DOES NOT APPLY 4) Unless otherwise exempted in this chapter, when a change in use between development categories is proposed, the employee mitigation shall be based on the use the development is converting to. For instance, if a commercial space is being converted to lodge units, the mitigation shall be based on the requirements for lodge space, outlined in subsection 2, above. Conversely, if lodge units are being converted to commercial space, the mitigation shall be based on the requirements for commercial space, outlined in subsections 1 and 3, above. DOES NOT APPLY 5) For free-market residential development, affordable housing net livable area shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free- market residential net livable area. DOES NOT APPLY 6) For essential public facility development, mitigation shall be determined based on Section 26.470.110.D. DOES NOT APPLY P103 VI.A. Exhibit D GMQS General Review Standards Review Criteria Page 3 of 9 7) For all affordable housing units that are being provided as mitigation pursuant to this chapter or for the creation of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540, or for any other reason: a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. MET b. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of methods outlined in this chapter, including newly built units, buy down units, certificates of affordable housing credit, or cash-in-lieu. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard, and the approved forms of mitigation methods shall be based on this recommendation. MET c. Affordable housing that is in the form of newly built units or buy-down units shall be located on the same parcel as the proposed development or located off-site within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Section 26.470.110.B. When off-site units withi n City limits are proposed, all requisite approvals shall be obtained prior to approval of the growth management application. MET d. Affordable housing mitigation in the form of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, shall be extinguished pursuant to Section 26.540.120, Extinguishment and Re-Issuance of a Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.050.F, Employee/Square Footage Conversion. DOES NOT APPLY e. If the total mitigation requirement for a project is less than .25 FTEs, a cash-in-lieu payment may be made by right. If the total mitigation requirement for a project is .25 or more FTEs, a cash-in-lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Section 26.470.110.C. DOES NOT APPLY P104 VI.A. Exhibit D GMQS General Review Standards Review Criteria Page 4 of 9 26.470.080. General Review Standards. All Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards. A. Sufficient Allotments: Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.040.B. Applications for multi-year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.110.A shall be required to meet this standard for the growth management years from which the allotments are requested. Staff Response: There are sufficient growth management allotments available to accommodate the proposed development. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing 8 free market units in the existing building as 8 affordable housing units deed restricted as RO. Six free market residential units will then be replaced in a new building on site. There is no limit on the number of affordable housing units that may be developed in a year, and the six free market units are replacement units and do not count toward the annual development allotments. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Development Conformance: The proposed development conforms to the requirements and limitations of this Title, of the zone district or a site-specific development plan, any adopted regulatory master plan, as well as any previous approvals, including the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Planned Development – Project Review approval, as applicable. f. Affordable housing units shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.100.D, 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 choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. DOES NOT APPLY g. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430 NOT MET 8) Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied (RO). DOES NOT APPLY P105 VI.A. Exhibit D GMQS General Review Standards Review Criteria Page 5 of 9 Staff Response: The site is not subject to adopted regulatory master plan or a Planned Development. A site-specific plan has already been approved (2017) for this site, however, the previous approval will be vacated if the Planning and Zoning Commissions approves the current request. The site is currently non-conforming in terms of setbacks on the East and South property lines. A Special Review will need to be approved in order to allow for the existing building to be redeveloped, as it is requested to maintain existing setback non- conformities. The neighborhood contains a mix of free market and affordable housing, and single-family homes and multi-family developments. The proposed retaining wall on the south side of the covered parking and a portion of the wall to the east of the parking facility do not comply with the height limitations allowed in setbacks. Based on the non-conforming setbacks, and proposed retaining walls in the setback, staff finds this criterion to be not met. C. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. 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 applicant has provided a pre-development report that addresses current utilities and public infrastructure at the site. It’s expected that the applicant will be required to upgrade various utilities and the applicant has indicated they understand it is their sole responsibility to provide adequate service and to comply with all code requirements within the City. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Affordable Housing Mitigation. 1) For commercial development, sixty-five percent (65%) of the employees generated by the additional commercial net leasable space, according to Section 26.470.050.B, Employee generation rates, shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. Staff Response: No commercial development is proposed. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 2) For lodge development, sixty-five percent (65%) of the employees generated by the additional lodge pillows, according to Section 26.470.050.B, Employee generation rates, shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. For the redevelopment or expansion of existing lodge uses, see section 26.470.100.H. Staff Response: No lodge development is proposed. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 3) For the redevelopment of existing commercial net leasable space that did not previously mitigate (see Section 26.470.070.F), the mitigation requirements for P106 VI.A. Exhibit D GMQS General Review Standards Review Criteria Page 6 of 9 affordable housing shall be phased at 15% beginning in 2017, and by 3% each year thereafter until 65% is reached, as follows: Staff Response: No commercial redevelopment is proposed. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 4) Unless otherwise exempted in this chapter, when a change in use between development categories is proposed, the employee mitigation shall be based on the use the development is converting to. For instance, if a commercial space is being converted to lodge units, the mitigation shall be based on the requirements for lodge space, outlined in subsection 2, above. Conversely, if lodge units are being converted to commercial space, the mitigation shall be based on the requirements for commercial space, outlined in subsections 1 and 3, above. Staff Response: No change in use is proposed. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 5) For free-market residential development, affordable housing net livable area shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area. Staff Response: No new free market residential units are proposed, a different mitigation requirement is applicable. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 6) For essential public facility development, mitigation shall be determined based on Section 26.470.110.D. Staff Response: The proposed development is not an essential public facility. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 7) For all affordable housing units that are being provided as mitigation pursuant to this chapter or for the creation of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540, or for any other reason: a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. Staff Response: Six of the proposed affordable units are smaller than the APCHA Guideline requires, the two one-bedroom units are above the minimum size required by the APCHA Guidelines. Units 331-336 meet the above grade requirement for affordable housing units, Units 337 and 338’s finished floor is entirely below grade as measured by natural grade. See the chart below for proposed sizes and the difference from the guidelines. P107 VI.A. Exhibit D GMQS General Review Standards Review Criteria Page 7 of 9 Units to be converted to RO Affordable Housing Units (Existing) Unit Beds Bath Net Livable S.F. Difference from Guidelines 331 1 1 844 + 144 sf. or 20.6% 332 2 1 843 -57 SF or 6.3% 333 2 1 841 -59 SF or 6.5% 334 2 1 840 -60 SF or 6.7% 335 2 1 841 -59 SF or 6.5% 336 1 1 840 +140 SF or 20% 337 2 1 856 -44 SF or 4.9% 338 2 1 849 -51 SF or 5.7% The APCHA Guidelines allow for a maximum 20% reduction in net livable under Part III, Section 5A if specific conditions are met, and if the APCHA Board approves the reduction in size. The APCHA Board has approved a reduction in allowed size. The code requires that 50% or more of the units net livable be above grade and the application shows units 337 & 338 (A-7, A-8) as being 100% below grade as measured by the finished floor in relation to natural or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive. The APCHA Board also considered this variation from their Guidelines and determined that the units have been livable for years, and the proposal does not change that. The APCHA board approved the units to be built in the same configuration that they currently exist. The APCHA Board considered the specific items mentioned above and made a general recommendation to approve the project. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of methods outlined in this chapter, including newly built units, buy down units, certificates of affordable housing credit, or cash-in-lieu. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard, and the approved forms of mitigation methods shall be based on this recommendation. Staff Response: The demolition of the structure requires that the same number of units be replaced on site. The applicant proposes to demolish 8 free market units and replace those demolished units with 8 affordable housing units. The multi-family replacement section of the code permits additional free market units to be built with no affordable housing mitigation required if the 100% replacement option is satisfied, which is the case in this situation. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P108 VI.A. Exhibit D GMQS General Review Standards Review Criteria Page 8 of 9 c. Affordable housing that is in the form of newly built units or buy-down units shall be located on the same parcel as the proposed development or located off- site within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Section 26.470.110.B. When off-site units within City limits are proposed, all requisite approvals shall be obtained prior to approval of the growth management application. Staff Response: All affordable housing mitigation requirements will be provided through on- site replacement units. Staff finds this criterion to be met. d. Affordable housing mitigation in the form of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, shall be extinguished pursuant to Section 26.540.120, Extinguishment and Re-Issuance of a Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.050.F, Employee/Square Footage Conversion. Staff Response: No affordable housing certificates will need to be extinguished as a result of the development. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. e. If the total mitigation requirement for a project is less than .25 FTEs, a cash-in- lieu payment may be made by right. If the total mitigation requirement for a project is .25 or more FTEs, a cash-in-lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Section 26.470.110.C. Staff Response: No additional affordable housing mitigation will be required that would generate an FTE calculation. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. f. Affordable housing units shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.100.D, 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 choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Staff Response: The development proposal is subject to the Replacement of Multifamily requirements which have specific, more restrictive requirements. Staff finds this standard to be not applicable. g. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430 Staff Response: The existing eight units are going to be renovated and remain in the current configuration. Each unit is stacked in a two-story configuration. The applicant is proposing to bump out the upper level walls to increase the above grade net livable of units 331-336 so that the above grade ratio complies with the requirements of this section. Units 337-338’s P109 VI.A. Exhibit D GMQS General Review Standards Review Criteria Page 9 of 9 finished floor is 100% below grade as measured by natural grade. Special Review for the below grade condition of units 337 and 338 will be required. The APCHA Board considered a previous version of the application where all units were subject to Special Review because more than 50% of each unit’s net livable was below grade. At the regularly scheduled meeting, this was considered by the APCHA Board and a recommendation was made to approve the affordable housing units. The applicant has improved the below grade ratio for six of the eight units, but two of the proposed affordable housing units don’t comply with the requirements of this section, however, the requirement is clear, and the application doesn’t comply, so staff finds this criterion to not be met. 8) Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied (RO). Staff Response: The code allows for units provided as mitigation for the demolition of free market residential units to be provided as RO units if one-hundred percent replacement is the option selected, which is the case in this application. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. P110 VI.A. Exhibit E GMQS Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing Review Criteria Page 1 of 13 Summary of Review Criteria for Section 26.470.100, Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing. GMQS Review - Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi- Family Housing Review Criteria All Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards. E. Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing. The City's neighborhoods have traditionally been comprised of a mix of housing types, including those affordable by its working residents. However, because of Aspen's attractiveness as a resort environment and because of the physical constraints of the upper Roaring Fork Valley, there is constant pressure for the redevelopment of dwellings currently providing resident housing for tourist and second-home use. Such redevelopment results in the displacement of i ndividuals and families who are an integral part of the Aspen work force. Given the extremely high cost of and demand for market-rate housing, resident housing opportunities for displaced working residents, which are now minimal, will continue to decrease. Preservation of the housing inventory and provision of dispersed housing opportunities in Aspen have been long-standing planning goals of the community. Achievement of these goals will serve to promote a socially and economically balanced community, limit the number of individuals who face a long and sometimes dangerous commute on State Highway 82, reduce the air pollution effects of commuting and prevent exclusion of worki ng residents from the City's neighborhoods. The Aspen Area Community Plan established a goal that affordable housing for working residents be provided by both the public and private sectors. The City and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority have provided affordable housing both within and adjacent to the City limits. The private sector has also provided affordable housing. Nevertheless, as a result of the replacement of resident housing with second homes and tourist accommodations and the steady increase in the size of the workforce required to assure the continued viability of Aspen area businesses and the City's tourist-based economy, the City has found it necessary, in concert with other regulations, to adopt limitations on the combining, demolition or conversion of existing multi-family housing in order to minimize the displacement of working residents, to ensure that the private sector maintains its role in the provision of resident housing and to prevent a housing shortfall from occurring. The combining, demolition, conversion or redevelopment of multi-family housing shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on compliance with the following requirements (see definition of demolition.): P111 VI.A. Exhibit E GMQS Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing Review Criteria Page 2 of 13 a. One-hundred-percent replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-market multi-family housing, the applicant shall have the option to construct replacement housing consisting of no less than one hundred percent (100%) of the number of units, bedrooms and net livable area demolished. The replacement units shall be deed- restricted as resident occupied affordable housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to Subsection D, Affordable housing, of this Section. When this one-hundred-percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the site may be free-market residential development with no additional affordable housing mitigation required as long as there is no increase in the number of free-market residential units on the parcel. Free-market units in excess of the total number originally on the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.470.110, subsection J or K, Residential Development – sixty or seventy percent affordable. MET b. Fifty-percent replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-market multi-family housing and replacement of less than one hundred percent (100%) of the number of previous units, bedrooms or net livable area as described above, the applicant shall be required to construct affordable housing consisting of no less than fifty percent (50%) of the number of units, bedrooms and the net livable area demolished. The replacement units shall be deed-restricted as Category 4 housing, pursuant to the guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide miti gation units at a lower category designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.100.D, Affordable housing. When this fifty-percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the site may be free-market residential development as long as additional affordable housing mitigation is provided pursuant to Section 26.470.080 – General Requirements, and there is no increase in the number of free-market residential units on the parcel. Free-market units in excess of the total number originally on the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.470.100, subsection J or K, Residential Development – sixty or seventy percent affordable. DOES NOT APPLY P112 VI.A. Exhibit E GMQS Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing Review Criteria Page 3 of 13 c. One-hundred percent affordable housing replacement. When one-hundred-percent of the free- market multi-family housing units are demolished and are solely replaced with deed-restricted affordable housing units on a site that are not required for mitigation purposes, including any net additional dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.470.110.D, Affordable Housing; all of the units in the redevelopment are eligible for a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit, pursuant to Section 26.540 Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit. Any remaining unused free market residential development rights shall be vacated. DOES NOT APPLY 2. Requirements for demolishing affordable multi-family housing units: In the event a project proposes to demolish or replace existing deed-restricted affordable housing units, the redevelopment may increase or decrease the number of units, bedrooms or net livable area such that there is no decrease in the total number of employees housed by the existing units. The overall number of replacement units, unit sizes, bedrooms and category of the units shall be reviewed by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and a recommendation forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission. DOES NOT APPLY 3. Fractional unit requirement. When the affordable housing replacement requirement of this Section involves a fraction of a unit, fee-in-lieu may be provided only upon the review and approval of the City Council, to meet the fractional requirement only, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.110.C, Provision of required affordable housing via a fee-in-lieu payment. DOES NOT APPLY P113 VI.A. Exhibit E GMQS Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing Review Criteria Page 4 of 13 4. Location requirement. Multi-family replacement units, both free-market and affordable, shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner shall demonstrate and the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that replacement of the units on site would be in conflict with the parcel's zoning or would be an inappropriate solution due to the site's physical constraints. When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of units on site which the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the site can accommodate and may replace the remaining units off site, at a location determined acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission, or may replace the units by extinguishing the requisite number of affordable housing credits, pursuant to Sec. 26.540, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard. MET 5. Timing requirement. Any replacement units required to be deed-restricted as affordable housing shall be issued a certificate of occupancy, according to the Building Department, and be available for occupancy at the same time as, or prior to, any redeveloped free-market units, regardless of whether the replacement units are bui lt on site or off site. MET 6. Redevelopment agreement. The applicant and the City shall enter into a redevelopment agreement that specifies the manner in which the applicant shall adhere to the approvals granted pursuant to this Section and penalties for noncompliance. The agreement shall be recorded before an application for a demolition permit may be accepted by the City. MET 7. Growth management allotments. The existing number of free-market residential units, prior to demoliti on, may be replaced exempt from growth management, provided that the units conform to the provisions of this Section. The redevelopment credits shall not be transferable separate from the property unless permitted as described above in Subparagraph 4, Location requirement. MET 8. Exemptions. The Community Development Director shall exempt from the procedures and requirements of this Section the following types of development involving Multi- Family Housing Units. An exemption from these replacement requirements shall not exempt a development from compliance with any other provisions of this Title: P114 VI.A. Exhibit E GMQS Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing Review Criteria Page 5 of 13 a. The replacement of Multi-Family Housing Units after non-willful demolition such as a flood, fire, or other natural catastrophe, civil commotion, or similar event not purposefully caused by the land owner. The Community Development Director may require documentation be provided by the landowner to confi rm the damage to the building was in-fact non-willful. To be exempted, the replacement development shall be an exact replacement of the previous number of units, bedrooms, and square footage and in the same configuration. The Community Development Director may approve exceptions to this exact replacement requirement to accommodate changes necessary to meet current building codes; improve accessibility; to conform to zoning, design standards, or other regulatory requirements of the City; or, to provide other architectural or site planning improvements that have no substantial effect on the use or program of the development. (Also see Chapter 26.312 – Nonconformities.) Substantive changes to the development shall not be exempted from this Section and shall be reviewed as a willful change pursuant to the procedures and requirements of this Section. DOES NOT APPLY b. The demolition of Multi-Family Housing Units by order of a public agency including, but not limited to, the City of Aspen for reasons of preserving the life, health, safety, or general welfare of the public. DOES NOT APPLY c. The demolition, combining, conversion, replacement, or redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing Units which have been used exclusively as tourist accommodations or by non-working residents. The Community Development Director may require occupancy records, leases, affidavits, or other documentation to the satisfaction of the Director to demonstrate that the unit(s) has never housed a working resident. All other requirements of this Title shall still apply including zoning, growth management, and building codes.) DOES NOT APPLY P115 VI.A. Exhibit E GMQS Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing Review Criteria Page 6 of 13 a. The replacement of Multi-Family Housing Units after non-willful demolition such as a flood, fire, or other natural catastrophe, civil commotion, or similar event not purposefully caused by the land owner. The Community Development Director may require documentation be provided by the landowner to confi rm the damage to the building was in-fact non-willful. To be exempted, the replacement development shall be an exact replacement of the previous number of units, bedrooms, and square footage and in the same configuration. The Community Development Director may approve exceptions to this exact replacement requirement to accommodate changes necessary to meet current building codes; improve accessibility; to conform to zoning, design standards, or other regulatory requirements of the City; or, to provide other architectural or site planning improvements that have no substantial effect on the use or program of the development. (Also see Chapter 26.312 – Nonconformities.) Substantive changes to the development shall not be exempted from this Section and shall be reviewed as a willful change pursuant to the procedures and requirements of this Section. DOES NOT APPLY b. The demolition of Multi-Family Housing Units by order of a public agency including, but not limited to, the City of Aspen for reasons of preserving the life, health, safety, or general welfare of the public. DOES NOT APPLY c. The demolition, combining, conversion, replacement, or redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing Units which have been used exclusively as tourist accommodations or by non-working residents. The Community Development Director may require occupancy records, leases, affidavits, or other documentation to the satisfaction of the Director to demonstrate that the unit(s) has never housed a working resident. All other requirements of this Title shall still apply including zoning, growth management, and building codes.) DOES NOT APPLY P116 VI.A. Exhibit E GMQS Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing Review Criteria Page 7 of 13 Section 26.470.100 E. Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing. The City's neighborhoods have traditionally been comprised of a mix of housing types, including those affordable by its working residents. However, because of Aspen's attractiveness as a resort environment and because of the physical constraints of the upper Roaring Fork Valley, there is constant pressure for the redevelopment of dwellings currently providing resident housing for tourist and second-home use. Such redevelopment results in the displacement of individuals and families who are an integral part of the Aspen work force. Given the extremely high cost of and demand for market-rate housing, resident housing opportunities for displaced working residents, which are now minimal, will continue to decrease. Preservation of the housing inventory and provision of dispersed housing opportunities in Aspen have been long-standing planning goals of the community. Achievement of these goals will serve to promote a socially and economically balanced community, limit the number of individuals who face a long and sometimes dangerous commute on State Highway 82, reduce the air pollution effects of commuting and prevent exclusion of working residents from the City's neighborhoods. The Aspen Area Community Plan established a goal that affordable housing for working residents be provided by both the public and private sectors. The City and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority have provided affordable housing both within and adjacent to the City limits. The private sector has also provided affordable housing. Nevertheless, as a result of the replacement of resident housing with second homes and tourist accommodations and the steady increase in the size of the workforce required to assure the continued viability of Aspen area businesses and the City's tourist-based economy, the City has found it necessary, in concert with other regulations, to adopt limitations on the combining, demolition or conversion of existing multi-family housing in order to minimize the displacement of working residents, to ensure that the private sector maintains its role in the provision of resident housing and to prevent a housing shortfall from occurring. The combining, demolition, conversion or redevelopment of multi-family housing shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on compliance with the following requirements (see definition of demolition.): 1. Requirements for combining, demolishing, converting or redeveloping free-market multi-family housing units: Only one (1) of the following two (2) options is required to be met when combining, demolishing, converting or redeveloping a free-market multi-family residential property. To ensure the continued vitality of the community and a critical mass of local working residents, no net loss of density (total number of units) between the existing development and proposed development shall be allowed. P117 VI.A. Exhibit E GMQS Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing Review Criteria Page 8 of 13 a. One-hundred-percent replacement. In the event of the demolition of free- market multi-family housing, the applicant shall have the option to construct replacement housing consisting of no less than one hundred percent (100%) of the number of units, bedrooms and net livable area demolished. The replacement units shall be deed-restricted as resident occupied affordable housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to Subsection D, Affordable housing, of this Section. When this one-hundred-percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the site may be free-market residential development with no additional affordable housing mitigation required as long as there is no increase in the number of free-market residential units on the parcel. Free-market units in excess of the total number originally on the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.470.110, subsection J or K, Residential Development – sixty or seventy percent affordable. Staff Response: The applicant has selected the 100% replacement option to satisfy the multi- family replacement requirements. Although the structure is not going to be completely demolished, the foundation will remain, it is considered demolished because the proposed remodel demolishes more than 40% of the exterior elements as determined by Section 26.575.020H - Measurement of Demolition. The 8 existing free market units will be replaced as 8 affordable housing units. The affordable units will be deed restricted as Resident Occupied as provided for in this section of the code. The applicant is requesting approval to replace the units in kind only. Two of the eight units are one-bedroom units, only one converted the unit legally, but based on a recommendation from APCHA, and the interest to add additional one-bedroom units to the inventory, those units will continue to exist as one- bedroom units. Based on this recommendation the applicant complies with the 100% replacement requirements. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b. Fifty-percent replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-market multi- family housing and replacement of less than one hundred percent (100%) of the number of previous units, bedrooms or net livable area as described above, the applicant shall be required to construct affordable housing consisting of no less than fifty percent (50%) of the number of units, bedrooms and the net livable area demolished. The replacement units shall be deed-restricted as Category 4 housing, pursuant to the guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.100.D, Affordable housing. When this fifty-percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the site may be free-market residential development as long as additional P118 VI.A. Exhibit E GMQS Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing Review Criteria Page 9 of 13 affordable housing mitigation is provided pursuant to Section 26.470.080 – General Requirements, and there is no increase in the number of free-market residential units on the parcel. Free-market units in excess of the total number originally on the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.470.100, subsection J or K, Residential Development – sixty or seventy percent affordable. Staff response: The applicant has not selected this option, staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. c. One-hundred percent affordable housing replacement. When one-hundred- percent of the free-market multi-family housing units are demolished and are solely replaced with deed-restricted affordable housing units on a site that are not required for mitigation purposes, including any net additional dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.470.110.D, Affordable Housing; all of the units in the redevelopment are eligible for a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit, pursuant to Section 26.540 Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit. Any remaining unused free market residential development rights shall be vacated. Staff response: The applicant has not selected this option, staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 2. Requirements for demolishing affordable multi-family housing units: In the event a project proposes to demolish or replace existing deed-restricted affordable housing units, the redevelopment may increase or decrease the number of units, bedrooms or net livable area such that there is no decrease in the total number of employees housed by the existing units. The overall number of replacement units, unit sizes, bedrooms and category of the units shall be reviewed by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and a recommendation forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff Response: No affordable multifamily units are to be demolished. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 3. Fractional unit requirement. When the affordable housing replacement requirement of this Section involves a fraction of a unit, fee-in-lieu may be provided only upon the review and approval of the City Council, to meet the fractional requirement only, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.110.C, Provision of required affordable housing via a fee-in-lieu payment. Staff Response: No fractional units exist on site. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 4. Location requirement. Multi-family replacement units, both free-market and affordable, shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner shall demonstrate and the Planning and Zoning Commission P119 VI.A. Exhibit E GMQS Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing Review Criteria Page 10 of 13 determines that replacement of the units on site would be in conflict with the parcel's zoning or would be an inappropriate solution due to the site's physical constraints. When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of units on site which the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the site can accommodate and may replace the remaining units off site, at a location determined acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission, or may replace the units by extinguishing the requisite number of affordable housing credits, pursuant to Sec. 26.540, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard. When calculating the number of credits that must be extinguished, the most restrictive replacement measure shall apply. So, for example, for an applicant proposing to replace one 1,000 square foot three-bedroom unit at the 50% rate using credits, the following calculations shall be used: · 50% of 1,000 square feet = 500 square feet to be replaced. At the Code mandated rate of 1 FTE per 400 square feet of net livable area, this requires 1.25 credits to be extinguished; or · A three-bedroom unit = 3.0 FTE’s. 50% of 3.0 FTE’s = 1.50 credits to be extinguished. Therefore, the applicant must extinguish 1.50 credits to replace a three-bedroom unit at the 50% rate. The credits to be extinguished would be Category 4 credits. Staff Response: The applicant has selected 100% replacement for the free market units to be demolished, and all units will be replaced on site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Timing requirement. Any replacement units required to be deed-restricted as affordable housing shall be issued a certificate of occupancy, according to the Building Department, and be available for occupancy at the same time as, or prior to, any redeveloped free-market units, regardless of whether the replacement units are built on site or off site. Staff Response: The applicant has not indicated a desire to phase construction or pursue certificates of occupancy for the free market units prior to the deed restricted units. The applicant is aware of this requirement. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Redevelopment agreement. The applicant and the City shall enter into a redevelopment agreement that specifies the manner in which the applicant shall P120 VI.A. Exhibit E GMQS Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing Review Criteria Page 11 of 13 adhere to the approvals granted pursuant to this Section and penalties for noncompliance. The agreement shall be recorded before an application for a demolition permit may be accepted by the City. Staff Response: Two redevelopment agreements will be required prior to the submittal of a building permit. One for the APCHA redevelopment requirements, standards, and conditions of the for sale and for rent agreements. The second for the City Community Development Department that addresses elements of the approval and terms of vacating the previous approval. The applicant is aware of this requirement and provided a development agreement that accompanied the previous approval for the demolition of the structure and establishment of deed restricted units for affordable housing certificate. This requirement will be a condition of the approval. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. Growth management allotments. The existing number of free-market residential units, prior to demolition, may be replaced exempt from growth management, provided that the units conform to the provisions of this Section. The redevelopment credits shall not be transferable separate from the property unless permitted as described above in Subparagraph 4, Location requirement. Staff Response: All replacement units will be constructed on site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 8. Exemptions. The Community Development Director shall exempt from the procedures and requirements of this Section the following types of development involving Multi-Family Housing Units. An exemption from these replacement requirements shall not exempt a development from compliance with any other provisions of this Title: a. The replacement of Multi-Family Housing Units after non-willful demolition such as a flood, fire, or other natural catastrophe, civil commotion, or similar event not purposefully caused by the land owner. The Community Development Director may require documentation be provided by the landowner to confirm the damage to the building was in-fact non-willful. To be exempted, the replacement development shall be an exact replacement of the previous number of units, bedrooms, and square footage and in the same configuration. The Community Development Director may approve exceptions to this exact replacement requirement to accommodate changes necessary to meet current building codes; improve accessibility; to conform to zoning, design standards, or other regulatory requirements of the City; or, to provide other architectural or site planning improvements that have no substantial effect on the use or program of the development. (Also see Chapter 26.312 – Nonconformities.) Substantive changes to the development shall not be exempted from this Section and shall be reviewed as a willful change pursuant to the procedures and requirements of this Section. P121 VI.A. Exhibit E GMQS Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing Review Criteria Page 12 of 13 Staff Response: The demolition is willful and this exemption does not apply. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. b. The demolition of Multi-Family Housing Units by order of a public agency including, but not limited to, the City of Aspen for reasons of preserving the life, health, safety, or general welfare of the public. Staff Response: The demolition is not by order of public agency. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. c. The demolition, combining, conversion, replacement, or redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing Units which have been used exclusively as tourist accommodations or by non-working residents. The Community Development Director may require occupancy records, leases, affidavits, or other documentation to the satisfaction of the Director to demonstrate that the unit(s) has never housed a working resident. All other requirements of this Title shall still apply including zoning, growth management, and building codes.) Staff Response: The applicant has indicated that the units have been used to house local, working residents, and some second home owners. The property does not qualify for this exemption as the units were not used exclusively as tourist accommodations. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. d. The demolition, combining, conversion, replacement, or redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing Units which were illegally created (also known as “Bandit Units”). Any improvements associated with Bandit Units shall be required to conform to current requirements of this Title including zoning, growth management, and building codes. Replaced or redeveloped Bandit Units shall be deed restricted as Resident Occupied affordable housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Staff Response: The units will legally established. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. e. Any development action involving demising walls or floors/ceilings necessary for the normal upkeep, maintenance, or remodeling of adjacent Multi-Family Housing Units. Staff Response: The proposed scope of work exceeds this exemption. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. f. A change order to an issued and active building permit that proposes to exceed the limitations of remodeling/demolition to rebuild portions of a P122 VI.A. Exhibit E GMQS Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing Review Criteria Page 13 of 13 structure which, in the opinion of the Community Development Director, should be rebuilt for structural, safety, accessibility, or significant energy efficiency reasons first realized during construction, which were not known and could not have been reasonably predicted prior to construction, and which cause no or minimal changes to the exterior dimensions and character of the building. Staff Response: The applicant has not submitted a building permit, demolition will be reached based on the current scope. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. P123 VI.A. Exhibit F Special Review – Review Criteria Page 1 of 7 Summary of Review Criteria for Section 26.430.040.A, Dimensional Requirements 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. MET 2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated view plane. NOT MET Special Review - Dimensional Requirements A. Dimensional requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met. P124 VI.A. Exhibit F Special Review – Review Criteria Page 2 of 7 Summary of Review Criteria for Section 26.430.040.B, Replacement of Nonconforming Structures 1. The proposed development shall comply with the conditions of Subsection 26.430.040.A above;NOT MET 2. There exist special characteristics unique to the property which differentiate the property from other properties located in the same zone district; NOT MET 3. No dimensional variations are increased, and the replacement structure represents the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the property; and NOT MET 4. Literal enforcement of the dimensional provisions of the zone district would cause unnecessary hardship upon the owner by prohibiting reasonable use of the property. NOT MET Special Review - Replacement of Nonconforming Structures B. Replacement of nonconforming structures. Whenever a structure or portion thereof, which does not conform to the dimensional requirements of the zone district in which the property is located is proposed to be replaced after demolition, the following criteria shall be met: P125 VI.A. Exhibit F Special Review – Review Criteria Page 3 of 7 26.430.040. Review standards for special review. No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all standards and requirements set forth below. Summary of Review Criteria for Section 26.430.040.I, Affordable Housing Unit Standards 1. The proposed affordable housing units are designed in a manner that is compatible with the character of the neighborhood. MET 2. The proposed amount that the affordable housing units are below natural or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive, is an appropriate response to unique site constraints, such as topography. NOT MET 3. The proposed affordable housing units are designed in such a manner which exceeds the expectations of the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, and promotes the unit’s general livability by demonstrating compliance with as many of the following conditions as possible: a) Significant storage, such as additional storage outside a unit. b) Above average natural light, such as adding more window area than the Building Code requires. c) Net livable unit sizes exceed minimum requirement. City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400 – Special Review Page 4 d) Unit amenities, such as access to outdoor space or private patios. NOT MET Special Review - Affordable Housing Unit Standards I. Affordable housing unit standards. Whenever a Special Review is conducted to reduce the required percentage that the finished floor level of the unit’s net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, a recommendation from the Housing Board shall be obtained and all of the following criteria shall be met. The criteria below address only the affordable housing units that require a variation from the standard. P126 VI.A. Exhibit F Special Review – Review Criteria Page 4 of 7 A. Dimensional requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met. 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. Staff Response: The retaining wall on the south property line that borders the covered parking is taller than allowed in a setback, there is also a wall to the east of the covered parking that continues to the property line that is approximately 10’4” tall. Four parking spaces are proposed in the setback which is prohibited by the land use code. The new structure in the setback requires a dimensional variance. The density complies with the allowable density for the RMF zone district. The proposed site plan provides very little open space or landscaping, but there is no requirement in this zone district. The entire property is developed from setback to setback and, in some cases, beyond the property line. Although the RMF zone district encourages density, it should comply with setback requirements. The negative consequences of these encroachments will be felt by surrounding properties. The application shows it complies with the requirements for mass, height, density, configuration, open space requirements, and landscaping. Special Review is requested to allow for the existing structure to remain in the setback and over the property line. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated view plane. Staff Response: The proposed development will encroach on adjacent properties and setbacks. The lack of buffer between the proposed development and the adjacent properties will create negative outcomes for the adjacent properties. Based on the extent of the redevelopment, the development proposal should maintain appropriate buffers between adjacent properties and comply with the requirements of the code. The proposed development does not mitigate for the encroachments in the setback or over the adjacent property lines. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. B. Replacement of nonconforming structures. Whenever a structure or portion thereof, which does not conform to the dimensional requirements of the zone district in which the property is located is proposed to be replaced after demolition, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed development shall comply with the conditions of Subsection 26.430.040.A above; P127 VI.A. Exhibit F Special Review – Review Criteria Page 5 of 7 Staff Response: The proposed development does not comply with Subsection 26.430.040.A, see above for detailed explanation. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 2. There exist special characteristics unique to the property which differentiate the property from other properties located in the same zone district; Staff Response: The size, topography, access, and other characteristics of the property are similar to neighboring properties. No special conditions exist. The applicant is requesting approval to replace a nonconforming structure after demolition. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 3. No dimensional variations are increased, and the replacement structure represents the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the property; and Staff Response: The applicant is proposing to increase the amount of non-conforming development in the setback, and therefore is increasing the non-conformity. A dimensional variation is not required to allow for reasonable use of the property. The lot has adequate development rights, size, and access that would allow for development to comply with the dimensional requirements of the zone district and still allow for the reasonable use of the site. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 4. Literal enforcement of the dimensional provisions of the zone district would cause unnecessary hardship upon the owner by prohibiting reasonable use of the property. Staff Response: Literal enforcement of the dimensional provisions of the zone district would not limit the development potential of the parcel and would allow for reasonable use of the property. The applicant received approval to renovate and deed restrict the eight existing units and although demolition was triggered, and dimensional variations were approved to allow the structure to remain in the setbacks and over the property line, this application is to be reviewed independently and consider the entire design. Approving a variation to allow the existing structure to remain allows for continued impacts for the neighbors despite the scale of redevelopment occurring on the site. The additional development coupled with the encroachment on the setback creates negative and unnecessary negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion to be not met. I. Affordable housing unit standards. Whenever a Special Review is conducted to reduce the required percentage that the finished floor level of the unit’s net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, a recommendation from the Housing Board shall be obtained and all of the following criteria shall be met. The criteria below address only the affordable housing units that require a variation from the standard. 1. The proposed affordable housing units are designed in a manner that is compatible with the character of the neighborhood. Staff Response: Affordable housing units exist within the neighborhood and the proposed units are compatible with the existing neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed amount that the affordable housing units are below natural or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive, is an appropriate response to unique site constraints, such as topography. Staff Response: Each unit exists in a stacked configuration with the lower level below grade and the upper level above grade. The bedrooms, a bathroom and laundry facilities exist in the P128 VI.A. Exhibit F Special Review – Review Criteria Page 6 of 7 subgrade level. The applicant proposed to bump out the upper level walls of units 331-336, increasing the upper level net livable so that more than 50% or each unit’s net livable is above grade. Units 337 and 338’s finished floor are 100% below grade in relation to natural grade. Based on this condition special review and approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission is required. Natural grade is a result of an interpolated grade determination that was requested by the applicant and approved by staff. A previous version of the application had all 8 units considered for special review as they all had more than 50% of the unit’s net livable below grade and this issue was discussed at the APCHA Board hearing. The APCHA position was that the units have existed in this configuration for years and have been livable units and will continue to be livable units. The APCHA Board recommended approval despite the below grade condition. Staff is concerned that the additional free market units reduce natural light to the affordable units located on the interior of the site. The shading of the units by the new development and subgrade condition will create units with below standard natural light. Staff finds this criterion to be not met. 3. The proposed affordable housing units are designed in such a manner which exceeds the expectations of the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, and promotes the unit’s general livability by demonstrating compliance with as many of the following conditions as possible: a) Significant storage, such as additional storage outside a unit. b) Above average natural light, such as adding more window area than the Building Code requires. c) Net livable unit sizes exceed minimum requirement. City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400 – Special Review Page 4 d) Unit amenities, such as access to outdoor space or private patios. Staff Response: The application was presented to APCHA Staff and the APCHA Board and the board recommended approval variations to the APCHA Guidelines and approval of the affordable housing portion of the proposal. The APCHA Board conditioned their approval on the provision of additional exterior storage for the affordable housing units. The applicant has proposed over-head storage above each parking unit in the covered parking area to be used by the unit assigned to that parking spot. The storage units measure approximately 24” tall. The five parking spaces to the south will have approximately 9’ deep storage bins. The 3 units to the south measure almost 18’ deep. The 18’ deep storage bins that are 24” tall do not provide usable storage. The 9’ units are more likely to provide usable storage but staff still remains concerned with the quality of storage provided for the affordable housing units in order to offset the below grade condition and lack of natural light each unit receives. Natural light is reduced due to shading from the new development and because each unit has one level below grade. Light tubes have been P129 VI.A. Exhibit F Special Review – Review Criteria Page 7 of 7 proposed for each unit. The net livable for the 2-bedroom units is below the minimum requirement. Two of the 8 units are proposed to remain 1-bedroom units. One of the two was converted to a 1-bedroom unit legally, the other has done so without the necessary approvals. APCHA has recommended the two 1-bedroom units remain to provide a mix of housing types within the development. The two 1-bedroom units comply with the requirements for minimum net- livable. There are little to no amenities provided for the affordable housing units. The only exterior area the units have access to is the circulation corridor around the perimeter of the existing structure including, the pathway on the interior of the site. There is no landscaping, greenspace, bike storage or other amenities that improve the livability of these units. Although additional storage has been shown, there are concerns with the usability of the storage provided. Based on the lack of amenities and number of variances required to be approved by special review, staff finds this criterion to not be met. P130 VI.A. Exhibit G Residential Design Standards Review Criteria Page 1 of 6 Summary of Review Criteria for Section 26.410.040, Residential Design Standards - Multi-Family 1. Building Orientation (Flexible). c) Standard. The front façade of a building shall be oriented to face the street on which it is located. MET 2. Garage Access (Non-flexible). c) Standard. A multi- family building that has access from an alley or private street shall be required to access parking, garages and carports from the alley or private street. DOES NOT APPLY 3. Garage Placement (Non-flexible). c) Standard. The front of a garage or the front-most supporting column of a carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front façade of the principal building. MET 4. Entry Connection (Non-flexible). c) Standard. A building shall provide a visual and/or physical connection between a primary entry and the street. On a corner lot, an entry connection shall be provided to at least one (1) of the two intersecting streets. MET 5. Principal Window (Flexible). c) Standard. At least one (1) street-facing principal window or grouping of smaller windows acting as a principal window shall be provided for each unit facing the street. On a corner unit with street frontage on two streets, this standard shall apply to both street-facing façades. MET Residential Design Standards - Multi-Family Standards A. Applicability. Unless stated otherwise below, the design standards in this section shall apply to all multi-family development. P131 VI.A. Exhibit G Residential Design Standards Review Criteria Page 2 of 6 26.410.040. Multi-family standards A. Applicability. Unless stated otherwise below, the design standards in this section shall apply to all multi-family development. B. Design standards. 1. Building Orientation (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to establish a relationship between buildings and streets to create an engaging streetscape and discourage the isolation of homes from the surrounding neighborhood. The placement of buildings should seek to frame street edges physically or visually. Buildings should be oriented in a manner such that they are a component of the streetscape, which consists of the street itself and the buildings that surround it. Building orientation should provide a sense of interest and promote interaction between buildings and passersby. Building orientation is important in all areas of the city, but is particularly important in the Infill Area where there is a strong pattern of buildings that are parallel to the street. Designs should prioritize the visibility of the front façade from the street by designing the majority of the front façade to be parallel to the street or prominently visible from the street. Front facades, porches, driveways, windows, and doors can all be designed to have a strong and direct relationship to the street. c) Standard. The front façade of a building shall be oriented to face the street on which it is located. d) Options. Fulfilling one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Strong Orientation Requirement. The front façade of a building shall be parallel to the street. On a corner lot, both street-facing façades of a building shall be parallel to each street. See Figure 30. (2) Moderate Orientation Requirement. The front façade of a building shall face the street. On a corner lot, one street-facing façade shall face each intersecting street. The availability of these options shall be determined according to the following lot characteristics: Figure 30 P132 VI.A. Exhibit G Residential Design Standards Review Criteria Page 3 of 6 Staff Response: The subject site is located on the corner of Midland Ave. and Midland Park Place. The proposed development has a strong orientation to Midland Ave and is parallel to Midland Ave and Midland Park Place, satisfying option 1 of the standard. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Garage Access (Non-flexible). a) Applicability. This standard is required for all lots that have vehicular access from an alley or private street. b) Intent. This standard seeks to minimize potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles by concentrating parking along alleys and away from the street where pedestrian activity is highest. This standard also seeks to minimize the visibility of plain, opaque and unarticulated garage doors from streets by placing them in alleys wherever possible. Properties with alleys shall utilize the alley as an opportunity to place the garage in a location that is subordinate to the principal building, further highlighting the primary building from the street. This standard is important for any property where an alley is available, which is most common in the Infill Area. c) Standard. A multi-family building that has access from an alley or private street shall be required to access parking, garages and carports from the alley or private street. See Figure 31. Staff Findings: The property is bordered by Midland Ave and Midland Park Place. Midland Park Place is a private street, but the subject property does not have access to the site from Midland Park Place, so garage access must be provided from Midland Ave. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 3. Garage Placement (Non-flexible). a) Applicability. This standard is required for all lots that do not have vehicular access from an alley or private street. Figure 31 P133 VI.A. Exhibit G Residential Design Standards Review Criteria Page 4 of 6 b) Intent. This standard seeks to prevent large expanses of unarticulated facades close to the street and ensure garages are subordinate to the principal building for properties that feature driveway and garage access directly from the street. Buildings should seek to locate garages behind principal buildings so that the front façade of the principal building is highlighted. Where locating the garage behind the front façade of the principal building is not feasible or required, designs should minimize the presence of garage doors as viewed from the street. This standard is important in all areas of the city where alley access is not an option. c) Standard. The front of a garage or the front-most supporting column of a carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front façade of the principal building. See Figure 32. Staff Findings: The application shows the coloumns of the carport more than 10 feet back from the front façade. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. Entry Connection (Non-flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to promote visual and physical connections between buildings and the street. Buildings should use architectural and site planning features to establish a connection between these two elements. Buildings shall not use features that create barriers or hide the entry features of the house such as fences, hedgerows or walls. Buildings and site planning features should establish a sense that one can directly enter a building from the street through the use of pathways, front porches, front doors that face the street and other similar methods. This standard is critical in all areas of the city. c) Standard. A building shall provide a visual and/or physical connection between a primary entry and the street. On a corner lot, an entry connection shall be provided to at least one (1) of the two intersecting streets. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Street Oriented Entrance. There shall be at least one (1) entry door that faces the street for every four (4) street-facing, ground-level units in a row. Fencing, hedgerows, walls or other permitted structures shall not obstruct visibility to the entire door. See Figure 33. Figure 32 Figure 33 P134 VI.A. Exhibit G Residential Design Standards Review Criteria Page 5 of 6 (2) Open Front Porch. There shall be at least one (1) porch or ground-level balcony that faces the street for every street-facing, ground-level unit. Fencing, hedgerows, walls or other permitted structures shall not obstruct visibility to the porch or the demarcated pathway. See Figure 34. Staff Findings: The proposed development has one ground level unit on the Midland Ave street facing façade and six on the Midland Park Place facing facade. Based on this unit count and the code requirements, a minimum of two street oriented entrances must be provided. Street oriented entrances are not required on each street facing façade, just one of the two. The application shows three street oriented entrances that face Midland Park Place. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Principal Window (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to prevent large expanses of blank walls on the front façades of principal buildings. A building should incorporate significant transparency on the front façade. Designs should include prominent windows or groups of windows on the front façade to help promote connection between the residence and street. This standard is important in all areas of the city. c) Standard. At least one (1) street-facing principal window or grouping of smaller windows acting as a principal window shall be provided for each unit facing the street. On a corner unit with street frontage on two streets, this standard shall apply to both street-facing façades. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Street-Facing Principal Window. The front façade shall have at least one (1) window with dimensions of three (3) feet by four (4) feet or greater for each dwelling unit. See Figure 35. Figure 34 Figure 35 P135 VI.A. Exhibit G Residential Design Standards Review Criteria Page 6 of 6 (2) Window Group. The front façade shall have at least one (1) group of windows that when measured as a group has dimensions of three (3) feet by four (4) feet or greater for each dwelling unit. See Figure 36. Staff Findings: All street facing units contain windows, or groupings of windows, that comply with this requirement. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Figure 36 P136 VI.A. Exhibit H Transportation and Parking Review Criteria Page 1 of 2 Section 26.515.060 C. Review Criteria. All development and redevelopment projects are required to submit a Mobility Plan, which shall include and describe a project’s mitigations for TIA and Parking Requirements. The Engineering, Transportation, and Community Development Department staff shall determine whether the project conforms to this Chapter requirements using the following standards: 1. Project TIA and the resulting mitigation program meets requirements for exempt, minor, or major project categories as outlined in the TIA Guidelines. Staff Response: The application is subject to a minor TIA review to be undertaken by Transportation and Engineering. The application has met the TIA requirements. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Summary of Review Criteria for Section 26.515.060, Transportation and Parking Management Review Criteria 1. Project TIA and the resulting mitigation program meets requirements for exempt, minor, or major project categories as outlined in the TIA Guidelines. NOT MET 2. Project provides full mitigation for the Parking Requirements pursuant to Section 26.515.050. MET 3. If existing development is expanded, additional Parking Requirements shall be provided for that increment of the expansion. MET 4. If existing development is redeveloped, on-site parking deficits may not be maintained unless all parking, or at least 20 spaces are provided as Public Parking.MET Transportation and Parking Management C. Review Criteria. All development and redevelopment projects are required to submit a Mobility Plan, which shall include and describe a project’s mitigations for TIA and Parking Requirements. The Engineering, Transportation, and Community Development Department staff shall determine whether the project conforms to this Chapter requirements using the following standards: P137 VI.A. Exhibit H Transportation and Parking Review Criteria Page 2 of 2 2. Project provides full mitigation for the Parking Requirements pursuant to Section 26.515.050. Staff Response: The development proposes a total of 14 dwelling units and a total of 35 bedrooms. The parking requirement for a multifamily residential development outside the Aspen Infill area is: the “lesser of 1 unit per bedroom or two units per dwelling unit.” This would require a minimum of 26 parking spaces. Table 26.515-2 indicates that the RMF zone district outside the infill area, the development can provide 60% of the required parking on-site, the remaining 40% can be met through cash-in-lieu payment. 60% of the required 26 parking units requires 16 parking units. The applicant is proposing 17, and cash-in-lieu mitigation will be required for the remaining 9 units. The cash-in-lieu rate of $38,000 per units requires a total cash-in-lieu rate of $342,000. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. If existing development is expanded, additional Parking Requirements shall be provided for that increment of the expansion. Staff response: The existing development is being demolished. The applicant will be required to provide adequate parking for the full development of the site. Since the parking minimum is met, staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. If existing development is redeveloped, on-site parking deficits may not be maintained unless all parking, or at least 20 spaces are provided as Public Parking. Staff Response: The existing development contains a parking deficit, but the deficit is not being carried forward. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Projects failing to meet the requirements of this section may apply for a variation to the Planning and Zoning Commission through the Special Review process (Section 26.430 and Section 26.515.080). Staff Response: The parking requirements have been met, staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. P138 VI.A. 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM April 5, 2018 Amended October 16, 2018 Garrett Larimer Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Aspen Hills Affordable Housing 331-338 Midland Avenue Mr. Larimer: Please accept this application to redevelop the Aspen Hills property with a combination of affordable and free-market residences. The property’s existing eight residential units will be redeveloped into fourteen residential units. The existing building will be rebuilt, and a new building will be developed to the north and west. The Aspen Hills property was recently approved as a “Housing Credits” project, converting the existing eight units into affordable housing in exchange for Certificates of Affordable Housing. It was anticipated at the time that a “phase two” would be pursued on the north side of the property. The proposed project includes a blend of affordable and free-market residences. The extent of demolition needed to properly renovate the existing building is extensive, beyond the 40% threshold for “demolition.” Recognizing an uncertain market for credits and anticipated demand for moderate- sized free-market residential units, the project has a mix of affordable and free-market units. The Aspen Hills Condominiums is an existing eight-unit residential building located in the Smuggler neighborhood along Midland Avenue. It is addressed as 331-338 Midland Avenue. The building was constructed in 1965 with all two-bedroom units and condominiumized in 1969. The building currently contains six two-bedroom units and two one-bedroom units. The 15,160 s.f. property is located in the RMF Zone District. The building is not listed on the City of Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Allowable height and floor area in the RMF Zone District is based on the density of residential units. Properties with one or more residential units per 1,500sf of gross lot area are permitted a P139 VI.A. 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM Page 2 of 8 Aspen Hills Affordable Housing height of 32 feet and a floor area of 1.25:1. For this property, a unit density of 11 or more units enables these dimensions. Although free-market, the existing units have served a local population as either owner-occupied or rental units. A few of the units currently serve as ‘second-homes’ or ‘vacation homes’ for out- of-town owners. It is anticipated that each of the eight units have housed a local working resident at some point in the history of the building. This application assumes that all units are subject to the City’s replacement requirements with none of the units qualifying for an exemption. Aspen Hills Investors LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, is the applicant. The Aspen Hills Homeowners Association has provided its consent to the application. Bill Boehringer is the Manager of Aspen Hills Investors and has authorized BendonAdams to represent its interests. This application requests growth management approvals, including approval for the replacement after demolition of eight residential units, new allotments for eight affordable housing units, recognition and continuation of existing non-conformities, approval of the transportation/mobility plan, and Residential Design Standards approval. Existing Conditions The Aspen Hills property is a 15,160 square foot site on Midland Avenue in the Smuggler neighborhood. The property is developed with one building containing eight residences and eight on-site parking spaces. The building has been condominiumized into eight separate ownership interests, plus a common area. The property is posted as 331-338 Midland Avenue. The Aspen Hills building was constructed in 1965, originally as all two-bedroom units. One of the units, Unit 336, was converted into a one-bedroom unit according to permit records on file with the City of Aspen Building Department. Unit 331 is also a one-bedroom unit although no records reflect an official approval. Other improvements on record are typical interior upgrades and egress window improvements. Two parcels, noted on the survey as parcel 1 and parcel 2, were conveyed to the Board of Commissioners of the Pitkin County Housing Authority in 1978 for “roadway purposes.” This conveyance appears to have been in-lieu of condemnation proceedings. For the purposes of this application, these parcels have been considered public right-of-way. Parcel ID Numbers Unit Parcel ID A1 2737-074-05-001 A2 2737-074-05-006 A3 2737-074-05-002 A4 2737-074-05-008 A5 2737-074-05-007 A6 2737-074-05-003 A7 2737-074-05-005 A8 2737-074-05-004 Common Area 2737-074-05-801 P140 VI.A. 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM Page 3 of 8 Aspen Hills Affordable Housing Access to the property is from Midland Avenue. Eight on-site parking spaces are located in front of the structure, entirely within the property. Each parking space has a second, tandem space located within the right-of-way. A few of the units have been upgraded with newer windows/doors and larger egress windows for the lower level bedrooms. Other units maintain vintage conditions and require upgrades by the applicant prior to acceptance into the housing inventory. The property was originally part of the Mascotte Lode and 99 Lode (mining claims) which extend onto the face of Smuggler Mountain. Transfer by warrantee deed of approximately 1 acre to the Aspen Construction Corporation in 1965 pre-dated County subdivision standards, as did the transfer by warrantee deed to John Villari of the entire one-acre parcel in 1969. Villari condominiumized the 8-unit building and the property in 1969 and conveyed at least one unit. Transfer back to the Aspen Construction Company of the southern, approximately 28,622 s.f., portion of the 1-acre parcel occurred in 1970, also pre-dating City/County subdivision standards. This is the basis for the property today. The title commitment documents these transfers. The property to the South is developed with a multi-family building commonly known as Aspen View. The 1970 transfer established the southern and eastern boundaries along the edge of existing improvements reflected in the survey. The southern boundary traces the balcony, including the stairs. The eastern boundary traces the building footprint, including the below grade utility area. These property boundaries created non-conforming setback conditions, diagrammed in the attached drawing set and highlighted in Denver Bronco orange and blue to the right. P141 VI.A. 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM Page 4 of 8 Aspen Hills Affordable Housing Net Livable measurements of the existing building are provided by Alius Design according the Calculations and Measurements section (26.575.020) of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. The floors of each of these over/under units are identical in size. The computation of net livable area counts the stairs on the bottom level and not the top level. This code provision creates the disparity in measurement and the percentage of net livable area being greater on the lower level. Please refer to Exhibit A12 for layout and measurements of the existing building. Aspen Hills As-Built Information Unit Beds / Baths Downstairs Net Livable Upstairs Net Livable Total Net Livable A-1, 331 1 / 1 415 sf 388 sf 803 sf A-2, 332 2 / 1 415 sf 387 sf 802 sf A-3, 333 2 / 1 420 sf 388 sf 808 sf A-4, 334 2 / 1 420 sf 387 sf 807 sf A-5, 335 2 / 1 420 sf 388 sf 808 sf A-6, 336 1 / 1 420 sf 387 sf 807 sf A-7, 337 2 / 1 422 sf 395 sf 817 sf A-8, 338 2 / 1 422 sf 394 sf 816 sf Totals 14 / 8 3,354 sf 3,114 sf 6,468 sf On average, the units are approximately 808.5 sf of net livable with 51.9% of the square footage below grade. This existing condition is below the City’s target for new affordable housing units to be 50% or less below grade. Excavating the entire site to expose the basement wall for each unit would violate the 30” site grading restriction. Special Review is requested to account for this existing condition. Upper floor Lower floor The existing trash/recycle area is accessed off Midland at the northwest corner of the property. It is within the right-of-way but outside the roadway. This is also the location of the mail pedestal and several utility connection pedestals. P142 VI.A. 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM Page 5 of 8 Aspen Hills Affordable Housing Proposal A total of fourteen residences are proposed. The application proposes repurposing the eight-unit Aspen Hills building as affordable housing and the development of six new free-market housing units to the north and west of the existing building. Demolition of more than 40% of the existing building requires replacement housing, deed restricted to Resident-Occupied (RO). The “100% replacement” requirements of the City’s Land Use Code states: One-hundred-percent replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-market multi- family housing, the applicant shall have the option to construct replacement housing consisting of no less than one hundred percent (100%) of the number of units, bedrooms and net livable area demolished. The replacement units shall be deed-restricted as resident occupied affordable housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to Subsection D, Affordable housing, of this Section. [emphasis added] The application proposes 100% replacement of the existing units in the same placement and configuration as exists today in the Aspen Hills building. These units will be deed restricted to Resident Occupied (RO), or lower, as the Code requires. Special Review is requested to account for the finished floor levels of the units being greater than 50% below grade. Proposed Affordable Housing Unit Beds Designation Total Net Livable A1 1 RO, or lower 803 sf A2 2 RO, or lower 802 sf A3 2 RO, or lower 808 sf A4 2 RO, or lower 807 sf A5 2 RO, or lower 808 sf A6 1 RO, or lower 807 sf A7 2 RO, or lower 817 sf A8 2 RO, or lower 816 sf Totals 14 6,468 sf While the applicant has a clear ability to deed restrict these units as for-sale RO units, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority prefers rental units with a Category designation. Currently, there are no Category 5 rental units in the housing inventory. The applicant has offered APCHA a time-limited, transferable purchase right to the to buy five of the units with a Category 5 deed restriction. APCHA, or another party such as a local employer, can purchase these units as rental units at a discounted rate. The remaining three units are to be resold to existing tenants in the building. The “legacy units” will have a maximum designation of RO, but are expected to be transferred with a Category limitation. If an employer purchases the initial five units, a first right of refusal to purchase the three legacy units, when they are eventually transferred, would enable a single entity to own the entire building as an affordable rental property. P143 VI.A. 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM Page 6 of 8 Aspen Hills Affordable Housing The 100% replacement provisions allow replacement of the free-market development rights on the same property. The application proposes replacement of six of the eight free- market residences. The six new units are located to the north and west of the existing building. Previous plans to develop additional free-market and affordable residences for a total of twenty-three residences have been abandoned. Proposed Market-Rate Housing Unit Beds Total Net Livable 1 4 2,011 sf 2 3 2,071 sf 3 3 1,899 sf 4 3 1,809 sf 5 4 2,460 sf 6 4 2,268 sf Totals 16 12,518 sf Sizes and bedrooms listed are approximate and subject to modification through design development The parcel is a five-minute walk from downtown Aspen and is very well served by transit and bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure. The RMF Zoning is intended for “intensive long-term residential purposes”1 and the zoning encourages greater density with height and floor area incentives allowed by right. This applicant fulfills the purpose of the zone district by placing density within walking distance of downtown Aspen. The proposal reflects the City’s recent focus on overall mobility rather than just automobile mobility. The property is within an existing neighborhood, walking/biking distance to downtown, with great access to transit and Aspen bike and pedestrian network. These types of properties can rely less on the automobile. The project provides the minimum of one car per residence, and the remainder of its mobility obligation met through alternative means. All forms of affordable housing are desperately needed in the upper valley. Affordable rentals are in significant demand. The application proposes a mix of rental and for-sale housing. The free- market residences are modest in size, counter to the trend of large free-market units. A significant amount of analysis of the existing building components has been accomplished. The units appear in good working order although substantial work to the building is needed. Interior work contemplates improvements to systems, fixtures, finishes, and appliances. Each unit is different, so some units will maintain current status or have minimal upgrades while other units will be more-substantially overhauled. Exterior work contemplates replacement of the roof, upgrades as needed to the roof’s structural system, upgrades to windows and doors for energy efficiency, refurbishment or replacement of the existing decking and supports/railings, upgrades to egress windows for life/safety, and other minor improvements for aesthetic and durability purposes. 1 From RMF Zone purpose statement - 26.710.090.A P144 VI.A. 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM Page 7 of 8 Aspen Hills Affordable Housing The plans illustrate compliance with the RMF Zone District but are not meant to limit the property owner’s rights. As the property is not subject to a Planned Development, Applicant reserves right to adjust interior plans, exterior materials, location and extent of fenestration, heights, parking layouts, floor area, and net livable calculations, including adjustments between units, as long as such changes are in compliance with the RMF Zone District and applicable City regulations. The level of renovation needed on the existing building is expected to affect more than 40% of the exterior wall/roof area. Required work on the roof alone necessitates removal and replacement of approximately 50% of the exterior wall/roof area. It is assumed that each of the existing units, at some point in its history, has housed a local working resident and is subject to the replacement requirements upon demolition. Units in the existing building average approximately 808.5 sf of net livable area each. Although APCHA was poised to adopt new minimum standards that these units would exceed, the existing units are below the minimum of 900sf for a two-bedroom unit and slightly above the 720sf minimum for a one-bedroom unit. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Board reviewed this application and recommended in favor by a unanimous vote. The units provide comfortable living conditions with the living/dining/kitchen areas on the main level and bedrooms below. Each unit has ample natural light, parking, and a washer/dryer. Due to differing measuring methods, the applicant suggests the replacement housing obligation be based on the existing units being replaced in-kind as affordable housing, as opposed to net livable calculations which may involve some inaccuracies. The applicant is requesting the capital assessment research performed in relation to the prior “Housing Credits” application be used as the basis for capital improvement requirements for the existing structure. A significant amount of work was performed and this analysis can be converted to a scope of work for physical upgrades and initial capital funding for the new HOA. One-hundred percent of the required parking is provided with the project exceeding the minimum on-site parking requirement. Parking for the project is incorporated into the building. A partially sub-grade level with nine spaces is accessed from Midland Avenue. A carport area provides parking for another eight cars. The 14 residences require the provision of 26 “parking units” and 26 are provided. A minimum of 60% of the parking units (15.6) must be provided on-site and the provision of 17 parking spaces exceeds this requirement. The project fully complies with the RMF Zone District, excepting those existing setback non-conformities stated above. The applicant is requesting that the Planning and P145 VI.A. 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM Page 8 of 8 Aspen Hills Affordable Housing Zoning Commission recognize the existing non-conformities through the special review process. The applicant is also requesting approval for Growth Management approval for the on-site replacement housing, Residential Design Standards approval, and approval of the transportation/mobility plan. The applicant has attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Code and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the application. Upon request, BendonAdams will gladly provide such additional information as may be required in the course of the review. Sincerely, Chris Bendon, AICP BendonAdams LLC Attachments – A 1. Growth Management Criteria – Demolition & Replacement 2. Growth Management Criteria – Affordable Housing 3. Growth Management Criteria – General Review Standards 4. A – Special Review – Replacement of Non-Conformity B – Special Review – AH Floor Level 5. Residential Design Standards 6. Transportation and Mobility Review Criteria 7. Transportation Impact Analysis 8. Engineering Report 9. Site Survey and GCE Map 10. Existing Plans 11. Proposed Plans B 1. Land Use Application 2. Agreement to Pay 3. Pre-application Conference Summary 4. Proof of Ownership 5. Authorization Letter 6. HOA Compliance Form 7. Vicinity Map 8. List of Property Owners within 300 Feet C 1. Prior Approvals – P&Z Reso 5, 2017 2. Prior Development Agreement w/ APCHA P146 VI.A. A1 | Page 1 Exhibit A1 GMQS Demolition & Replacement 26.470.070.5 Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing. The City's neighborhoods have traditionally been comprised of a mix of housing types, including those affordable by its working residents. However, because of Aspen's attractiveness as a resort environment and because of the physical constraints of the upper Roaring Fork Valley, there is constant pressure for the redevelopment of dwellings currently providing resident housing for tourist and second-home use. Such redevelopment results in the displacement of individuals and families who are an integral part of the Aspen work force. Given the extremely high cost of and demand for market-rate housing, resident housing opportunities for displaced working residents, which are now minimal, will continue to decrease. Preservation of the housing inventory and provision of dispersed housing opportunities in Aspen have been long-standing planning goals of the community. Achievement of these goals will serve to promote a socially and economically balanced community, limit the number of individuals who face a long and sometimes dangerous commute on State Highway 82, reduce the air pollution effects of commuting and prevent exclusion of working residents from the City's neighborhoods. The Aspen Area Community Plan established a goal that affordable housing for working residents be provided by both the public and private sectors. The City and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority have provided affordable housing both within and adjacent to the City limits. The private sector has also provided affordable housing. Nevertheless, as a result of the replacement of resident housing with second homes and tourist accommodations and the steady increase in the size of the workforce required to assure the continued viability of Aspen area businesses and the City's tourist-based economy, the City has found it necessary, in concert with other regulations, to adopt limitations on the combining, demolition or conversion of existing multi-family housing in order to minimize the displacement of working residents, to ensure that the private sector maintains its role in the provision of resident housing and to prevent a housing shortfall from occurring. The combining, demolition, conversion or redevelopment of multi-family housing shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on compliance with the following requirements (see definition of demolition.): 1. Requirements for combining, demolishing, converting or redeveloping free-market multi- family housing units: Only one (1) of the following two (2) options is required to be met when combining, demolishing, converting or redeveloping a free-market multi-family residential property. To ensure the continued vitality of the community and a critical mass of local working residents, no net loss of density (total number of units) between the existing development and proposed development shall be allowed. a. One-hundred-percent replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-market multi- family housing, the applicant shall have the option to construct replacement housing consisting of no less than one hundred percent (100%) of the number of units, bedrooms and net livable area demolished. The replacement units shall be deed- restricted as resident occupied affordable housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide P147 VI.A. A1 | Page 2 mitigation units at a lower category designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to Subsection D, Affordable housing, of this Section. When this one-hundred-percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the site may be free-market residential development with no additional affordable housing mitigation required as long as there is no increase in the number of free-market residential units on the parcel. Free-market units in excess of the total number originally on the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.470.110, subsection J or K, Residential Development – sixty or seventy percent affordable. b. Fifty-percent replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-market multi-family housing and replacement of less than one hundred percent (100%) of the number of previous units, bedrooms or net livable area as described above, the applicant shall be required to construct affordable housing consisting of no less than fifty percent (50%) of the number of units, bedrooms and the net livable area demolished. The replacement units shall be deed-restricted as Category 4 housing, pursuant to the guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.100.D, Affordable housing. When this fifty-percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the site may be free-market residential development as long as additional affordable housing mitigation is provided pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.080 – General Requirements, and there is no increase in the number of free-market residential units on the parcel. Free-market units in excess of the total number originally on the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.470.100, subsection J or K, Residential Development – sixty or seventy percent affordable. c. One-hundred percent affordable housing replacement. When one-hundred-percent of the free-market multi-family housing units are demolished and are solely replaced with deed-restricted affordable housing units on a site that are not required for mitigation purposes, including any net additional dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.470.110.D, Affordable Housing; all of the units in the redevelopment are eligible for a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit, pursuant to Section 26.540 Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit. Any remaining unused free market residential development rights shall be vacated. 2. Requirements for demolishing affordable multi-family housing units: In the event a project proposes to demolish or replace existing deed-restricted affordable housing units, the redevelopment may increase or decrease the number of units, bedrooms or net livable area such that there is no decrease in the total number of employees housed by the existing units. The overall number of replacement units, unit sizes, bedrooms and category of the units shall be reviewed by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and a recommendation forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 3. Fractional unit requirement. When the affordable housing replacement requirement of this Section involves a fraction of a unit, cash-in-lieu may be provided only upon the review and approval of the City Council, to meet the fractional requirement only, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.110.C, Provision of required affordable housing via a cash-in-lieu payment. 4. Location requirement. Multi-family replacement units, both free-market and affordable, shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner P148 VI.A. A1 | Page 3 shall demonstrate and the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that replacement of the units on site would be in conflict with the parcel's zoning or would be an inappropriate solution due to the site's physical constraints. When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of units on site which the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the site can accommodate and may replace the remaining units off site, at a location determined acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission, or may replace the units by extinguishing the requisite number of affordable housing credits, pursuant to Sec. 26.540, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard. When calculating the number of credits that must be extinguished, the most restrictive replacement measure shall apply. So, for example, for an applicant proposing to replace one 1,000 square foot three-bedroom unit at the 50% rate using credits, the following calculations shall be used: • 50% of 1,000 square feet = 500 square feet to be replaced. At the Code mandated rate of 1 FTE per 400 square feet of net livable area, this requires 1.25 credits to be extinguished; or • A three-bedroom unit = 3.0 FTE’s. 50% of 3.0 FTE’s = 1.50 credits to be extinguished. Therefore, the applicant must extinguish 1.50 credits to replace a three-bedroom unit at the 50% rate. The credits to be extinguished would be Category 4 credits. 5. Timing requirement. Any replacement units required to be deed-restricted as affordable housing shall be issued a certificate of occupancy, according to the Building Department, and be available for occupancy at the same time as, or prior to, any redeveloped free- market units, regardless of whether the replacement units are built on site or off site. 6. Redevelopment agreement. The applicant and the City shall enter into a redevelopment agreement that specifies the manner in which the applicant shall adhere to the approvals granted pursuant to this Section and penalties for noncompliance. The agreement shall be recorded before an application for a demolition permit may be accepted by the City. 7. Growth management allotments. The existing number of free-market residential units, prior to demolition, may be replaced exempt from growth management, provided that the units conform to the provisions of this Section. The redevelopment credits shall not be transferable separate from the property unless permitted as described above in Subparagraph d, Location requirement. 8. Exemptions. The Community Development Director shall exempt from the procedures and requirements of this Section the following types of development involving Multi-Family Housing Units. An exemption from these replacement requirements shall not exempt a development from compliance with any other provisions of this Title: a. The replacement of Multi-Family Housing Units after non-willful demolition such as a flood, fire, or other natural catastrophe, civil commotion, or similar event not purposefully caused by the land owner. The Community Development Director may require documentation be provided by the landowner to confirm the damage to the building was in-fact non-willful. P149 VI.A. A1 | Page 4 To be exempted, the replacement development shall be an exact replacement of the previous number of units, bedrooms, and square footage and in the same configuration. The Community Development Director may approve exceptions to this exact replacement requirement to accommodate changes necessary to meet current building codes; improve accessibility; to conform to zoning, design standards, or other regulatory requirements of the City; or, to provide other architectural or site planning improvements that have no substantial effect on the use or program of the development. (Also see Chapter 26.312 – Nonconformities.) Substantive changes to the development shall not be exempted from this Section and shall be reviewed as a willful change pursuant to the procedures and requirements of this Section. b. The demolition of Multi-Family Housing Units by order of a public agency including, but not limited to, the City of Aspen for reasons of preserving the life, health, safety, or general welfare of the public. c. The demolition, combining, conversion, replacement, or redevelopment of Multi- Family Housing Units which have been used exclusively as tourist accommodations or by non-working residents. The Community Development Director may require occupancy records, leases, affidavits, or other documentation to the satisfaction of the Director to demonstrate that the unit(s) has never housed a working resident. All other requirements of this Title shall still apply including zoning, growth management, and building codes.) d. The demolition, combining, conversion, replacement, or redevelopment of Multi- Family Housing Units which were illegally created (also known as “Bandit Units”). Any improvements associated with Bandit Units shall be required to conform to current requirements of this Title including zoning, growth management, and building codes. Replaced or redeveloped Bandit Units shall be deed restricted as Resident Occupied affordable housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority e. Any development action involving demising walls or floors/ceilings necessary for the normal upkeep, maintenance, or remodeling of adjacent Multi-Family Housing Units. f. A change order to an issued and active building permit that proposes to exceed the limitations of remodeling/demolition to rebuild portions of a structure which, in the opinion of the Community Development Director, should be rebuilt for structural, safety, accessibility, or significant energy efficiency reasons first realized during construction, which were not known and could not have been reasonably predicted prior to construction, and which cause no or minimal changes to the exterior dimensions and character of the building. Response – The applicant is proposing “demolition” of the existing structure. This is a technical demolition than a complete demolition. The existing 8-unit building will remain in its current location and configuration. The extent of renovation needed to bring the building up to current standards is facilitated by the removal of more than 40% of the exterior wall and roof surface area. This extent of surface area removal constitutes “demolition” under the City’s definition and measurement methods. The units currently house a mix of local workers and non-locals and/or non-workers. But, the units have traditionally served a local working population and it is assumed in this application that none of the units qualify as exempt from the replacement requirements. P150 VI.A. A1 | Page 5 The applicant is proposing replacement option A – 100% replacement. The existing eight units will technically be “demolished” but effectively remain in place and be substantially renovated. These units – Units A1 through A8 – will be deed restricted to Resident Occupied (RO) or to a lower Category. The applicant has certain obligations to existing owners, regarding sale and ownership, which must be met. These units will remain two-level, townhome style units and will be a combination of rental and sale units. The applicant would like to retain the ability to restrict individual units in this original building to a lower Category. It is important to note that the Net Livable sizes listed are approximated. Differing calculations methods may result in slight adjustments to these numbers. The applicant is committed to replacing the existing units as RO units in a like-for-like size and configuration. The Code allows the original number of free-market residences (eight) to be redeveloped on the same property with no additional mitigation. This application proposes redevelopment of six of those eight allotments. These are listed as free- market units 1-6. These units range in size from 1,800 to 2,500 square feet and contain 3 to 4 bedrooms each. The applicant is aware of the development agreement and timing requirements of this section as is prepared to enter into a redevelopment agreement with the City and/or APCHA. Program Unit Type Beds Size Free-Market Replacement Units 1 Free-market 4 2,011 sf 2 Free-market 3 2,071 sf 3 Free-market 3 1,899 sf 4 Free-market 3 1,809 sf 5 Free-market 4 2,460 sf 6 Free-market 4 2,268 sf Affordable Replacement Units A1 Res. Occupied 1 803 A2 Res. Occupied 2 802 A3 Res. Occupied 2 808 A4 Res. Occupied 2 807 A5 Res. Occupied 2 808 A6 Res. Occupied 1 807 A7 Res. Occupied 2 817 A8 Res. Occupied 2 816 Notes • Sizes listed are approximate and may vary during design development. Number of bedrooms in free-market limits provided as information, not as a limitation. • The applicant reserves the ability to designate affordable units at a lower rate. The RO units can be RO or a lower Category. P151 VI.A. A2 | Page 1 Exhibit A2 GMQS Affordable Housing 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: a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. Response – A recommendation of approval by the APCHA Board of Director has been forwarded. The units average 808.5 sf of net livable area. This is below the 900sf standard for a two-bedroom unit and above the 720sf standard for a one-bedroom unit. Downstairs Upstairs The previous development application to convert the existing building to affordable housing required a complete capital assessment and energy audit. The results of these studies were used to establish a scope of work to improve the building to current standards. The eight units, while technically being demolished due to a need to remove the roof, will remain in-place and be thoroughly renovated. A development agreement was established with APCHA with a unit-by-unit specific scope to be provided upon renovation of the individual units. b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a fee-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 fee-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 P152 VI.A. A2 | Page 2 approval of the Community 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. Response – The eight replacement units serve as the mitigation for the demolition of the existing building. c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430. Response – The eight existing units were developed in a townhome configuration with the entry, living room and kitchen on the upper level, and with bedrooms, a bathroom, and laundry on the lower level. These units are essentially 50/50 above and below grade. The method of computing net livable square footage, however, counts the stairway on the lower level and not on the upper level. This causes the units to be, on average, only 48.1% above grade. Special Review approval is requested. d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the 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. Response – These affordable housing units are proposed as affordable rentals and/or for sale units. The need for rental units has been expressed in the community and these units, within walking distance to downtown, are ideal rentals. The applicant has certain obligations to owners within the existing building for certain units to remain ownership units. e. 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. Response – Not applicable. The application does not propose affordable units in excess of the mitigation requirements. P153 VI.A. A3 | Page 1 Exhibit A3 GMQS General Requirements 26.470.050.B 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 allotments, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet this standard.. Response – This application requests eight allotments of affordable housing. These will be Resident Occupied (RO) units required from the demolition of the existing eight free- market units. The applicant may choose to deed restrict the units at a lower affordable designation. According to section 26.470.030.D, no annual limit applies to affordable housing. 2. The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan. Response –The neighborhood is a mix of single-family, duplex and multi-family housing – both free-market and affordable housing. The existing multi-family use is consistent with this mix and the mix of free-market and affordable housing is compatible with the neighborhood. The neighborhood is not subject to an adopted regulatory master plan. 3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. Response – The development conforms to the RMF Zone District, except for existing non- conforming setback conditions along the south and east property boundaries. These appear to be a result of the ownership conveyance which affected a subdivision of the property in 1970. (Please refer to the conveyance deed rescored at 143387 with Pitkin County Clerk.) The proposal maintains and does not worsen these setback conditions. 4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval, and the Planned Development – Project Review approval, as applicable. Response – Not applicable. The property is not subject to historic preservation review, commercial design review, or Planned Development review. 5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection P154 VI.A. A3 | Page 2 26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at 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. Response – Not applicable. The development contains no commercial or lodging components and does not generate employees according to section 26.470.100.A. 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 choose 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 be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100 Employee/Square Footage Conversion. Response – The free-market units are replacement units, not “additional” units and therefore exempt from this standard. 7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services. Response – The proposal utilizes and an existing residential building that is already served. Upgrades to various utilities are expected. Please refer to the pre-development report prepared by Woody Creek Engineering. The applicant commits to mitigating any additional demands on the public infrastructure as required by City Codes. P155 VI.A. A4a | Page 1 Exhibit A4a Special Review Replacement of Non-Conforming Structure 26.430.040.A. Dimensional requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met: 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. Response – The building will be receiving a new roof, updated windows and doors, new decking and deck rails, and a general freshening of the exterior. The mass, height, etc. of the building are not changing from the current condition. The building was developed in 1965 and the setback condition has existed since the 1970 subdivision. The building will remain compatible with the neighborhood. 2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated view plane. Response – The new roof and continued presence of this building will not have adverse impacts on the neighborhood or any effect on shading, parking, traffic, or view planes. 26.430.040.B. Replacement of nonconforming structures. Whenever a structure or portion thereof, which does not conform to the dimensional requirements of the zone district in which the property is located is proposed to be replaced after demolition, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed development shall comply with the conditions of Subsection 26.430.040.A above; Response – See response to these criteria, above. 2. There exist special characteristics unique to the property which differentiate the property from other properties located in the same zone district; Response – This property was subdivided from the adjacent lot to the south prior to the adoption of subdivision regulations by Pitkin County. The lot line was drawn around the exact boundary of the improvements, not accounting for any setback. This special characteristic is unique and differentiates the property from others in the same zone district. P156 VI.A. A4a | Page 2 3. No dimensional variations are increased, and the replacement structure represents the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the property; and Response – The building will remain in its current location. The building is being “demolished” only in technical terms due to the removal of exterior surface wall and roof area. But, the building is being renovated in in current location, utilizing the current structure. 4. Literal enforcement of the dimensional provisions of the zone district would cause unnecessary hardship upon the owner by prohibiting reasonable use of the property. Response – Literal interpretation would effectively prohibit the restructuring of the roof and replacement of decking elements. The existing building is 50+ years old and was built according to previous building codes. Together with routine replacement schedules, the building is in need of significant upgrades. After its initial construction in 1965, the building was subdivided from the adjacent parcel in 1970. The south and east lot boundary was drawn around the existing building and its decks. In some areas, the building façade rests on the property boundary. These portions of the building now encroach into the required 5-foot setback. The roof requires significant upgrades including restructuring. The existing roof requires structural improvements and increased insulation values to meet current IBC code criteria. Improvements to the roof are facilitated by its total removal, restructuring, and replacement. Along with other improvements planned for the building, the removal of approximately 50% of the building’s exterior wall and roof area is proposed. The roof alone represents 48-49%. This qualifies as “demolition” according to the City’s definition. However, the building is effectively going through a substantial renovation. The applicant is not removing the building and is not in a position to relocate the building to achieve compliance with the 5-foot setback. Similarly, the deck surface and select structural elements of the deck are in need of replacement for safety reasons. These deck elements are within the 5-foot setback area and exceed the allowable height for features in a setback. The decks serve as access to the residences and are critical for ongoing viable use of the property. The net result of a literal enforcement would be to prohibit renovation of the building and prohibit the necessary upgrades for the property to be safe and useable. Reasonable use of the property includes the ability for current uses to continue and the ability to make reasonable and responsible upgrades. Prohibiting these upgrades leads to prohibiting the existing use of the building and prohibiting the economic utility of the property. This presents an unnecessary hardship upon the property. P157 VI.A. A4b | Page 1 Exhibit A4b Special Review Affordable Housing Finished Floor Level 26.430.040.A. Dimensional requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met: 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. Response – The existing building is developed with townhome style units. Each two-level unit has an exact footprint upstairs and downstairs. The net livable calculation, however, is not identical due to the stairway counting on the lower level and not the top level. This results in the finished floor level, on average for all units, being roughly 51.9% below grade, 48.1% above grade. Ron Erickson, Chairman of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Board of Directors, requested specific, precise numbers for each unit, rather than rounded averages. Unit A1’s finished floor net livable area is 48.3188045% above grade. Unit A2’s finished floor net livable area is 48.2543641% above grade. Unit A3’s finished floor net livable area is 48.019802% above grade. Unit A4’s finished floor net livable area is 47.9553903% above grade. Unit A5’s finished floor net livable area is 48.019802% above grade. Unit A6’s finished floor net livable area is 47.9553903 % above grade. Unit A7’s finished floor net livable area is 48.3476132% above grade. Unit A8’s finished floor net livable area is 48.2843137% above grade. The units average 48.144435% of their net livable finish floor above grade (or, approximately 48.1%). This building will be receiving a new roof, updated windows and doors, new decking and deck rails, and a general freshening of the exterior. The mass, height, and general layout of the building are not changing from the current condition. The building was developed in 1965 and the layout, with slightly more than half of the net livable area below grade, has worked well in the free-market. Aspen Hills As-Built Information Unit Beds / Baths Downstairs Net Livable Upstairs Net Livable Total Net Livable A-1, 331 1 / 1 415 sf 388 sf 803 sf A-2, 332 2 / 1 415 sf 387 sf 802 sf A-3, 333 2 / 1 420 sf 388 sf 808 sf A-4, 334 2 / 1 420 sf 387 sf 807 sf A-5, 335 2 / 1 420 sf 388 sf 808 sf A-6, 336 1 / 1 420 sf 387 sf 807 sf A-7, 337 2 / 1 422 sf 395 sf 817 sf A-8, 338 2 / 1 422 sf 394 sf 816 sf Totals 14 / 8 3,354 sf 3,114 sf 6,468 sf P158 VI.A. A4b | Page 2 The percent of finished floor above and below grade is effectively 50/50. Due to the City’s computation methodology, the stairs count only on the lower level and each of these existing units do not meet the 50% threshold. The applicant is exploring additional exterior storage opportunities for each unit. While this may not increase net livable area, the overall livability may be improved. Upper level Lower level The building will remain compatible with the neighborhood. The building has existed in its current condition for 50+ years and the neighborhood has evolved around it. The net livable split, above and below grade within each unit, is not changing and the continued condition is not expected to impact the character of the neighborhood. The units will be high quality, close to downtown and transit, and are a needed addition to the affordable housing inventory. 2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated view plane. Response – The continued presence of this building and the continued above/below grade net livable split within each individual units will not have adverse impacts on the neighborhood or any effect on shading, parking, traffic, or view planes. The net livable arrangement is an existing condition and this interior measurement continuing will have a negligible, if any, effect on neighborhood character. P159 VI.A. A5 | Page 1 Exhibit A5 Residential Design Standards Section 26.410.040 – Multi-Family Standards Standard B.1. Building Orientation (flexible) The front façade of a building shall be oriented to face the street on which it is located. Response – Complies. The building is parallel to Midland Avenue, the Street the building faces. Please see sheet 2.1 of the proposed plans. Standard B.2. Garage Access (non-flexible) A multi-family building that has access from an alley or private street shall be required to access parking, garages and carports from the alley or private street. Response – Not applicable. This standard applies to parcel that has vehicular access to an alley or private street. This parcel adjoins a private street but does not have vehicular access rights. Standard B.3. Garage Placement (non-flexible) The front of a garage or the front-most supporting column of a carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front façade of the principal building. Response – Complies. The garage and front-most column of the carport are both setback ten feet from the front façade of the principal building. Please refer to sheet 1.10 of the plans. P160 VI.A. A5 | Page 2 Standard B.4. Entry Connection (non-flexible) A building shall provide a visual and/or physical connection between a primary entry and the street. On a corner lot, an entry connection shall be provided to at least one (1) of the two intersecting streets. Response – Complies. The building provides several clear entry points, at ground level facing Midland Park Place (Street). Please see sheet 1.11 of the proposed plans. Standard B.5. Principal Window (non-flexible) At least one (1) street-facing principal window or grouping of smaller windows acting as a principal window shall be provided for each unit facing the street. On a corner unit with street frontage on two streets, this standard shall apply to both street-facing façades. Response – Complies. Both the Midland façade and the Midland Park Place façade contain windows in excess of the minimum dimension. P161 VI.A. A6 | Page 1 Exhibit A6 Transportation and Mobility 26.515.060 Procedure for Review. C. Review Criteria. All development and redevelopment projects are required to submit a Mobility Plan, which shall include and describe a project’s mitigations for TIA and Parking Requirements. The Engineering, Transportation, and Community Development Department staff shall determine whether the project conforms to this Chapter requirements using the following standards: 1. Project TIA and the resulting mitigation program meets requirements for exempt, minor, or major project categories as outlined in the TIA Guidelines. Response – TIA requirements for a minor project are met as shown in Exhibit A7. The TIA includes incentive programs to encourage walking/biking. 2. Project provides full mitigation for the Parking Requirements pursuant to Section 26.515.050. Response – Sixty percent of the parking requirement is proposed to be met onsite. The adjacent chart shows the program, parking requirement, and parking being provided for each unit. The code allows for up to 40% of the parking requirement to be met through cash-in-lieu. Ten of the required 26 parking spaces (<40%) will be provided through a cash-in-lieu payment of $350,000. The applicant is interested in pursuing WeCycle and/or Car-to-Go capital investment opportunities in the immediate area to offset the cash-in-lieu cost. 3. If existing development is expanded, additional Parking Requirements shall be provided for that increment of expansion. Response – This application assumes that the demolition status of the existing building eliminates the ability to carry-forward the existing parking deficit. 4. If existing development is redeveloped, on-site parking deficits may not be maintained unless all parking, or at least 20 spaces are provided as Public Parking. Response – A parking deficit is not being carried forward. Unit # Type Bedroom Count Required Parking Provided Parking 1 FM 4 2 1 2 FM 3 2 1 3 FM 3 2 1 4 FM 3 2 1 5 FM 4 2 1 6 FM 4 2 1 To be assigned 2 A1 RO 2 2 1 A2 RO 1 1 1 A3 RO 2 2 1 A4 RO 2 2 1 A5 RO 2 2 1 A6 RO 1 1 1 A7 RO 2 2 1 A8 RO 2 2 1 Totals: 26 16 P162 VI.A. DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION: NAME, COMPANY, ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL Peak Hour Max Trips Generated MMLOS TDM Total Trips Mitigated PM 5.5 15 0.07 15.07 0.00 Explain the proposed trip reduction marketing/incentive program in the space provided. A trip reduction marketing programs should include a number of the following strategies: orientation to trip reduction programs and benefits; orientation to specific alternative transportation modes such as bus service information, bike/walk route maps, etc.; publishing of web or traditional informational materials; events and contests such as commuter fairs, new employee orientations, bike to work days, etc.; educational opportunities such bicycle commute/repair classes; web or traditional materials aimed at guests/customers such as bike/walk maps, free transit day passes, etc.; incentive programs such as prizes, rewards or discounts for alternative commuting. TDM Provide details in the space provided for the proposed carshare participation. Carshare programs have been linked to increased use of alternative transportation modes and reduced SOV trips. The successful project will provide access to Aspen’s CAR TO GO carshare program. Trip reduction potential will depend on the level to which the development participates. Car share memberships can be provided to all employees or residents of new developments. The HOA will be provided with a corporate membership and 5 "keys" to the Car-to-Go program. After the initial year of operation, the HOA can decide to continue the membership. The entire frontage is currently an unregulated curb-cut with tandem, head-in parking. The proposed plan isolates vehicle access to two driveways and eliminates backing into the right-of-way. Explain any additional minor bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff. The applicant is interested in exploring a WeCycle station and/or Car-to-Go facility in the immediate area as a way to reduce the cash-in-lieu of parking costs. Include any additional information that pertains to the MMLOS plan in the space provided below. No additional information Project Description In the space below provide a description of the proposed project. Redevelopment of an existing 8-unit free-market residential property with a combination of 6 free-market units and 8 affordable units. Net gain is 6 units. MMLOS Explain what driveways are removed and how this benefits the pedestrian experience. Chris Bendon BendonAdams 300 So. Spring St. 925.2855 chris@bendonadams.com Summary and Narrative: 10/16/2018 Updated 11/29/18 Aspen Hills Affordable Housing 331-338 Midland Avenue; Aspen. Trip Generation SUMMARY Trip Mitigation NET TRIPS TO BE MITIGATED Click on the "Generate Narrative" Button to the right. Respond to each of the prompts in the space provided. Each response should cover the following: 1. Explain the selected measure. 2. Call out where the measure is located. 3. Demonstrate how the selected measure is appropriate to enhance the project site and reduce traffic impacts. 4. Explain the Enforcement and Financing Plan for the selected measure. 5. Explain the scheduling and implementation responsibility of the mitigation measure. 6. Attach any additional information and a site map to the narrative report. P163 VI.A. = input= calculation DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION: NAME, COMPANY, ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL Minor Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Total Commercial (sf)0.0 sf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Free-Market Housing (Units)-2 Units -0.39 -0.95 -1.34 -0.92 -0.72 -1.64 Affordable Housing (Units)8 Units 2.88 3.12 6.00 3.92 3.20 7.12 Lodging (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Essential Public Facility (sf)0.0 sf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.49 2.17 4.66 3.00 2.48 5.48 Land Use Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Commercial 2.27 0.69 0.31 4.14 0.4 0.6 Free-Market Housing 0.67 0.29 0.71 0.82 0.56 0.44 Affordable Housing 0.75 0.48 0.52 0.89 0.55 0.45 Lodging 0.25 0.57 0.43 0.31 0.52 0.48 Essential Public Facility 0.86 0.62 0.38 1.66 0.4 0.6 Net New Units/Square Feet of the Proposed ProjectProposed Land Use *For mixed-use (at least two of the established land uses) sites, a 4% reduction for AM Peak-Hour and a 14% reduction for PM Peak-Hour is applied to the trip generation. Chris Bendon BendonAdams 300 So. Spring St. 925.2855 chris@bendonadams.com Trip Generation 10/16/2018 Updated 11/29/18 AM Peak Average PM Peak Average Trips Generated AM Peak-Hour PM Peak-Hour TOTAL NEW TRIPS ASSUMPTIONS ASPEN TRIP GENERATION Is this a major or minor project? 331-338 Midland Avenue; Aspen. Aspen Hills Affordable Housing Instructions: IMPORTANT: Turn on Macros: In order for code to run correctly the security settings need to be altered. Click "File" and then click "Excel Options." In the "Trust Center"category, click "Trust Center Settings", and then click the "Macro Settings"category. Beneath "Macro Settings" select "Enable all Macros." Sheet 1. Trip Generation: Enter the project's square footage and/or unit counts under Proposed Land Use. The numbers should reflect the net change in land use between existing and proposed conditions. If a landuse is to be reduced put a negative number of units or square feet. Sheet 2. MMLOS: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable under each of the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections.Points are only awarded for proposed (not existing) and confirmed aspects of the project. Sheet 3. TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Sheet 4. Summary and Narrative: Review the summary of the project's mitigated trips and provide a narrative which explains the measures selected for the project. Click on "Generate Narrative" and individually explain each measure that was chosen and how it enhances the site or mitigates vehicle traffic. Ensure each selected measure make sense Minor Development -Inside the Roundabout Major Development -Outside the Roundabout Helpful Hints: 1. Refer to the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for information on the use of this tool. 2. Refer to TIA Frequently Asked Questions for a quick overview. 2. Hover over red corner tags for additional information on individual measures. 3. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context of project location and future use. Transportation Impact Analysis TIA Frequently Asked Questions P164 VI.A. = input = calculation 15 Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 1 Does the project propose a detached sidewalk where an attached sidewalk currently exists? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard minimum widths? No 0 2 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width greater than the standard minimum width?Yes 5 3 Does the project propose a landscape buffer greater than the standard minimum width?Yes 5 10 4 Does the project propose a detached sidewalk on an adjacent block? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard minimum widths? No 0 5 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width on an adjacent block greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 6 Is the proposed landscape buffer on an adjacent block greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 0 7 Are slopes between back of curb and sidewalk equal to or less than 5%?Yes 0 8 Are curbs equal to (or less than) 6 inches?Yes 0 9 Is new large-scale landscaping proposed that improves the pedestrian experience? Properties within the Core do not have ample area to provide the level of landscaping required to receive credit in this category. No 0 10 Does the project propose an improved crosswalk? This measure must get City approval before receiving credit. No 0 0 11 Are existing driveways removed from the street?Yes 5 12 Is pedestrian and/or vehicle visibility unchanged by new structure or column?Yes 0 13 Is the grade (where pedestrians cross) on cross-slope of driveway 2% or less?Yes 0 14 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian access points from the ROW? This includes improvements to ADA ramps or creating new access points which prevent pedestrians from crossing a street. No 0 15 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian or bicyclist interaction with vehicles at driveway areas?No 0 5 16 Is the project's pedestrian directness factor less than 1.5?Yes 0 17 Does the project propose new improvements which reduce the pedestrian directness factor to less than 1.2? A site which has an existing pedestrian directness factor less than 1.2 cannot receive credit in this category. No 0 18 Is the project proposing an off site improvement that results in a pedestrian directness factor below 1.2?* No 0 19 Are traffic calming features proposed that are part of an approved plan (speed humps, rapid flash)?*No 0 0 20 Are additional minor improvements proposed which benefit the pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff? No 0 21 Are additional major improvements proposed which benefit the pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff? No 0 0 15Pedestrian Total* MMLOS Input Page Subtotal SubtotalSidewalk Condition on Adjacent BlocksSidewalk Condition on Project FrontageSubtotal Instructions: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable to each measure under the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections. Subtotal Subtotal PedestriansSubtotalAdditional Proposed ImprovementsTOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS MITIGATED:Pedestrian RoutesTraffic Calming and Pedestrian NetworkDriveways, Parking, and Access ConsiderationsP165 VI.A. Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 22 Is a new bicycle path being implemented with City approved design?No 0 23 Do new bike paths allow access without crossing a street or driveway?NA 0 24 Is there proposed landscaping, striping, or signage improvements to an existing bicycle path?NA 0 25 Does the project propose additional minor bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0 26 Does the project propose additional major bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0 0 Bicycle Parking27 Is the project providing bicycle parking?No 0 0 0 Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 28 Is seating/bench proposed?No 0 29 Is a trash receptacle proposed?No 0 30 Is transit system information (signage) proposed?No 0 31 Is shelter/shade proposed?No 0 32 Is enhanced pedestrian-scale lighting proposed?No 0 33 Is real-time transit information proposed?No 0 34 Is bicycle parking/storage proposed specifically for bus stop use?No 0 35 Are ADA improvements proposed?No 0 0 36 Is a bus pull-out proposed at an existing stop?No 0 37 Is relocation of a bus stop to improve transit accessibility or roadway operations proposed?No 0 38 Is a new bus stop proposed (with minimum of two basic amenities)?No 0 0 0 Bicycles Total* Transit Total*BicyclesModifications to Existing Bicycle PathsTransitBasic AmenitiesSubtotal Subtotal Enhanced AmenitiesSubtotal Subtotal P166 VI.A. Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will an onsite ammenities strategy be implemented?No Which onsite ammenities will be implemented? Will a shared shuttle service strategy be implemented?No What is the degree of implementation? What is the company size? What percentage of customers are eligible? 3 Nonmotorized Zones Will a nonmotorized zones strategy be implemented?No 0.00% 0.00% Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will a network expansion stragtegy be implemented?No What is the percentage increase of transit network coverage? What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips? Will a service frequency/speed strategy be implemented?No What is the percentage reduction in headways (increase in frequency)? What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips? What is the level of implementation? Will a transit access improvement strategy be implemented?No What is the extent of access improvements? 7 Intercept Lot Will an intercept lot strategy be implemented?No 0.00% 0.00% Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will there be participation in TOP?No What percentage of employees are eligible?100% Is a transit fare subsidy strategy implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligible? What is the amount of transit subsidy per passenger (daily equivalent)? Is an employee parking cash-out strategy being implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a workplace parking pricing strategy implemented?No What is the daily parking charge? What percentage of employees are subject to priced parking? Is a compressed work weeks strategy implemented?No What percentage of employees are participating? What is the workweek schedule? Is an employer sponsered shuttle program implemented?No What is the employer size? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a carpool matching strategy implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligble? Is carshare participation being implemented?Yes How many employee memberships have been purchased?<100 What percentage of employees are eligble?100% Is participation in the bikeshare program WE-cycle being implemented?No How many memberships have been purchased?<100 What percentage of employees/guests are eligble?100% Is an end of trip facilities strategy being implemented?No What is the degree of implementation? High What is the employer size? Small Is a self-funded emergency ride home strategy being implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a carpool/vanpool priority parking strategy being implemented?No What is the employer size? What number of parking spots are available for the program? Is a private employer shuttle strategy being implemented?No What is the employer size? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a trip reduction marketing/incentive program implemented?Yes What percentage of employees/guests are eligible?100% 1.29% 0.00% 1.29% 1. 22% work trips represents a mixed-used site (SF Bay Area Travel Survey). See Assumptions Tab for more detail. Maximum Reduction Allowed in CategoryTransit System Improvements Strategies1 2 4 5 6 8 9 10 4.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.00% Bikeshare Program 0.00% TDM Input Page 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Commute Trip Reduction Programs StrategiesOnsite Servicing Shared Shuttle Service Neighborhood/Site Enhancements Strategies0.00% 0.00% Network Expansion Service Frequency/Speed Transit Access Improvement Participation in TOP Transit Fare Subsidy Employee Parking Cash-Out Workplace Parking Pricing Compressed Work Weeks Employer Sponsored Vanpool Carpool Matching Carshare Program Self-funded Emergency Ride Home Carpool/Vanpool Priority Parking Private Employer Shuttle Trip Reduction Marketing/Incentive Program End of Trip Facilities Cross Category Maximum Reduction, Neighborhood and Transit Global Maximum VMT Reductions 11 12 13 14 15 21 16 17 18 19 20 Instructions TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context of project location and future use. P167 VI.A. Josh Rice, P.E. Woody Creek Engineering 557 North Mill Street Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 429-8297 November 29, 2018 Chris Bendon BendonAdams 201 South Spring Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 160 Midland Avenue Development Drainage Report Chris: We have prepared a conceptual grading and drainage report to be used for the land use case (see Appendix A, C100). We have also prepared a right-of-way and site access plan (see Appendix A, C200) Description of Proposed Project There exists a multi-family affordable housing structure on-site. This structure is to remain, and six townhomes are to be added to the north and west of the existing structure. A portion of the new structure will be constructed above the existing parking in the southwest corner of the property. Site Constraints The site is not located in a flood zone. There are no drainage easements of ditches that run through the site. The site is not located in the mudflow zone. Site Access and Public Improvements The existing site access consists of nearly the entire site frontage. Code compliant grass buffers and detached sidewalks will be added. A code compliant 18-ft driveway will be utilized to access both the surface and garage parking area. Stormwater The roof tops are proposed to be covered in a green roof system. No WQCV or detention will be required for the roofs. The roofs will discharge by gravity to the ROW. The hardscapes collected by the drainage system will discharge to a drywell. The drywell will provide WQCV and retention. In total, there will be approximately 1,770 sf of hardscape. This results in approximately 181 cubic feet of retention. A six-foot diameter drywell with ten feet of storage is P168 VI.A. 160 Midland Avenue Development Drainage Report August 18, 2018 Page 2 proposed to collect and retain the 100-yr storm. This drywell will provide approximately 282 cubic feet of storage. Grading Due to the existing structure, much of the existing topography will be retained. Due to the large manmade berm to the north and east, significant site walls are required. Utilities The onsite utilities and a portion of the offsite utilities will require upgrading. The sanitary sewer and water services will require new taps. The electric service will require upgrading. The project team will work with Holy Cross to improve electric infrastructure and services as necessary. Cable and telephone pedestals will be relocated onsite. Sincerely, Josh Rice, P.E. Woody Creek Engineering, LLC P169 VI.A. Attachment A C000 Civil Cover Sheet C100 Civil Grading and Drainage Plan C200 Civil ROW and Site Access Plan P170 VI.A. 11/29/2018DATE OF PUBLICATIONC000COVER SHEETASPEN HILLS PHASE II 160 MIDLAND AVE., ASPEN3/14/2018LAND USEWOODY CREEK ENGINEERING, LLCP.O. BOX 575WOODY CREEK, COLORADO 81656(P): 970-429-8297WOODYCREEKENGINEERING.COMASPEN HILLS PHASE II160 MIDLAND AVENUEASPEN, CO11/29/2018LAND USENOTES:1.ALL MATERIALS, WORKMANSHIP, AND CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLICIMPROVEMENTS SHALL MEET OR EXCEED THE STANDARDS ANDSPECIFICATIONS SET FORTH IN THE CITY OF ASPEN ("COA") MUNICIPALCODE, COA TECHNICAL MANUALS, AND APPLICABLESTATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS. WHERE THERE IS CONFLICT BETWEENTHESE PLANS AND THE TECHNICAL MANUAL OR ANY APPLICABLESTANDARDS, THE HIGHER QUALITY STANDARD SHALL APPLY. ALL UTILITYWORK SHALL BE INSPECTED AND APPROVED BY THE UTILITY.2.THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATIONAND/OR ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ISBASED ON RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES AND, WHEREPOSSIBLE, MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. THE INFORMATION IS NOTTO BE RELIED UPON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE.3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE ONE (1) SIGNED COPY OF THEAPPROVED PLANS, ONE (1) COPY OF THE APPROPRIATE CRITERIA ANDSPECIFICATIONS, AND A COPY OF ANY PERMITS AND EXTENSIONAGREEMENTS NEEDED FOR THE JOB ONSITE AT ALL TIMES.4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL ASPECTS OFSAFETY INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, EXCAVATION, TRENCHING,SHORING,TRAFFIC CONTROL, AND SECURITY.5.IF DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS CONDITIONS AREENCOUNTERED WHICH COULD INDICATE A SITUATION THAT IS NOTIDENTIFIED IN THE PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALLCONTACT THE WOODY CREEK ENGINEERING, LLC IMMEDIATELY.6.ALL REFERENCES TO ANY PUBLISHED STANDARDS SHALL REFER TOTHE LATEST REVISION OF SAID STANDARD UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATEDOTHERWISE.7.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT A TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN INACCORDANCE WITH MUTCD TO THE APPROPRIATE RIGHT-OF-WAYAUTHORITY (TOWN, COUNTY OR STATE) FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO ANYCONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WITHIN OR AFFECTING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ANY AND ALLTRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THECONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.8.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ALL LABOR ANDMATERIALS NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE INTENDEDIMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS OR AS DESIGNATED TO BEPROVIDED, INSTALLED, OR CONSTRUCTED UNLESS SPECIFICALLYNOTED OTHERWISE.9.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING ROADWAYSFREE AND CLEAR OF ALL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AND DIRT TRACKED FROMTHE SITE.10.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RECORDING AS-BUILTINFORMATION ON A SET OF RECORD DRAWINGS KEPT ON THECONSTRUCTION SITE AND AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES.11.DIMENSIONS FOR LAYOUT AND CONSTRUCTION ARE NOT TO BESCALED FROM ANY DRAWING. IF PERTINENT DIMENSIONS ARE NOT SHOWN,CONTACT WOODY CREEK ENGINEERING, LLC FOR CLARIFICATION ANDANNOTATE THE DIMENSION ON THE AS-BUILT RECORD DRAWINGS.15. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OFTHE COLORADO PERMIT FOR STORM WATER DISCHARGE, THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN.16.ALL STRUCTURAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BEINSTALLED AT THE LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION PRIOR TO ANY OTHEREARTH-DISTURBING ACTIVITY. ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BEMAINTAINED IN GOOD REPAIR BY THE CONTRACTOR UNTIL SUCH TIME ASTHE ENTIRE DISTURBED AREA IS STABILIZED WITH HARD SURFACE ORLANDSCAPING.17.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SEQUENCE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES INSUCH A MANNER AS TO MINIMIZE POTENTIAL UTILITY CONFLICTS. INGENERAL, STORM SEWER AND SANITARY SEWER SHOULD BECONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF THE WATER LINES AND DRYUTILITIES.VICINITY MAP0100 200 400 800Scale: 1" = 200'NP171VI.A. MIDLAND PARK PLACEMIDLAND AVENUETOW:7958.50TOW:7959.00NEW CURB CUT7955.67ASPHALT DRIVEWAYEXISTING MAILBOXESEXISTING DUMPSTERPROPOSED LOCATION OFCABLE AND TELEPHONE PEDESTALSADDITIONAL ELECTRIC METERSADDITIONAL GAS METERNEW 4-INCHWATER SERVICEFIRE FLOWCALCULATIONSREQUIRED ATBUILDING PERMITABANDON EXISTINGWATER SERVICEABANDON EXISTINGSANITARY SERVICEREPLACE AS REQUIRED79557960 7965 79657965796579 7 0797079757975795379537954795679577958 7959 7961 7962 7963 7964 79647966 796 6 7967 79677968 796879 6 9796979 7 179717 9 7 2 79727973797379747974797679767977 79777978ASPHALT DRIVEWAYREROUTE POWER TOEXISTING TRANSFORMERCOORDINATE WITHHOLY CROSS79637964 796079587962 79637964 NORTH COURTYARDHARDSCAPEEAST COURTYARDHARDSCAPE79727971797079697968796779667965797479747960796479 6 37965 7966TOW:7973 - 7970TOW:7970TOW:7969 - 7966TOW:7966TOW:7968TOW:7972.50TOW:7970TOW:7973TOW:7967.50TOW:7968.50TOW:7971.50TOW:7965TOW:7966TOW:7963.50TOW:7969TOW:7963TOW:7962.50TOW:7958TOW:7961TOW:7960TOW:7962.50CURB AND GUTTERATTACHED 5-FT SIDEWALKCURB AND GUTTER5-FT GRASS BUFFER6-FT CONC. SIDEWALK6-FT DIAM.DRYWELL TO TREATNON-ROOF HARDSCAPESVOLUME REQUIRED=200 CFVOLUME PROVIDED=282 CFEXISTING MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURENEW MULTIFAMILY STRUCTUREEXISTING DECKEXISTING DECKEXISTINGDECKPROPOSED CENTRAL PATIO/COURTYARDEL:7964.83THREE PARKING SPACES(3) REGULARNEW MULTIFAMILY STRUCTUREABOVE PARKINGFIVE PARKING SPACES(4) COMPACT(1) REGULARDWP8.33% RAMPDWP8.33% RAMPDWP8.33% RAMP11/29/2018DATE OF PUBLICATIONC0.0COVER SHEETASPEN HILLS PHASE II 160 MIDLAND AVE., ASPEN3/14/2018LAND USEWOODY CREEK ENGINEERING, LLCP.O. BOX 575WOODY CREEK, COLORADO 81656(P): 970-429-8297WOODYCREEKENGINEERING.COM8/9/2018LAND USENOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/29/2018LAND USEEXISTING CONTOURPROPOSED CONTOUR7910SPOT ELEVATION XXXX.XXCONC. = CONCRETEHP = HIGH POINTTD = TRENCH DRAINTOW=TOP OF WALLBW=BOTTOM OF WALLUTILITY SERVICEE=ELECTRICUG=UNDERGROUND GASSS=SANITARY SEWERW=WATERTel=PHONE LINECable=CABLE LINEPROPERTY LINEBUILDINGGAS METERBACKFLOW PREVENTERAND YARD HYDRANTELECTRIC METERGWEWALKWAYWALL0 5 10 20 40Scale: 1" = 10'NGRADING &DRAINAGEC100DASHED CONTOURLINES INDICATEEXISTING TOPOAS DEFINED BY TSSSURVEYINGDRAINAGE PIPETRENCH DRAININLETNOTES:1.GREEN ROOF TODISCHARGE TO ROW. NOWQCV OR DETENTIONREQUIRED.2.ROOF TERRACE AREAS TODISCHARGE EITHER TOGREEN ROOF OR TODRYWELL.3.CENTRAL PATIO ANDOTHER HARDSCAPES TODRAIN TO DRYWELL.4.DRYWELL SIZED TOPROVIDE 100-YRRETENTION FOR ROOFTERRACE AND OTHERHARDSCAPES5.DRYWELL IS LOCATED 10-FTFROM STRUCTURES, ROW,WATER SERVICE ANDSANITARY SERVICE.6.SANITARY SERVICE WILL BELOCATED 10-FT FROMWATER SERVICEP172VI.A. MIDLAND PARK PLACEMIDLAND AVENUEMIDLAND AVENUE7955796 0 7965 79547956795779587959 7961796279637964TOW:7958.50TOW:7959.00PROPOSED LOCATION OFCABLE AND TELEPHONE PEDESTALSADDITIONAL ELECTRIC METERSADDITIONAL GAS METER7955 795579607960 7965 79657965796579 7 0797579757953795379547954795679567957795779587958795979597961796179627962796379637964796479 6 6 7967 796879 6 9 79 7 179717 9 7 2 79727973797379747974797679767977 79777978 79637964 796079587962 7 9 6 3 7 9 6 4 79727971797079697968796779667965797479747960796479 6 37965 7966TOW:7973 - 7970TOW:7970TOW:7969 - 7966TOW:7966TOW:7968TOW:7972.50TOW:7970TOW:7973TOW:7967.50TOW:7968.50TOW:7971.50TOW:7965TOW:7966TOW:7963.50TOW:7969TOW:7963TOW:7962.50TOW:7958TOW:7961TOW:7960TOW:7962.50DWPUP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 18 x 7" = 10'-6"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4" UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4" UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"18.00 FT8.33% RAMPNORTH COURTYARDHARDSCAPEEAST COURTYARDHARDSCAPENEW CURB CUT7955.67+/-ASPHALT DRIVEWAYCURB AND GUTTER5-FT GRASS BUFFER6-FT CONC. SIDEWALKROAD CENTERLINEPROPERTYLINESETBACKEXISTING MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURENEW MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURENEW MULTIFAMILY STRUCTUREABOVE PARKINGTHREE PARKING SPACES(3) REGULARDWP8.33% RAMPFIVE PARKING SPACES(4) COMPACT(1) REGULARDWP8.33% RAMP11/29/2018DATE OF PUBLICATIONC0.0COVER SHEETASPEN HILLS PHASE II 160 MIDLAND AVE., ASPEN11/29/2018REVISED 1 CURB CUTWOODY CREEK ENGINEERING, LLCP.O. BOX 575WOODY CREEK, COLORADO 81656(P): 970-429-8297WOODYCREEKENGINEERING.COMNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONEXISTING CONTOURPROPOSED CONTOUR7910SPOT ELEVATION XXXX.XXCONC. = CONCRETEHP = HIGH POINTTD = TRENCH DRAINTOW=TOP OF WALLBW=BOTTOM OF WALLUTILITY SERVICEE=ELECTRICUG=UNDERGROUND GASSS=SANITARY SEWERW=WATERTel=PHONE LINECable=CABLE LINEPROPERTY LINEBUILDINGGAS METERBACKFLOW PREVENTERAND YARD HYDRANTELECTRIC METERGWEWALKWAYWALL0 5 10 20 40Scale: 1" = 10'NROW &ACCESS PLANC200DRAINAGE PIPETRENCH DRAININLETP173VI.A. Exhibit A9P174VI.A. P175 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 331-338 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLSMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2016 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED TITLE SHEET 1.1 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 9/30/2016EXISTING CONDITIONS ASPEN HILLS EXISTING CONDITIONS Exhibit A10 P176VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 331-338 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLSMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2016 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED GENERAL INFORMATION 1.2 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 9/30/2016EXISTING CONDITIONS 1. The Contract Documents include: (1) general notes; (2) architectural, mechanical, and structural drawings. All additional specifications, details, drawings, clarifications, or changes shall automatically become part of the Contract Documents. Any discrepancy between any components of any of the drawings shall be reported to the Architect immediately for clarification. 2.Alius Design Corps, LLC, shall not be liable in any way for problems which arise from failure, by any third party or any party to this Contract, to follow the design plans. The Contractor shall obtain and/or request guidance of Alius Design Corp., with respect to any errors, omissions, inconsistencies, or conflicts or unclear information which may be discovered or alleged. 3.The Plans and Specifications are the intellectual and other property of the Architect and shall not beused without the permission of same. 4.All work shall comply with all state and local codes, ordinances, rules, regulations and laws of building officials or authorities having jurisdiction. All work shall be performed to the highest standards or craftsmanship by all tradesman. Alius Design Corps, LLC., shall not be responsible for overseeing third party work, nor shall Alius Design Corps, LLC., be liable for any errors or omissions of third parties who perform work on the Project. 5.The Contract Documents represent the finished structure. They do not indicate the method of construction. The Contractor shall provide all measures necessary to protect the structure during construction. Observation visits to the site by the Structural Engineer or Architect shall not include inspection of the ____________, nor will the architect or structural engineer be responsible for the contractor's means, methods, techniques, sequences for procedure of construction, or the safety precautions and the techniques, sequences for procedure of construction, or any safety precautions. The Contractor and not the Architect shall be responsible for all Federal and OSHA regulations. 6.THE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE SCALED. Written dimensions must be used. In the event of a discrepancy in dimensions, the Architect should be timely notified for clarification. All dimensions on the drawings shall be verified against the existing conditions. All dimensions are to rough framing or face of concrete unless noted otherwise. 7.The Construction Documents are intended to include all labor, materials, equipment, and services required to complete all work described herein. It is the responsibility of the Contractor to bring to the attention of the Architect any conditions which will not permit construction according to these Construction Documents. 8.The Building Inspector shall be notified by the Contractor if there is need of an inspection as required by the I.R.C., or by any local code or ordinance. 9.LOT STAKED: The Contractor shall arrange for the building to be located and staked after demolition or site clearing, to be approved by the Architect. The Contractor shall review the lot staking and verify, to the best of his ability, its accuracy. The Contractor shall also check the grade where it meets the building to evaluate the consistency with the drawings during excavation. All work to be done by a certified surveyor. 10.RECORD DRAWINGS: Contractor shall maintain a complete set of blue/black-line prints of contract drawings and shop drawings for record mark-up purposes throughout the Contract time. Mark-up drawings during course of the work shall show changes and actual installation conditions, sufficient to form a complete record for Owner's purposes. 11.SOILS AND CONCRETE: The General Contractor shall arrange for a visual site inspection at the completion of excavation by a soils engineer, and the required concrete testing prior to any foundation work. 12.Property lines, utilities and topography shown is representative of information taken from a survey. Contractor shall notify Architect of any discrepancy or variation between the Drawings and actual site conditions. ABREVIATIONS A.F.F. ABOVE FINISH FLOOR ADJ. ADJUSTABLE ALT. ALTERNATE A.B. ANCHOR BOLTS & AND ARCH. ARCHITECTURAL @ AT BM. BEAM BM. PKT. BEAM POCKET BRG. BEARING BLK’G. BLOCKING BOT. BOTTOM BLDG. BUILDING B.O. BY OWNER CLG. CEILING CL.CENTER LINE CLR. CLEAR COL. COLUMN CONC. CONCRETE CONN. CONNECTION CONT. CONTINUOUS DTL. DETAILS DWL. DOWEL E.W. EACH WAY ELEV. ELEVATION EXISTG EXISTING EXT. EXTERIOR FLR. FLOOR FTG. FOOTING FND. FOUNDATION GA. GAUGE G.L. GLU-LAM G.W.B.GYPSUM WALL BOARD HORIZ. HORIZONTAL INFO. INFORMATION INSUL. INSULATION JST. JOIST N.I.C.NOT IN CONTRACT O.C. ON CENTER OPP. OPPOSITE PERF. PERFORATED PL. PLATE PLY. PLYWOOD PROP. LINE PROPERTY LINE REINF. REINFORCEMENT REQ. REQUIRED REV. REVISED SIM. SIMILAR S.F. SQUARE FEET STD. STANDARD THK. THICK T.P. TOP OF PLATE T.L. TOP OF LEDGE T.W. TOP OF WALL TOT. TOTAL TYP. TYPICAL U.N.O.UNLESS NOTED UTHERWISE V.I.F.VERIFY IN FIELD 033 LBB CLIENT BendonAdams 300 S. Spring Street #202 Aspen, CO 81611 970.925.2855 chris@bendonadams.com ARCHITECT Alius Design Corps 1331 East Sopris Creek Rd. Basalt, CO 81611 719.331.9211 Michael@aliusdc.com GENERAL RENOVATION NOTES 1.0 All existing conditions must be verified by the contractor in the field. Unknown and varied conditions may be found. Notify the structural engineer and/or architect of any structural or architectural conditions found to vary from that indicated from the drawings. Design revisions may be required, and are to be expected as a process of remodel work. 2.0 All new work, details, surfaces, or finishes shall match adjacent existing surfaces unless noted or directed otherwise by the owner or interior designer. Contractor to verify with architect any conflict between existing and new conditions. 3.0 All electrical modifications and/or additions to be as directed by owner/lighting designer during construction. Contractor/lighting designer to verify electrical capacity and review new designs or alterations with architect, prior to implementation. 4.0 All interior electrical fixtures, plumbing fixtures and trim, cabinet design, and other finishes to be at the directive of the owner or interior designer unless noted otherwise in the drawings. Contractor to provide all necessary prep work for installation of any materials as required. 5.0 Structural engineering – if any modifications to the existing structural system are deemed necessary beyond these shown in the drawings, all existing conditions are to be verified in the field by a registered structural engineer before proceeding. The architect will not be responsible for any structural modifications not verified or approved by a structural engineer. 6.0 Contractor will verify and coordinate all openings through floors, ceilings, and walls with all architectural, structural, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical design and construction. ARCHITECTURAL 1.1 TITLE SHEET 1.2 GENERAL INFORMATION FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS NET LEASABLE CALCULATIONS 2.1 SITE PLAN SURVEY 3.1 1/4” LOWER LEVEL PLAN 3.2 1/4” MAIN LEVEL PLAN 3.3 1/4” ROOF PLAN 4.1 1/4“ ELEVATIONS 4.2 1/4“ ELEVATIONS 5.1 ¼” BUILDING SECTIONS 6.1 SITE PHOTOS 6.2 SITE PHOTOS 6.3 SITE PHOTOS 5.1A PROJECT LOCATION ASPEN HILLS REFERENCE GRID LINE SPOT ELEVATION WINDOW MARK DOOR MARK ROOM NUMBER DRAWING REVISION ASSEMBLY DETAIL CUT SECTION CUT EXTERIOR ELEVATION DETAIL CALLOUT INTERIOR ELEVATION ROOM 100 F11 1 T. O. RIDGE BEAM 123'-6 1/2" 4.4 1 1 7.1 8.1 1 2 3 4 VICINITY MAP SYMBOL & MATERIAL LEGEND DRAWING INDEX PROJECT DIRECTORY CONSTRUCTION NOTES ABBREVIATIONS EXISTING CONDITIONS 09/30/2016GENERAL NOTES 8 P177VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 331-338 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLSMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2016 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SITE PLAN 2.1 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 9/30/2016EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY DEMONSTRATES EXIST. NON-CONFORMITY W/ BUILDING DIRECTLY ON PROPERTY LINE BEYOND 5' SETBACK LINE OF SETBACK P178VI.A. D E SIGN C ORPS ALIU S D E SIGN C ORPS ALIUS 331-338 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLSMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2016 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED LOWER LEVEL PLAN 3.1 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 9/30/2016EXISTING CONDITIONS A A B B 2 2 1 1 UP UP UPUP UP UP UPUP UNIT A-1 UNIT A-2 UNIT A-3 UNIT A-4 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-6 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-8 A5.1 A5.1 B5.1 B5.1 017.1 D5.2 #DrgID#LayID 14.1 14.2 14.3 0 2' 4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 LOWER LEVEL PLAN EXISTINGP179 VI.A. D E SIGN C ORPS ALIU S D E SIGN C ORPS ALIUS 331-338 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLSMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2016 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED MAIN LEVEL PLAN 3.2 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 9/30/2016EXISTING CONDITIONS A A B B 2 2 1 139'-3"92'-8" A5.1 A5.1 B5.1 B5.1 D5.2 24.1 14.1 24.1 14.2 STORAGE ABOVE STAIRS TYP. UNIT A-1 LIVING ROOM KITCHEN DN DN KITCHEN DN DN KITCHEN DN DN KITCHEN DN DN UNIT A-2 UNIT A-3 UNIT A-4 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-8 DECK DECK DECK 0 2' 4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL PLANP180 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 331-338 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLSMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2016 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ROOF PLAN 3.4 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 9/30/2016EXISTING CONDITIONS A A B B 2 2 1 1 A5.1 A5.1 B5.1 B5.1 D5.2 1:12 1:12 1:12 1:12 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 ROOF PLANP181 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 331-338 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLSMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2016 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NORTH &SOUTH ELEVATIONS 4.1 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 9/30/2016EXISTING CONDITIONS 2 1 89'-0" LOWER LEVEL 100'-0" MAIN LEVEL 108'-0" UPPER LEVEL LINE ASSUMED GRADE LINE OF GRADE LINE OF WINDOW BEYOND LOWER LEVEL WALL BEYOND HATCHED AREA OF EXPOSED LL WALLS; SEE SHEET 1.3 1 2 89'-0" LOWER LEVEL 100'-0" MAIN LEVEL 108'-0" UPPER LEVEL LINE OF GRADE LINE OF WINDOW BEYOND LOWER LEVEL WALL BEYOND SLOPED GRADE BEYOND GRADE @ SIDEWALK HATCHED AREA OF EXPOSED LL WALLS; SEE SHEET 1.3 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 SOUTH ELEVATIONP182 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 331-338 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLSMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2016 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED EAST & WEST ELEVATIONS 4.2 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 9/30/2016EXISTING CONDITIONS A B 89'-0" LOWER LEVEL 89'-0" LOWER LEVEL 100'-0" MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" MAIN LEVEL 108'-0" UPPER LEVEL 108'-0" UPPER LEVEL LINE ASSUMED GRADE HATCHED AREA OF EXPOSED LL WALLS; SEE SHEET 1.3 B A 89'-0" LOWER LEVEL 89'-0" LOWER LEVEL 100'-0" MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" MAIN LEVEL 108'-0" UPPER LEVEL 108'-0" UPPER LEVEL LINE ASSUMED GRADE 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATION 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 EAST ELEVATIONP183 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 331-338 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLSMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2016 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SECTIONS 5.1 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 9/30/2016EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 2 89'-0" LOWER LEVEL 100'-0" MAIN LEVEL 108'-0" UPPER LEVEL B A 89'-0" LOWER LEVEL 89'-0" LOWER LEVEL 100'-0" MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" MAIN LEVEL 108'-0" UPPER LEVEL 108'-0" UPPER LEVEL 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"B SECTION 'B' 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"A SECTION 'A'P184VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 331-338 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLSMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2016 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SITE PHOTOS 6.1 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 9/30/2016EXISTING CONDITIONSP185 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 331-338 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLSMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2016 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SITE PHOTOS 6.2 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 9/30/2016EXISTING CONDITIONSP186VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 331-338 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLSMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2016 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SITE PHOTOS 6.3 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 9/30/2016EXISTING CONDITIONSP187 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED TITLE SHEET 1.1 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC ASPEN HILLS PHASE II P188VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED GENERAL INFORMATION 1.2 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 1. The Contract Documents include: (1) general notes; (2) architectural, mechanical, and structural drawings. All additional specifications, details, drawings, clarifications, or changes shall automatically become part of the Contract Documents. Any discrepancy between any components of any of the drawings shall be reported to the Architect immediately for clarification. 2. Alius Design Corps, LLC, shall not be liable in any way for problems which arise from failure, by any third party or any party to this Contract, to follow the design plans. The Contractor shall obtain and/or request guidance of Alius Design Corp., with respect to any errors, omissions, inconsistencies, or conflicts or unclear information which may be discovered or alleged. 3. The Plans and Specifications are the intellectual and other property of the Architect and shall not beused without the permission of same. 4. All work shall comply with all state and local codes, ordinances, rules, regulations and laws of building officials or authorities having jurisdiction. All work shall be performed to the highest standards or craftsmanship by all tradesman. Alius Design Corps, LLC., shall not be responsible for overseeing third party work, nor shall Alius Design Corps, LLC., be liable for any errors or omissions of third parties who perform work on the Project. 5. The Contract Documents represent the finished structure. They do not indicate the method of construction. The Contractor shall provide all measures necessary to protect the structure during construction. Observation visits to the site by the Structural Engineer or Architect shall not include inspection of the ____________, nor will the architect or structural engineer be responsible for the contractor's means, methods, techniques, sequences for procedure of construction, or the safety precautions and the techniques, sequences for procedure of construction, or any safety precautions. The Contractor and not the Architect shall be responsible for all Federal and OSHA regulations. 6. THE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE SCALED. Written dimensions must be used. In the event of a discrepancy in dimensions, the Architect should be timely notified for clarification. All dimensions on the drawings shall be verified against the existing conditions. All dimensions are to rough framing or face of concrete unless noted otherwise. 7. The Construction Documents are intended to include all labor, materials, equipment, and services required to complete all work described herein. It is the responsibility of the Contractor to bring to the attention of the Architect any conditions which will not permit construction according to these Construction Documents. 8. The Building Inspector shall be notified by the Contractor if there is need of an inspection as required by the I.R.C., or by any local code or ordinance. 9. LOT STAKED: The Contractor shall arrange for the building to be located and staked after demolition or site clearing, to be approved by the Architect. The Contractor shall review the lot staking and verify, to the best of his ability, its accuracy. The Contractor shall also check the grade where it meets the building to evaluate the consistency with the drawings during excavation. All work to be done by a certified surveyor. 10. RECORD DRAWINGS: Contractor shall maintain a complete set of blue/black-line prints of contract drawings and shop drawings for record mark-up purposes throughout the Contract time. Mark-up drawings during course of the work shall show changes and actual installation conditions, sufficient to form a complete record for Owner's purposes. 11. SOILS AND CONCRETE: The General Contractor shall arrange for a visual site inspection at the completion of excavation by a soils engineer, and the required concrete testing prior to any foundation work. 12. Property lines, utilities and topography shown is representative of information taken from a survey. Contractor shall notify Architect of any discrepancy or variation between the Drawings and actual site conditions. ABREVIATIONS A.F.F. ABOVE FINISH FLOOR ADJ. ADJUSTABLE ALT. ALTERNATE A.B. ANCHOR BOLTS & AND ARCH. ARCHITECTURAL @ AT BM. BEAM BM. PKT. BEAM POCKET BRG. BEARING BLK’G. BLOCKING BOT. BOTTOM BLDG. BUILDING B.O. BY OWNER CLG. CEILING CL. CENTER LINE CLR. CLEAR COL. COLUMN CONC. CONCRETE CONN. CONNECTION CONT. CONTINUOUS DTL. DETAILS DWL. DOWEL E.W. EACH WAY ELEV. ELEVATION EXISTG EXISTING EXT. EXTERIOR FLR. FLOOR FTG. FOOTING FND. FOUNDATION GA. GAUGE G.L. GLU-LAM G.W.B. GYPSUM WALL BOARD HORIZ. HORIZONTAL INFO. INFORMATION INSUL. INSULATION JST. JOIST N.I.C. NOT IN CONTRACT O.C. ON CENTER OPP. OPPOSITE PERF. PERFORATED PL. PLATE PLY. PLYWOOD PROP. LINE PROPERTY LINE REINF. REINFORCEMENT REQ. REQUIRED REV. REVISED SIM. SIMILAR S.F. SQUARE FEET STD. STANDARD THK. THICK T.P. TOP OF PLATE T.L. TOP OF LEDGE T.W. TOP OF WALL TOT. TOTAL TYP. TYPICAL U.N.O. UNLESS NOTED UTHERWISE V.I.F. VERIFY IN FIELD 033 LBB CLIENT WEB Capital LLC WilliamB@WEBCapLLC.com ARCHITECT Alius Design Corps, LLC 1331 East Sopris Creek Rd. Basalt, CO 81611 719.331.9211 michaeltedinger@gmail.com STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SKPE 298 Park Ave #301 Basalt, CO 81621 970.927.9510 skpe@sopris.net LAND USE/PLANNING BendonAdams 300 So. Spring St. #202 Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925.2855 chris@bendonadams.com PROJECT INFORMATION PRESIDING CODE .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2015 IBC TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1VB FULLY SPRINKLERED; NFPA 13 LOT SIZE .............................................................................................................................................................................. 15,000 +/- sq.ft. LOCAL ZONING .................................................................................................................................................................................... R/MF OCCUPANCY ................................................................................................................................................................... R-2 RESIDENTIAL PARCEL ID ............................................................................................................................................................................. 273718216101 GENERAL RENOVATION NOTES 1.0 All existing conditions must be verified by the contractor in the field. Unknown and varied conditions may be found. Notify the structural engineer and/or architect of any structural or architectural conditions found to vary from that indicated from the drawings. Design revisions may be required, and are to be expected as a process of remodel work. 2.0 All new work, details, surfaces, or finishes shall match adjacent existing surfaces unless noted or directed otherwise by the owner or interior designer. Contractor to verify with architect any conflict between existing and new conditions. 3.0 All electrical modifications and/or additions to be as directed by owner/lighting designer during construction. Contractor/lighting designer to verify electrical capacity and review new designs or alterations with architect, prior to implementation. 4.0 All interior electrical fixtures, plumbing fixtures and trim, cabinet design, and other finishes to be at the directive of the owner or interior designer unless noted otherwise in the drawings. Contractor to provide all necessary prep work for installation of any materials as required. 5.0 Structural engineering – if any modifications to the existing structural system are deemed necessary beyond these shown in the drawings, all existing conditions are to be verified in the field by a registered structural engineer before proceeding. The architect will not be responsible for any structural modifications not verified or approved by a structural engineer. 6.0 Contractor will verify and coordinate all openings through floors, ceilings, and walls with all architectural, structural, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical design and construction. CLIENT WEB Capital LLC WilliamB@WEBCapLLC.com ARCHITECT Alius Design Corps, LLC 1331 East Sopris Creek Rd. Basalt, CO 81611 719.331.9211 michaeltedinger@gmail.com STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SKPE 298 Park Ave #301 Basalt, CO 81621 970.927.9510 skpe@sopris.net LAND USE/PLANNING BendonAdams 300 So. Spring St. #202 Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925.2855 chris@bendonadams.com 5.1A PROJECT LOCATION ASPEN HILLS PHASE II REFERENCE GRID LINE SPOT ELEVATION WINDOW MARK DOOR MARK ROOM NUMBER DRAWING REVISION ASSEMBLY DETAIL CUT SECTION CUT EXTERIOR ELEVATION DETAIL CALLOUT INTERIOR ELEVATION ROOM 100 F11 1 T. O. RIDGE BEAM 123'-6 1/2" 4.4 1 1 7.1 8.1 1 2 3 4 VICINITY MAP SYMBOL & MATERIAL LEGEND PROJECT INFORMATION DRAWING INDEX PROJECT DIRECTORY CONSTRUCTION NOTES ABBREVIATIONS PHASE II PLANNING SUBMISSION 11/24/2018GENERAL NOTES 8 P189VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DEMOLITION CALCULATIONS 1.3 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC Demolition Calculations Roof Label Individual Roof Area in Plan (sq.ft.)Roof Slope Adjustment Factor Actual Area of Roof Used for Demo Calc (sq.ft.)Area of Roof to be Removed 1 2504 1:12 1.02 2554.08 2554.08 2 2504 1:12 1.02 2554.08 2554.08 Roof Surface Total (sq.ft.)5008.00 5108.16 5108.16 Roof + Wall Area Used for Demo Calculation (sq.ft.)9818 Surface Area to be Removed (sq. ft.)5192.16 Percentage of Surface Area to be Removed 52.88% Roof Demolition Demolition Totals 2,504 sq ft 2,504 sq ft EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE EXIST. ROOF TO BE DEMOLISHED Demolition Calculations Wall Label Existing Wall Area (sq.ft.( Area Reduced for Fenestration (sq.ft.) 05 1729 42 06 157 0 07 110 42 08 569 0 09 1617 0 10 628 0 Total Wall Surface Total (sq.ft.)4810.00 Total Area of Wall to be Removed (sq.ft.)84.00 Roof + Wall Area Used for Demo Calculation (sq.ft.)9818 Surface Area to be Removed (sq. ft.)5192.16 Percentage of Surface Area to be Removed 52.88% Wall Demolition Demolition Totals 1,729 sq ft 628 sq ft 569 sq ft 11 sq ft 11 sq ft 11 sq ft 9 sq ft 157 sq ft 110 sq ft 1,617 sq ft 11 sq ft11 sq ft11 sq ft9 sq ft 20'-0"106'-8"20'-0"37'-10"20'-0"19'-3" 106'-8"20'-0"20'-0"14'-0"14'-0"19'-3"92'-8" WALL 008 WALL 009WALL 010 WALL 005 WALL 006 WALL 007 UNIT A-1 UNIT A-2 UNIT A-3 UNIT A-4 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-6 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-8 WALL 005 WALL 010 WALL 08WALL 006 WALL 007 WALL 009 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"1 ROOF AREA 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"2 WALL DEMO AREAP190 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 1.5 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 18 x 7" = 10'-6" 490 sq ft 24 sq ft 158 sq ft 24 sq ft 166 sq ft 118 sq ft 321 sq ft 200 sq ft 218 sq ft 286 sq ft 208 sq ft 151 sq ft 159 sq ft 973 sq ft UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"221 sq ft 18'-6 1/2"91'-3" 115'-0"45-6"80'-2"2'-9"21'-10"19'-10"45'-6"10'-9 1/4"8'-8"8'-6"18'-6 1/2" 105'-6 1/2"10'-9 1/4"2'-9 1/4"115'-0"8'-8"80'-2"2'-9" 105'-6 1/2"8'-8"19'-2" 13'-7"8'-8"13'-7"8'-0"91'-3"8'-0"32'-1"10'-0"32'-1"10'-0"19'-11 1/2"10'-0"21'-10"10'-0"28'-7 1/2"10'-0"20'-10 1/8"10'-0"15'-1"19'-10" 200 sq ft 200 sq ft 730 sq ft WALL 002 WALL 001 WALL 008 WALL 009WALL 010WALL 011WALL 012WALL 013 WALL 014 WALL 015 WALL 016 LINE OF HISTORIC GRADE (LOWER) LINE OF FINISH GRADE (LOWER) LINE OF FINISH GRADE (LOWER) LINE OF EXIST. GRADE (LOWER) WALL 005 WALL 006 WALL 007 LINE OF FINISH GRADE (LOWER)LINE OF FINISH GRADE (LOWER) LINE OF FINISH GRADE (LOWER) LINE OF FINISH GRADE (LOWER)LINE OF FINISH GRADE (LOWER)LINE OF FINISH GRADE (LOWER)LINE OF FINISH GRADE (LOWER)LINE OF FINISH GRADE (LOWER)LINE OFHISTORIC GRADE (VARIES) UNIT A-4 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-8 UNIT A-1 UNIT A-6 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-2 UNIT A-3 SHARED GARAGE UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 1 UNIT 1 WALL 001 WALL 002 WALL 004 WALL CALCULATION LEGEND EXPOSED WALL AREA ABOVE GRADE BURIED WALL AREA BELOW GRADE BELOW GRADE FLOOR AREA COUNTABLE TOWARD F.A.R. ABOVE GRADE FLOOR AREA COUNTABLE TOWARD F.A.R. DECK AREA WALL 008 WALL 003 WALL 006WALL 005 WALL 007 WALL 009 WALL 010 WALL 011 WALL 012 WALL 013 WALL 014 WALL 015 WALL 016 COVERED PARKING UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP TRASH 844 sq ft 19'-2"3,917 sq ft 7,983 sq ft 695 sq ft24 sq ft 23 sq ft 121 sq ft 18 sq ft17 sq ft117 sq ft 256 sq ft18 sq ft 132 sq ft WALL 003WALL 004 LINE OF HISTORIC GRADE (VARIES) LINE OF HISTORIC GRADE (VARIES)1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A Lower Level Wall Label Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft) 1 973.00 221.00 2 490.00 0.00 3 695.00 168.00 4 24.00 0.00 5 844.00 152.00 6 166.00 0.00 7 118.00 0.00 8 158.00 24.00 9 730.00 274.00 10 321.00 321.00 11 200.00 200.00 12 218.00 218.00 13 286.00 286.00 14 208.00 208.00 15 151.00 151.00 16 159.00 132.00 Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft)5,741.00 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)2355.00 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)41.02% Lower Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)11,900.00 Parking Exemption (Sq Ft)3,500.00 (14*250) Lower Level Gross Floor Area for FAR Calc (Sq Ft)8,400.00 Lower Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,444 (8,400*.41) Deck Calculations Total Proposed Floor Area Calcuations Unit Main Level Second Level Third Level Roof Level Total Garage Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,444 Unit 1 284 284 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)9,688 Unit 2 256 256 Second Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)4,229 Unit 3 271 271 Third Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,429 Unit 4 259 319 Roof Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)0 Unit 5 104 282 386 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)76 2349>2273 allowable Unit 6 272 272 Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)18,866 Exterior Stairs (Main Level)561 561 Allowable Floor Area (Sq Ft)18,949 Total Deck Remaining Floor Area Available (Sq Ft)83 2349 Proposed Lower Level Floor Area Calculations (New Building + Exist. Building) Floor Area Calculations Aspen Hills Proposed Lower Level Wall Calculations (All building walls) 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"1 GARAGE LEVEL FLOOR AREAP191 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 1.6 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 18 x 7" = 10'-6" 387 sq ft 9 sq ft 19 sq ft 9 sq ft 5 sq ft 23 sq ft 69 sq ft 22 sq ft UP 19 x 7 37/64" = 12'-0" UP 19 x 7 37/64" = 12'-0" UP 15 x 7 13/32" = 9'-3" UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0" UP 21 x 6 55/64" = 12'-0"UP 32 x 7 9/32" = 19'-5"EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE AREA OF STAIRS @ ON GRADE WALKWAY ATTRIBUTABLE TO DECK DECK ABOVE PARKING BELOW DN DN DN DN DN 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A 3,331 sq ft 6,357 sq ft 18 sq ft DN 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 18 x 7" = 10'-6" UP 14 x 7 59/64" = 9'-3" UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0" UP 24 x 7 25/64" = 14'-9 1/2"UP 23 x 7 13/64" = 13'-9 1/2"UP 19 x 7 15/64" = 11'-5 1/2"EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A 4,382 sq ft LINE OF ROOF BELOW LINE OF ROOF BELOW DNDNDNDNDN Lower Level Wall Label Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft) 1 973.00 221.00 2 490.00 0.00 3 695.00 168.00 4 24.00 0.00 5 844.00 152.00 6 166.00 0.00 7 118.00 0.00 8 158.00 24.00 9 730.00 274.00 10 321.00 321.00 11 200.00 200.00 12 218.00 218.00 13 286.00 286.00 14 208.00 208.00 15 151.00 151.00 16 159.00 132.00 Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft)5,741.00 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)2355.00 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)41.02% Lower Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)11,900.00 Parking Exemption (Sq Ft)3,500.00 (14*250) Lower Level Gross Floor Area for FAR Calc (Sq Ft)8,400.00 Lower Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,444 (8,400*.41) Deck Calculations Total Proposed Floor Area Calcuations Unit Main Level Second Level Third Level Roof Level Total Garage Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,444 Unit 1 284 284 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)9,688 Unit 2 256 256 Second Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)4,229 Unit 3 271 271 Third Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,429 Unit 4 259 319 Roof Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)0 Unit 5 104 282 386 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)76 2349>2273 allowable Unit 6 272 272 Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)18,866 Exterior Stairs (Main Level)561 561 Allowable Floor Area (Sq Ft)18,949 Total Deck Remaining Floor Area Available (Sq Ft)83 2349 Proposed Lower Level Floor Area Calculations (New Building + Exist. Building) Floor Area Calculations Aspen Hills Proposed Lower Level Wall Calculations (All building walls) Lower Level Wall Label Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft) 1 973.00 221.00 2 490.00 0.00 3 695.00 168.00 4 24.00 0.00 5 844.00 152.00 6 166.00 0.00 7 118.00 0.00 8 158.00 24.00 9 730.00 274.00 10 321.00 321.00 11 200.00 200.00 12 218.00 218.00 13 286.00 286.00 14 208.00 208.00 15 151.00 151.00 16 159.00 132.00 Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft)5,741.00 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)2355.00 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)41.02% Lower Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)11,900.00 Parking Exemption (Sq Ft)3,500.00 (14*250) Lower Level Gross Floor Area for FAR Calc (Sq Ft)8,400.00 Lower Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,444 (8,400*.41) Deck Calculations Total Proposed Floor Area Calcuations Unit Main Level Second Level Third Level Roof Level Total Garage Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,444 Unit 1 284 284 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)9,688 Unit 2 256 256 Second Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)4,229 Unit 3 271 271 Third Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,429 Unit 4 259 319 Roof Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)0 Unit 5 104 282 386 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)76 2349>2273 allowable Unit 6 272 272 Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)18,866 Exterior Stairs (Main Level)561 561 Allowable Floor Area (Sq Ft)18,949 Total Deck Remaining Floor Area Available (Sq Ft)83 2349 Proposed Lower Level Floor Area Calculations (New Building + Exist. Building) Floor Area Calculations Aspen Hills Proposed Lower Level Wall Calculations (All building walls) 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"2 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"1 SECOND LEVEL FLOOR AREA P192VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 1.7 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 18 x 7" = 10'-6" 104 sq ft UP 18 x 7 7/64" = 10'-8"UP 17 x 6 15/32" = 9'-2" EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE LINE OF ROOF BELOW LINE OF STAIR TOWER WALL; SHOWN CUT ON ROOF PLAN PROPERTY LINESETBACK UNIT 3 ROOF DECK UNIT 4 ROOF DECK UNIT 5 UNIT 6 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A 1,429 sq ft 284 sq ft 256 sq ft LINE OF ROOF BELOW LINE OF ROOF BELOW STAIR TOWER TYP. SEE ROOF PLAN FOR DECK PERIMETER DOUBLE HEIGHT VOLUME FOR UNITS 3/4 UNIT 1 ROOF DECK DN DN 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 18 x 7" = 10'-6" 282 sq ft 271 sq ft 259 sq ft 272 sq ft PERIMETER OF ROOF LINE OF ROOF BELOW; SEE ROOF PLAN FOR HEIGHTS AS ROOF STEPS STAIR TOWER; TYP. EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE STAIR TOWER; TYP. EXIST. ROOF BELOW LINE OF NATURAL GRADE PROPERTY LINESETBACK DN UNIT 3 ROOF DECK UNIT 4 ROOF DECK UNIT 5 ROOF DECK UNIT 6 ROOF DECK 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A DN DNDN Lower Level Wall Label Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft) 1 973.00 221.00 2 490.00 0.00 3 695.00 168.00 4 24.00 0.00 5 844.00 152.00 6 166.00 0.00 7 118.00 0.00 8 158.00 24.00 9 730.00 274.00 10 321.00 321.00 11 200.00 200.00 12 218.00 218.00 13 286.00 286.00 14 208.00 208.00 15 151.00 151.00 16 159.00 132.00 Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft)5,741.00 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)2355.00 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)41.02% Lower Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)11,900.00 Parking Exemption (Sq Ft)3,500.00 (14*250) Lower Level Gross Floor Area for FAR Calc (Sq Ft)8,400.00 Lower Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,444 (8,400*.41) Deck Calculations Total Proposed Floor Area Calcuations Unit Main Level Second Level Third Level Roof Level Total Garage Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,444 Unit 1 284 284 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)9,688 Unit 2 256 256 Second Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)4,229 Unit 3 271 271 Third Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,429 Unit 4 259 319 Roof Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)0 Unit 5 104 282 386 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)76 2349>2273 allowable Unit 6 272 272 Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)18,866 Exterior Stairs (Main Level)561 561 Allowable Floor Area (Sq Ft)18,949 Total Deck Remaining Floor Area Available (Sq Ft)83 2349 Proposed Lower Level Floor Area Calculations (New Building + Exist. Building) Floor Area Calculations Aspen Hills Proposed Lower Level Wall Calculations (All building walls) Lower Level Wall Label Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft) 1 973.00 221.00 2 490.00 0.00 3 695.00 168.00 4 24.00 0.00 5 844.00 152.00 6 166.00 0.00 7 118.00 0.00 8 158.00 24.00 9 730.00 274.00 10 321.00 321.00 11 200.00 200.00 12 218.00 218.00 13 286.00 286.00 14 208.00 208.00 15 151.00 151.00 16 159.00 132.00 Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft)5,741.00 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)2355.00 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)41.02% Lower Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)11,900.00 Parking Exemption (Sq Ft)3,500.00 (14*250) Lower Level Gross Floor Area for FAR Calc (Sq Ft)8,400.00 Lower Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,444 (8,400*.41) Deck Calculations Total Proposed Floor Area Calcuations Unit Main Level Second Level Third Level Roof Level Total Garage Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,444 Unit 1 284 284 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)9,688 Unit 2 256 256 Second Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)4,229 Unit 3 271 271 Third Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,429 Unit 4 259 319 Roof Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)0 Unit 5 104 282 386 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)76 2349>2273 allowable Unit 6 272 272 Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)18,866 Exterior Stairs (Main Level)561 561 Allowable Floor Area (Sq Ft)18,949 Total Deck Remaining Floor Area Available (Sq Ft)83 2349 Proposed Lower Level Floor Area Calculations (New Building + Exist. Building) Floor Area Calculations Aspen Hills Proposed Lower Level Wall Calculations (All building walls) 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"2 THIRD LEVEL FLOOR AREA 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"1 ROOF LEVEL FLOOR AREAP193 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NET LIVABLE CALCULATIONS 1.10 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"415 sq ft UP 18 x 7" = 10'-6"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"420 sq ft 420 sq ft 422 sq ft 415 sq ft 420 sq ft 420 sq ft 422 sq ft UNIT A-1 UNIT A-2 UNIT A-3 UNIT A-4 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-6 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-8 SHARED GARAGE UNIT 2 & 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 1 TRASH ROOM UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP 211 sq ft 200 sq ft197 sq ft200 sq ft 164 sq ft 193 sq ft 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A Total Garage Level Main Level Second Level Third Level Roof Level Net Livable A-1 415 388 0 0 0 803.00 A-2 415 387 0 0 0 802.00 A-3 420 388 0 0 0 808.00 A-4 420 387 0 0 0 807.00 A-5 420 388 0 0 0 808.00 A-6 420 387 0 0 0 807.00 A-7 422 395 0 0 0 817.00 A-8 422 394 0 0 0 816.00 1 164 1847 0 0 0 2,011.00 2 193 961 917 0 0 2,071.00 3 200 883 816 0 0 1,899.00 4 197 840 772 0 0 1,809.00 5 200 783 783 694 0 2,460.00 6 211 679 679 699 0 2,268.00 Total Proposed Net Livable Area (Sq Ft)18,986 Net Livable Calculations Aspen Hills Proposed Net Livable Area Unit Floor Level 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 LOWER/GARAGE LEVEL NET LIVABLEP194 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NET LIVABLE CALCULATIONS 1.11 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 16 x 7" = 9'-4"387 sq ft 18 x 7" = 10'-6"8 sq ft 8 sq ft 8 sq ft 12 sq ft UP 19 x 7 37/64" = 12'-0" UP 19 x 7 37/64" = 12'-0" UP 15 x 7 13/32" = 9'-3" UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0" UP 21 x 6 55/64" = 12'-0"UP 32 x 7 9/32" = 19'-5"387 sq ft 387 sq ft 394 sq ft 388 sq ft 388 sq ft 388 sq ft 395 sq ft EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE UNIT A-1 UNIT A-2 UNIT A-3 UNIT A-4 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-6 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-8 PROPERTY LINESETBACK DN DN DN DN DN 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A 883 sq ft 840 sq ft 783 sq ft 679 sq ft 961 sq ft 1,847 sq ft UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 1 DN UP UP DN DN DN DN DN Total Garage Level Main Level Second Level Third Level Roof Level Net Livable A-1 415 388 0 0 0 803.00 A-2 415 387 0 0 0 802.00 A-3 420 388 0 0 0 808.00 A-4 420 387 0 0 0 807.00 A-5 420 388 0 0 0 808.00 A-6 420 387 0 0 0 807.00 A-7 422 395 0 0 0 817.00 A-8 422 394 0 0 0 816.00 1 164 1847 0 0 0 2,011.00 2 193 961 917 0 0 2,071.00 3 200 883 816 0 0 1,899.00 4 197 840 772 0 0 1,809.00 5 200 783 783 694 0 2,460.00 6 211 679 679 699 0 2,268.00 Total Proposed Net Livable Area (Sq Ft)18,986 Net Livable Calculations Aspen Hills Proposed Net Livable Area Unit Floor Level 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL NET LIVABLE AREAP195 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NET LIVABLE CALCULATIONS 1.12 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 18 x 7" = 10'-6" UP 14 x 7 59/64" = 9'-3" UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0" UP 24 x 7 25/64" = 14'-9 1/2"UP 23 x 7 13/64" = 13'-9 1/2"UP 19 x 7 15/64" = 11'-5 1/2"EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK 1 B B 2 3 5 C C D D E E 4 A A 816 sq ft 783 sq ft772 sq ft 679 sq ft 917 sq ft LINE OF ROOF BELOW LINE OF ROOF BELOW UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6DNDNDNDN DN Total Garage Level Main Level Second Level Third Level Roof Level Net Livable A-1 415 388 0 0 0 803.00 A-2 415 387 0 0 0 802.00 A-3 420 388 0 0 0 808.00 A-4 420 387 0 0 0 807.00 A-5 420 388 0 0 0 808.00 A-6 420 387 0 0 0 807.00 A-7 422 395 0 0 0 817.00 A-8 422 394 0 0 0 816.00 1 164 1847 0 0 0 2,011.00 2 193 961 917 0 0 2,071.00 3 200 883 816 0 0 1,899.00 4 197 840 772 0 0 1,809.00 5 200 783 783 694 0 2,460.00 6 211 679 679 699 0 2,268.00 Total Proposed Net Livable Area (Sq Ft)18,986 Net Livable Calculations Aspen Hills Proposed Net Livable Area Unit Floor Level 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 SECOND LEVEL NET LIVABLE AREAP196 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NET LIVABLE CALCULATIONS 1.13 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 18 x 7" = 10'-6" X 3'-4" by 7'-2"UP 18 x 7 7/64" = 10'-8"UP 17 x 6 15/32" = 9'-2" EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE LINE OF ROOF BELOW LINE OF STAIR TOWER WALL; SHOWN CUT ON ROOF PLAN PROPERTY LINESETBACK 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A 694 sq ft 699 sq ft LINE OF ROOF BELOW LINE OF ROOF BELOW STAIR TOWER TYP. SEE ROOF PLAN FOR DECK PERIMETER UNIT 5 UNIT 6 DN DN Total Garage Level Main Level Second Level Third Level Roof Level Net Livable A-1 415 388 0 0 0 803.00 A-2 415 387 0 0 0 802.00 A-3 420 388 0 0 0 808.00 A-4 420 387 0 0 0 807.00 A-5 420 388 0 0 0 808.00 A-6 420 387 0 0 0 807.00 A-7 422 395 0 0 0 817.00 A-8 422 394 0 0 0 816.00 1 164 1847 0 0 0 2,011.00 2 193 961 917 0 0 2,071.00 3 200 883 816 0 0 1,899.00 4 197 840 772 0 0 1,809.00 5 200 783 783 694 0 2,460.00 6 211 679 679 699 0 2,268.00 Total Proposed Net Livable Area (Sq Ft)18,986 Net Livable Calculations Aspen Hills Proposed Net Livable Area Unit Floor Level 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 THIRD LEVEL NET LIVABLE AREAP197 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SITE PLAN 2.1 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 18 x 7" = 10'-6" UP 19 x 7 37/64" = 12'-0" UP 19 x 7 37/64" = 12'-0" UP 15 x 7 13/32" = 9'-3" UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0" UP 21 x 6 55/64" = 12'-0"UP 32 x 7 9/32" = 19'-5"A5.1 A5.1 F5.4 E5.3 E5.3 G5.4 98'-4" 100'-0" 99'-6" 99'-6"99'-6" 101'-0" 101'-6" 99'-0"98'-0" 96'-6" 94'-0"92'-6"J5.3 EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE BUILDING PERIMETER ON GRADE STEPS TYP. EGRESS DISCHARGE PATHWAY HATCHED AREA REPRESENTS EXTERIOR SITE PATHWAYS PROPERTY LINESETBACK 797079557956795879607962796479667968DN DN DN DN DN K5.5 B5.1 B5.1 C5.1C5.1 D5.2 D5.2 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A I5.3 I5.3 #DrgID#LayID DN UP UP DN DN DN DN DN DN N 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 SITE PLAN MAIN SITE 7965.5 = ARCH 100'-0"P198VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED TIA PLAN 2.2 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRCUP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 18 x 7" = 10'-6"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"1'-4"18'-0"22'-6 39/64"18'-0"8'-6"8'-6" 8'-0"10"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"16'-0"24'-5 41/64"10"8'-0"6"10"12'-6" 12'-6"10"12'-8" 26'-0"1'-4"10'-3 1/2"10"9'-8 5/8"1'-4"1'-4"19'-8 29/64"10"10"20'-4"1'-4"153 sq ft 8.5'X18' STANDARD 8'X16' COMPACT GARAGE ENTRANCE 8.5'X18' STANDARD; ASSIGNABLE 8.5'X18' STANDARD; ASSIGNABLE 8.5'X18' STANDARD; ASSIGNABLE ADDIT. STORAGE AREA EXIST. MECH. VAULT SEE CIVIL FOR NEW CURB AND WALK DETAILS PROPERTY LINESETBACK MIDLAND AVE. UNIT A-1 UNIT A-2 UNIT A-3 UNIT A-4 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-6 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-8 7 SHARED GARAGE UNIT 2 & 3 8 1 2 3 4 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 1 6 5 TRASH ROOM UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP ADDIT. STORAGE AREA A5.1 A5.1 F5.4 E5.3 E5.3 G5.4 14.2 14.2 J5.3 K5.5 B5.1 B5.1 C5.1C5.1 D5.2 D5.2 14.1 1 B B 2 3 5 C C D D E E 4 A A I5.3 I5.3 #DrgID#LayID N 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 TIA PLAN SITE 7965.5 = ARCH 100'-0" PEDESTRIAN DIRECTNESS FACTOR = WALKING DISTANCE/CROW'S FLIGHT DISTANCE : 167/134 = 1.24 FACTOR P199VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED HEIGHT OVER TOPOGRAPHY 2.3 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 18 x 7" = 10'-6" A5.1 15.4 E5.3 E5.3 G5.4 J5.3 LOCATION FOR PLUMBING STACK VENTS, RADON VENT, GENERAL MECH. VENTING LOCATION; CHILLER STAIR ENCLOSURE EXIST. ROOF BELOW TRANSPARENT GLASS GAURD RAIL LOW WATER GREEN ROOF LINE OF ROOF BELOW; SEE ROOF PLAN FOR HEIGHTS AS ROOF STEPS EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE LINE OF NATURAL GRADE ELEVATION POINT 002 ELEVATION POINT 001 ELEVATION POINT 003 ELEVATION POINT 004 ELEVATION POINT 005 ELEVATION POINT 006 ELEVATION POINT 007ELEVATION POINT 008ELEVATION POINT 009ELEVATION POINT 010 ELEVATION POINT 011 ELEVATION POINT 012 ELEVATION POINT 013 ELEVATION POINT 014 ELEVATION POINT 015ELEVATION POINT 016 ELEVATION POINT 017 ELEVATION POINT 020 ELEVATION POINT 018 ELEVATION POINT 019 PROPERTY LINESETBACK AC AC DN AC UNIT 3 ROOF DECK UNIT 4 ROOF DECK UNIT 5 ROOF DECK UNIT 6 ROOF DECK UNIT 2 ROOF DECK AC K5.5 B5.1 B5.1 C5.1C5.1 D5.2 1 B B 2 3 5 C C D D E E 4 A A I5.3 #DrgID#LayID ELEVATION POINT 002 ELEVATION POINT 001 ELEVATION POINT 003 ELEVATION POINT 004 ELEVATION POINT 005 ELEVATION POINT 006 ELEVATION POINT 007ELEVATION POINT 008ELEVATION POINT 009ELEVATION POINT 010 ELEVATION POINT 011 ELEVATION POINT 012 ELEVATION POINT 013 ELEVATION POINT 014 ELEVATION POINT 015ELEVATION POINT 016 ELEVATION POINT 017 ELEVATION POINT 020 ELEVATION POINT 018 ELEVATION POINT 019 DN AC UNIT 1 ROOF DECK AC DN DN 797079557956795879607962796479667968DN 001 7958.750 7960.500 Proposed 7988.250 27.750 002 7964.000 7964.500 Natural 7991.500 27.500 003 7965.250 7965.500 Natural 7995.417 30.167 004 7969.750 7968.000 Proposed 7995.417 27.417 005 7969.750 7968.000 Proposed 7995.417 27.417 006 7968.000 7968.000 Either 7995.417 27.417 007 7967.500 7966.000 Proposed 7995.417 29.417 008 7964.000 7964.750 Natural 7995.417 31.417 009 7962.000 7964.750 Natural 7991.500 29.5 010 7957.000 7964.750 Natural 7988.250 31.25 011 7957.000 7964.750 Natural 7986.000 29 012 7957.500 7964.750 Natural 7986.000 28.5 013 7958.000 7966.500 Natural 7986.000 28.000 014 7958.000 7955.500 Natural 7986.000 30.500 015 7957.750 7955.500 Proposed 7986.000 30.500 016 7956.250 7955.500 Proposed 7986.000 30.500 017 7955.500 7955.500 Either 7986.000 30.500 018 7955.750 7955.500 Proposed 7986.000 30.500 019 7957.900 7955.500 Proposed 7986.000 30.500 020 7957.000 7956.500 Proposed 7988.250 31.750 Height Over Topography Aspen Hills Elevation Point Elevation of Natural Grade Elevation of Proposed Grade Most Restrictive Roof Height Over Topography Actual Roof Height Over Most Restrictive 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 ROOF PLANP200 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED GRADE PLANE ESTABLISHMENT 2.4 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 18 x 7" = 10'-6" UP 19 x 7 37/64" = 12'-0" UP 19 x 7 37/64" = 12'-0" UP 15 x 7 13/32" = 9'-3" UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0" UP 21 x 6 55/64" = 12'-0"UP 32 x 7 9/32" = 19'-5"116'-7" 85'-6" 35'-5"5 1/2"71'-2 59/64"5 1/2"35'-5 25/64"5 1/2" 108'-11 31/32" 109'-0"38'-4 29/64"38'-4" 71'-0" 101'-0" 92'-6" 96'-10" 101'-0"99'-0"99'-9" 100'-0"100'-0" 89'-0"89'-0" 99'-6"100'-0"99'-4"98'-4" 89'-0"89'-0" EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE FACADE 1 FACADE 1 FACADE 2 FACADE 3 FACADE 1 AVERAGE LINE OF GRADE FACADE 2 AVERAGE LINE OF GRADE FACADE 4 FACADE 5AVERAGE LINE OF GRADE FACADE 3 AVERAGE LINE OF GRADE AVERAGE LINE OF GRADE FACADE 6AVERAGE LINE OF GRADE DN DN DN DN DN 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A FACADE 4 EXISTING BUILDING ALL FACADES MEASURED TOGETHER: 263'-10" FACADE 5 DN UP UP DN DN DN DNDN Facade 1 116.750 96.800 16.28%16.00 Facade 2 85.500 99.750 11.93%12.00 Facade 3 109.000 99.450 15.20%15.00 Facade 4 35.450 100.000 4.94%5.00 Facade 5 35.450 89.000 4.94%5.00 Facade 6 71.000 89.000 9.90%10.00 Existing Building 263.800 100.000 36.79%37.00 Weighted Average Grade Plane Establishment Aspen Hills Facade Length of Facade Average Arch Grade Percent of Building Length Grade Plane MethodologyWeight Stories Above Grade Per Grade Plane 003 97.732 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL PLAN-GRADE PLANE SITE 7965.5 = ARCH 100'-0"P201VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED GARAGE LEVEL PLAN 3.1 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 18 x 7" = 10'-6"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0"UP 16 x 7" = 9'-4"1'-4"18'-0"22'-6 39/64"18'-0"8'-6"8'-6" 8'-0"10"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"16'-0"24'-5 41/64"10"8'-0"6"10"12'-6" 12'-6"10"12'-8" 26'-0"1'-4"10'-3 1/2"10"9'-8 5/8"1'-4"1'-4"19'-8 29/64"10"10"20'-4"1'-4"153 sq ft 8.5'X18' STANDARD 8'X16' COMPACT GARAGE ENTRANCE 8.5'X18' STANDARD; ASSIGNABLE 8.5'X18' STANDARD; ASSIGNABLE 8.5'X18' STANDARD; ASSIGNABLE ADDIT. STORAGE AREA EXIST. MECH. VAULT SEE CIVIL FOR NEW CURB AND WALK DETAILS PROPERTY LINESETBACK MIDLAND AVE. UNIT A-1 UNIT A-2 UNIT A-3 UNIT A-4 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-6 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-8 7 SHARED GARAGE UNIT 2 & 3 8 1 2 3 4 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 1 6 5 TRASH ROOM UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP ADDIT. STORAGE AREA A5.1 A5.1 F5.4 E5.3 E5.3 G5.4 14.2 14.2 J5.3 K5.5 B5.1 B5.1 C5.1C5.1 D5.2 D5.2 14.1 1 B B 2 3 5 C C D D E E 4 A A I5.3 I5.3 #DrgID#LayID LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 GARAGE LEVEL PLANP202 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 3.2 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 18 x 7" = 10'-6" UP 19 x 7 37/64" = 12'-0" UP 19 x 7 37/64" = 12'-0" UP 15 x 7 13/32" = 9'-3" UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0" UP 21 x 6 55/64" = 12'-0"UP 32 x 7 9/32" = 19'-5"A5.1 A5.1 F5.4 E5.3 E5.3 G5.4 14.2 14.2 J5.3 EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE STAIR TO PARKING BELOW; NOT SERVING AS EGRESS OR EGRESS DISCHARGE COMPONENT STAIR TO GARAGE BELOW NO STEP; TRANSITION FROM SLAB ON DECK ABOVE GARAGE TO SLAB ON GRADE WINDOW WELL, TYP. LINE OF COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL UNIT A-1 UNIT A-2 UNIT A-3 UNIT A-4 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-6 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-8 SETBACK LINE ON GRADE WALKWAY; SERVES AS EGRESS COURT PROPERTY LINE YARD; ON GRADE, SERVES AS EXIT DISCHARGE 11'-4" EGRESS DIST.118'-6" TOTAL EGRESS PATH DISTANCE DN DN DN DN DN K5.5 B5.1 B5.1 C5.1C5.1 D5.2 D5.2 14.1 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A I5.3 I5.3 #DrgID#LayID UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 1 DN UP UP DN DN DN DN DN DN LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL PLANP203 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SECOND LEVEL PLAN 3.3 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 18 x 7" = 10'-6" UP 14 x 7 59/64" = 9'-3" UP 20 x 7 13/64" = 12'-0" UP 24 x 7 25/64" = 14'-9 1/2"UP 23 x 7 13/64" = 13'-9 1/2"UP 19 x 7 15/64" = 11'-5 1/2"A5.1 A5.1 F5.4 E5.3 E5.3 G5.4 14.2 14.2 J5.3 5 1/2"23'-10 29/64"11 1/2"23'-0 1/2"11 1/2"23'-0 1/2"11 1/2"22'-7 13/16"11 1/2"19'-5 15/64"5 5/64"0"5 1/2"31'-11 7/8"5 5/64"42'-1 23/32"23'-11 3/8"11 31/64"23'-1 25/64"11 31/64"23'-1 23/64"1'-0 5/32"22'-7 23/64"1'-0 13/64"22'-0 3/32"5 1/2" LINE OF ROOF BELOW LINE OF ROOF BELOW EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK 33'-11" EGRESS DIST. K5.5 B5.1 B5.1 C5.1C5.1 D5.2 D5.2 14.1 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A I5.3 I5.3 LINE OF ROOF BELOW LINE OF ROOF BELOW UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6DNDNDNDN DN LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 SECOND LEVEL PLANP204 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THIRD LEVEL PLAN 3.4 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 18 x 7" = 10'-6" X 3'-4" by 7'-2"RGFUP 18 x 7 7/64" = 10'-8"UP 17 x 6 15/32" = 9'-2" A5.1 A5.1 F5.4 E5.3 E5.3 G5.4 14.2 14.2 J5.3 11 1/2"22'-7 13/16"11 1/2"19'-5 15/64"5 5/64"32'-10"LINE OF ROOF BELOW EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE LINE OF ROOF BELOW LINE OF STAIR TOWER WALL; SHOWN CUT ON ROOF PLAN PROPERTY LINESETBACK UNIT 3 UNIT 2 ROOF DECK 31'-9" EGRESS DIST. K5.5 B5.1 B5.1 C5.1C5.1 D5.2 D5.2 14.1 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A I5.3 I5.3 LINE OF ROOF BELOW LINE OF ROOF BELOW STAIR TOWER TYP. SEE ROOF PLAN FOR DECK PERIMETER UNIT 5 UNIT 6 DN DN UNIT 1 ROOF DECK LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 THIRD LEVEL PLANP205 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ROOF PLAN 3.5 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 16 x 7" = 9'-4" 18 x 7" = 10'-6" A5.1 A5.1 F5.4 E5.3 E5.3 G5.4 J5.3 17'-4"20'-5"17'-4 1/2"19'-5"19'-5"15'-8" 17'-6"17'-11"16'-5"13'-0" LOCATION FOR PLUMBING STACK VENTS, RADON VENT, GENERAL MECH. VENTING LOCATION; CHILLER STAIR ENCLOSURE EXIST. ROOF BELOW TRANSPARENT GLASS GAURD RAIL LOW WATER GREEN ROOF LINE OF ROOF BELOW; SEE ROOF PLAN FOR HEIGHTS AS ROOF STEPS EXIST. COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN; TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED AND NO FOUNDATION OR EXCAVATION WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN DRIPLINE LINE OF NATURAL GRADE LINE OF COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL ELEVATION POINT 002 ELEVATION POINT 001 ELEVATION POINT 003 ELEVATION POINT 004 ELEVATION POINT 005 ELEVATION POINT 006 ELEVATION POINT 007ELEVATION POINT 008ELEVATION POINT 009ELEVATION POINT 010 ELEVATION POINT 011 ELEVATION POINT 012 ELEVATION POINT 013 ELEVATION POINT 014 ELEVATION POINT 015ELEVATION POINT 016 ELEVATION POINT 017 ELEVATION POINT 020 ELEVATION POINT 018 ELEVATION POINT 019 PROPERTY LINESETBACK AC AC DN AC UNIT 3 ROOF DECK UNIT 4 ROOF DECK UNIT 5 ROOF DECK UNIT 6 ROOF DECK UNIT 2 ROOF DECK AC 41'-6" EGRESS DIST. K5.5 B5.1 B5.1 C5.1C5.1 D5.2 D5.2 1 1 B B 2 2 3 3 5 5 C C D D E E 4 4 A A I5.3 I5.3 21'-2"15'-3"ELEVATION POINT 002 ELEVATION POINT 001 ELEVATION POINT 003 ELEVATION POINT 004 ELEVATION POINT 005 ELEVATION POINT 006 ELEVATION POINT 007ELEVATION POINT 008ELEVATION POINT 009ELEVATION POINT 010 ELEVATION POINT 011 ELEVATION POINT 012 ELEVATION POINT 013 ELEVATION POINT 014 ELEVATION POINT 015ELEVATION POINT 016 ELEVATION POINT 017 ELEVATION POINT 020 ELEVATION POINT 018 ELEVATION POINT 019 DN AC UNIT 1 ROOF DECK AC DN DN 797079557956795879607962796479667968DN LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 ROOF PLANP206 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NORTH ELEVATION 4.1 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES 3'-4"1'-85/8"2'-29/16"32'-0"THIRD STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE SECOND STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE FIRST STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE 2'-21/16"2'-513/16"2'-0"GLASS RAILING LINE OF WESTERN SETBACK LINE OF NATURAL GRADE STAIR TOWER; SEE ROOF PLAN LINE OF NATURAL GRADE OFFSET STAIR TOWER TO ROOF TYP. LINE OF FINISH GRADE OFFSET 97'-8" GRADE PLANE 0 4'8'12'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATIONP207 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NORTH ELEVATION - WALL EXPOSURE 4.1.1 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES 3'-4"1'-85/8"2'-29/16"2,421.06 sq ft 3,187.41 sq ft 2'-21/16"2'-513/16"2'-0"GLASS RAILING LINE OF WESTERN SETBACK LINE OF NATURAL GRADE STAIR TOWER; SEE ROOF PLAN LINE OF NATURAL GRADE OFFSET STAIR TOWER TO ROOF TYP. LINE OF FINISH GRADE OFFSET 0 4'8'12'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATIONP208 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WEST & EAST ELEVATION 4.2 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES B C D E 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 32'-0"THIRD STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE SECOND STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE FIRST STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE LINE OF GRADE GARAGE DOOR BEYOND LINE OF NATURAL GRADE SLOPING GRADE BEYOND GLASS RAILING TYP. SLOPING WALL BEYOND; SEE SHEET 5.5 FOR PROFILE STAIR TOWER AND BUILDING BEYOND 97'-8" GRADE PLANE E D C B 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 2'-0"32'-0"THIRD STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE SECOND STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE FIRST STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE LINE OF NATURAL GRADE LINE OF GRADE LINE OF NATURAL GRADE OFFSET STAIR TOWER BEYOND BUILDING BEYOND 97'-8" GRADE PLANE 0 4'8'12'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATION 0 4'8'12'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION P209VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BUILDING SECTIONS 5.1 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC E D C B 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 3'-8"3'-8" 3'-8"32'-0"1'-211/16"1'-83/4"2'-85/8"UNIT 6 UNIT 6 SHARED GARAGE UNIT A-8 UNIT 6 UNIT 6 UNIT A-8 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-7 EGRESS COURT EXIT DISCHARGE AREA EXIT DISCHARGE AREA YARD EXIT DISCHARGE AREA YARD UNIT 6 1'-63/4"LINE OF NATURAL GRADE GLASS RAILING BUILDING BEYOND EXIT DISCHARGE AREA LINE OF FINISH GRADE LINE OF NATURAL GRADE OFFSET NEW WINDOW WELL LANDSCAPE RETAINING WALL 1 2 3 4 5 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 4'-35/8"2'-21/8"10'-2"10"19'-5"6'-7"32'-0" OFFSET FROM EXIST. GRADE SURFACE PARKING UNIT 1 SHARED GARAGE EGRESS COURT EGRESS DISCHARGE GLASS RAILING SITE WALL BEYOND LINE OF NATURAL GRADE LINE OF NATURAL GRADE OFFSET STAIR TOWER TO ROOF TYP.; TOWERS ARE NOT AT THE EXTERIOR FACE OF THE BUILDING; SEE SECTIONS FOR HEIGHT COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A SECTION 'A' 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"B SECTION 'B'P210VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BUILDING SECTIONS 5.2 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES 1 2 3 4 5 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 29'-2"30'-5"10'-2"10"17'-111/4"1'-2"8'-8"8"10'-91/4"1'-23/4"9'-111/4"1'-23/4"8'-8"8"10'-91/4"1'-23/4"12'-31/4"1'-23/4"8'-8"8"10'-91/4"1'-23/4"13'-31/4"1'-23/4"8'-8"8"10'-81/4"1'-23/4"8'-01/4"1'-23/4"7'-81/4"1'-23/4"8'-8"8"1'-51/4"1'-23/4"8'-01/4"1'-23/4"8'-01/4"1'-23/4"7'-81/4"1'-23/4"SHARED GARAGE LINE OF NATURAL GRADE LINE OF NATURAL GRADE OFFSET UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6UNIT 1 BEDC 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 30'-5"8"10'-2"10"19'-5"32'-0"4'-213/16"8'-8"8"10'-91/4"1'-23/4"9'-111/4"1'-23/4"UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 2 SHARED GARAGE UNIT 2SURFACE PARKING LINE OF NATURAL GRADE LINE OF FINISH GRADE LINE OF NATURAL GRADE OFFSET 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"C SECTION 'C' 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"D SECTION 'D'P211VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BUILDING SECTIONS 5.3 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES 2'-0"2'-6"2'-2"16'-0" APPROX. VERTICAL CUT FOR SITE WALK RETAINING WALL APPROX. EDGE OF DRIPLINE BASED ON SURVEY NEW ON GRADE WALKWAY RETAINING WALL BEYOND LINE OF GRADE AT TREE BASE APPROX. DISTANCE FOR TRUNK TO DRIPLINE BASED ON SURVEY LINE OF NATURAL GRADE LINE OF NATURAL GRADE OFFSET BY 30" LANDSCAPE RETAINING WALL 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 10 13/16"1'-6 31/64"2'-3 7/16"4'-5 11/16"3'-10 47/64"8'-8"8"10'-9 1/4"1'-2 3/4"9'-11 1/4"1'-2 3/4"3"8'-8"8"10'-9 1/4"1'-2 3/4"12'-3 1/4"1'-2 3/4"8'-8"8"10'-9 1/4"1'-2 3/4"13'-3 1/4"1'-2 3/4"4"8'-8"8"10'-8 1/4"1'-2 3/4"8'-0 1/4"1'-2"3/4"7'-8 1/4"1'-2 3/4"9'-4"1'-5 1/4"1'-2 3/4"8'-0 1/4"1'-2 3/4"8'-0 1/4"1'-2 3/4"7'-8 1/4"1'-2 3/4"3"32'-0" OFFSET FROM EXIST. GRADE UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6UNIT 2 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 LINE OF NATURAL GRADE LINE OF FINISH GRADE LINE OF NATURAL GRADE OFFSET STAIR TOWER 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"J DETAIL SECTION 'J' 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"E SECTION 'E'P212VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BUILDING SECTIONS 5.4 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 1 2 3 4 5 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF EXIT DISCHARGE AREA EXIT DISCHARGE AREA LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES 1 2 3 4 5 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF LINE OF HISTORIC GRADE LINE OF HISTORIC GRADE OFFSET 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 SECTION 'F' 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"G SECTION 'G' SOUTH ELEVATIONP213 VI.A. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BUILDING SECTIONS 5.5 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 08/01/2018DRC REVIEW 10/15/2018REVISED P&Z 11/24/2018FINAL DRC 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 32'-0"5'-0"LEGEND 1 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 2 HR FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY BUILDING CODE LINES 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 89'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 98'-4" LEVEL 1 107'-7" LEVEL 2 107'-7" LEVEL 2 118'-0" LEVEL 3 118'-0" LEVEL 3 128'-8" ROOF 128'-8" ROOF 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 DETAIL SECTION 'K' 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"I SECTION 'I'P214VI.A. CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT March, 2016 City of Apen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5050 ATTACHMENT 2 – LAND USE APPLICATION Name: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Location:_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) APPLICANT: Name: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone #: REPRESENTIVATIVE: Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Address:________________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone#: TYPE OF APPLICATION: (Please check all that apply): EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) PROPOSAL: (Description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) 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 8.5” 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. GMQS Exemption Conceptual PUD Temporary Use GMQS Allotment Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) Special Review Subdivision Conceptual SPA ESA – 8040 Greenline, Stream Subdivision Exemption (includes Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, Condominiumization) Mountain View Plane Final SPA (&SPA Commercial Design Review Lot Split Amendment) Residential Design Variance Lot Line Adjustment Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansi Conditional Use Other: Aspen Hills Affordable Housing 331-338 Midland Avenue; Aspen, CO 81611 Chris Bendon, AICP; BendonAdams 300 So. Spring Street St. 202; Aspen, CO 81611 970.925.2855 Aspen Hills Investors LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, William Boehringer, CEO. 917.977.0541 Six 2-bedroom, two 1-bedroom individually-owned, free-market residences in one multi-family building. Maintain existing building. Capital improvements as required by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and .deed restrict to RO or lower. Develop 6 new residences to the north and west of existing building. Units: 2737-074-05-001 through 008. Common area: 2737-074-05-801. - Replacement Housing oRDS approval, off-site parking mitigation PO Box 3807; Aspen, CO 81612 7,800 Exhibit B1 8 AH Maintain setbacks P215 VI.A. CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT March, 2016 City of Apen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5050 ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: ______________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: ______________________________________________________________________________ Location: ______________________________________________________________________________ Zone District: ______________________________________________________________________________ Lot Size: _______________________________________________________________________________ Lot Area: _______________________________________________________________________________ (For the purpose of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high-water mark, easement, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _________________________________ Number of residential units: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _________________________________ Number of bedrooms: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _________________________________ Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): ______________ DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: _____________ Allowable: ___________Proposed ____________ Principal bldg. height: Existing: _____________ Allowable: ___________Proposed____________ Access. Bldg. height: Existing: _____________ Allowable: __________ Proposed_____________ On-Site parking: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed_____________ % Site coverage: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed_____________ % Open Space: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed_____________ Front Setback: Existing: _____________ Required ____________Proposed _____________ Rear Setback: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed ___ _ Combined F/F: Existing: _____________ Required ___________ Proposed ___ _ Side Setback: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed ___ _ Side Setback: Existing: _____________ Required ___________ Proposed _____________ Combined Sides: Existing: _____________ Required ___________ Proposed _____________ Distance between Bldgs. Existing: _____________ Required: ___________ Proposed _____________ Existing non-conformities or encroachments: __________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ Variations requested: _____________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ Aspen Hills Affordable Housing Aspen Hills Investors LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; Bill Boehringer, Chief Executive Officer 331-338 Midland Avenue; Aspen, CO Residential Multi-Family (RMF) 15,159.5 s.f. 15,159.5 s.f. 0 8 14 0 23 41 approx. 5,040 <,= 18,94918,949 approx. 25'32'32' na 32'na 8 15.6 16 approx. 25%na approx 50%na approx. 30'5'5'0-5'0-30'na 0'5' approx. 30'5' 0-30'na na na 0' side and rear yard along south and east property lines. Acknowledgment of existing side/rear yards thru Special Review approx. 80% approx. 10% 5' 0-5' 5-10' 0-5' 5'0-5' na P216 VI.A. CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT March, 2016 City of Apen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5050 Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”) and Property Phone No.: Owner (“I”): Email: Address of Billing Property: Address: (Subject of (send bills here) application) I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No., Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $.___________flat fee for __________________. $.____________ flat fee for _____________________________ $.___________ flat fee for __________________. $._____________ flat fee for _____________________________ For Deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that addit ional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render and application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $________________ deposit for_____________ hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. $________________ deposit for _____________ hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. City of Aspen: Property Owner: ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Jessica Garrow, AICP Community Development Director Name: _______________________________________________ Title: _______________________________________________ City Use: Fees Due: $____Received $_______ William Boehringer Chief Executive Officer Aspen Hills Investors LLC, a Colorado limited liability company William Boehringer, CEO Aspen Hills Investors LLC, a Colorado limited liability company PO Box 3807 Aspen, CO 81612 (917) 977.0541 WilliamB@WEBCapLLC.com Aspen Hills Condominiums (331-338 Midland Avenue) 4,550 14 325 1 975 APCHA 975 Env. Health 975 Parks Exhibit B2 P217 VI.A. CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Sarah Yoon, 970.920.5144 DATE: February 14, 2018 PROJECT: 331-338 Midland Avenue (Aspen Hills) REPRESENTATIVE: Chris Bendon, BendonAdams DESCRIPTION: Located outside the Aspen infill area, this property is located in the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zone district, and currently contains 8 condominium units on a lot, approximately 15,160 sq. ft. This lot has an allowable FAR of .75:1 based on existing density. This property was granted Land Use approval for GMQS, Affordable Housing Credits, and Dimensional Variances as outlined in Resolution No. 5, Series 2017. This approval included the change in use of eight (8) free-market units to deed-restricted as for-sale or rent Category 3 affordable housing units with conditions, and the issuance of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits. This existing approval will need to be vacated if a new approval is granted. There are outstanding invoices associated with Mountain Forge that need to be paid before application submission. The applicant proposes to retain the existing building and develop new free-market units to the north and west side of the structure. The applicant proposes updates and repairs to the existing building that will trigger demolition, which will require Growth Management (GMQS) review. Since the proposed work on the roof and existing interiors of this multi-family housing is expected to trigger forty-percent (40%) demolition, the applicant will be required to provide either one-hundred-percent (100%) replacement or fifty-percent (50%) replacement pursuant to Section 26.470.100.E: Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing. To retain the existing non-conforming structure, the applicant will need to pursue Special Review (Section 26.312.030.F.2: Non-Conforming Structures, Ability to Restore). In the event of one-hundred percent (100%) replacement, the applicant shall have the option to construct replacement housing consisting of no less than one-hundred percent (100%) of the number of units, bedrooms and net livable area demolished, and the replacement units shall be deed-restricted as resident occupied (RO) affordable housing. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. The development of Affordable Housing will be in accordance to APCHA guidelines and reviewed by P&Z (Section 26.470.100.D: Affordable Housing). Remaining development on site may be free- market residential with no additional affordable housing mitigation as long and there is no increase in the number of free-market units on the parcel (Section 470.100.E.1a: One-Hundred-Percent Replacement). If more than 8 units of free-market is proposed, applicant will need to comply with Residential Development requirements of either sixty percent (60%) affordable or seventy percent (70%) affordable (Section 470.100.I: Residential Development 60% Affordable and Section 470.100.J: Residential Development 70% Affordable). The applicant will need to consider Transportation and Parking impacts for this site. As a residential multi-family use outside of the Aspen infill area, the parking requirements equate to lesser of 1 unit per bedroom or two units per Dwelling Unit, and the zone district requires at least 60% of parking provisions on-site (Sections 26.515.040.C: Parking Requirement Calculation & Section 26.515.040.D: Parking Requirement when Fractional Requirement Computed). All proposed new design will need to comply with Residential Design Standards for multi-family development (Section 26.410: Residential Design Standards), and additional considerations will include placement of trash/recycle storage and mailbox location. Neighborhood Outreach pursuant to Section 26.304.035 is required. This pre-application is for the above design proposal presented by the applicant, and any future changes to the scope and/or design of this project may require a revised pre-application. Exhibit B3 P218 VI.A. 331-338 Midland 273707405801 2 Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience: Land Use Code: http://cityofaspen.com/276/Title-26-Land-Use-Code Land Use Application: https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1835 Relevant Land Use Code Section(s): 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.410 Residential Design Standards (RDS) 26.430 Special Review 26.470 Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) 26.470.100.D Affordable Housing 26.470.100.E Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing 26.470.100.I Residential Development – sixty percent (60%) affordable 26.470.100.J Residential Development – seventy percent (70%) affordable 26.515 Transportation and Parking Management 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements 26.710.090 Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Zone District Municipal Code Section: 12.10 Space Allotment for Trash and Recycling Storage Review by: Staff for complete application and recommendations APCHA, Environmental Health, Parks, Building and Engineering for referrals P&Z for GMQS, RDS and Special Review Public Hearing: Yes, at P&Z Planning Fees: $4,550 Deposit for 14 hours of staff time (additional planning hours are billed at a rate of $325 per hour) Referral Fees: $975 Flat fee for APCHA $975 Flat fee for Environmental Health $975 Flat fee for Parks Department $325 per hour for Engineering Total Deposit: $7,800 Additional Engineering and Planning Staff hours, if needed, will be billed at $325 per hour. Any unbilled portion of this deposit will be refunded at the conclusion of the case. To apply, submit 1 complete copy of the following information:  Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement. P219 VI.A. 331-338 Midland 273707405801 3  Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).  Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, 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 affect ing the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application.  Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative autho rized to act on behalf of the applicant.  HOA Compliance form (Attached).  An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.  List of adjacent property owners within 300’ for public hearing.  A site improvement survey (no older than a year from submittal) including topography and vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor by licensed in the State of Colorado.  A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application and relevant land use approvals associated with the property.  Scaled drawings of the proposed site plan and all proposed structu re(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all elevations.  Net livable square footage and proposed Category Designation of sale or rental restriction for each u nit.  If applicable, the conditions under which reductions from net minimum livable square footage requirements are requested according to Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. If the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted:  1 digital PDF copy of the complete application packet.  5 additional copies of the complete application packet and, if applicable, associated drawings.  Total deposit for review of the application. 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. P220 VI.A. Form 5011000 (6-22-10) Page 1 of 2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment (6-17-06) Title Insurance Commitment ISSUED BY First American Title Insurance Company Commitment INFORMATION The Title Insurance Commitment is a legal contract between you and the Company. It is issued to show the basis on which we will issue a Title Insurance Policy to you. The Policy will insure you against certain risks to the land title, subject to the limitations shown in the Policy. The Company will give you a sample of the Policy form, if you ask. The Policy contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or you as the exclusive remedy of the parties. You may review a copy of the arbitration rules at http://www.alta.org/. The Commitment is based on the land title as of the Commitment Date. Any changes in the land title or the transaction may affect the Commitment and the Policy. The Commitment is subject to its Requirements, Exceptions and Conditions. THIS INFORMATION IS NOT PART OF THE TITLE INSURANCE COMMITMENT. YOU SHOULD READ THE COMMITMENT VERY CAREFULLY. If you have any questions about the Commitment, contact: FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 1 First American Way, Santa Ana, California 92707 TABLE OF CONTENTS AGREEMENT TO ISSUE POLICY 1 CONDITIONS 2 SCHEDULE A Insert 1. Commitment Date 2. Policies to be Issued, Amounts and Proposed Insureds 3. Interest in the Land and Owner 4. Description of the Land SCHEDULE B-I - REQUIREMENTS Insert SCHEDULE B-II - EXCEPTIONS Insert AGREEMENT TO ISSUE POLICY We agree to issue policy to you according to the terms of the Commitment. When we show the policy amount and your name as the proposed insured in Schedule A, this Commitment becomes effective as of the Commitment Date shown in Schedule A. If the Requirements shown in this Commitment have not been met within six months after the Commitment Date, our obligation under this Commitment will end. Also, our obligation under this Commitment will end when the Policy is issued and then our obligation to you will be under the Policy. Our obligation under this Commitment is limited by the following: The Provisions in Schedule A. The Requirements in Schedule B-I. The Exceptions in Schedule B-II. The Conditions on Page 2. This Commitment is not valid without SCHEDULE A and Sections I and II of SCHEDULE B. (This Commitment is valid only when Schedules A and B are attached) This jacket was created electronically and constitutes an original document Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. [[ Exhibit B4 P221 VI.A. Form 5011000 (6-22-10) Page 2 of 2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment (6-17-06) CONDITIONS 1.DEFINITIONS (a) "Mortgage" means mortgage, deed of trust or other security instrument. (b) "Public Records" means title records that give constructive notice of matters affecting your title according to the state statutes where your land is located. 2.LATER DEFECTS The Exceptions in Schedule B - Section II may be amended to show any defects, liens or encumbrances that appear for the first time in the public records or are created or attached between the Commitment Date and the date on which all of the Requirements (a) and (c) of Schedule B - Section I are met. We shall have no liability to you because of this amendment. 3.EXISTING DEFECTS If any defects, liens or encumbrances existing at Commitment Date are not shown in Schedule B, we may amend Schedule B to show them. If we do amend Schedule B to show these defects, liens or encumbrances, we shall be liable to you according to Paragraph 4 below unless you knew of this information and did not tell us about it in writing. 4.LIMITATION OF OUR LIABILITY Our only obligation is to issue to you the Policy referred to in this Commitment, when you have met its Requirements. If we have any liability to you for any loss you incur because of an error in this Commitment, our liability will be limited to your actual loss caused by your relying on this Commitment when you acted in good faith to: Comply with the Requirements shown in Schedule B - Section I or Eliminate with our written consent any Exceptions shown in Schedule B - Section II. We shall not be liable for more than the Policy Amount shown in Schedule A of this Commitment and our liability is subject to the terms of the Policy form to be issued to you. 5.CLAIMS MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT Any claim, whether or not based on negligence, which you may have against us concerning the title to the land must be based on this Commitment and is subject to its terms. P222 VI.A. Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All right reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. 16003559 American Land Title Association ALTA Commitment Form Adopted 6-17-06 First American Title Insurance Co. Commitment No.: 16003559 SCHEDULE A 1. Effective Date: December 5, 2017 at 07:45 AM 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: Amount Premium A.ALTA Owners Policy (06/17/06)$5,600,000.00 $9,690.00 Proposed Insured:Aspen Hills Investors LLC, a Colorado limited liability company Certificate of Taxes Due $225.00 Endorsements: CO-110.1 (Delete 1, 2, 3, 4)$75.00 Additional Charges:$700.00 B.ALTA Loan Policy (06/17/06)$0.00 $150.00 Proposed Insured:Silver Arch Capital Partners, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company, its successors and/or assigns as their interests may appear Endorsements: ALTA Endorsement 8.1-06 (Environmental Protection Lien)$0.00 ALTA Endorsement 18.1 (Multiple Tax Parcel)$0.00 ALTA Endorsement 25-06 (Same As Survey)$0.00 ALTA Endorsement 27-06 (Usury)$0.00 ALTA Endorsement 37-06 (Assignment of Rents or Leases)$0.00 CO - 150 (Arbitration)$0.00 CO-110.1 (Delete 1, 2, 3, 4)$0.00 ALTA Endorsement 17-06 (Access and Entry)$0.00 ALTA Endorsement 24-06 (Doing Business)$0.00 ALTA Endorsement 35-06 (Mineral Rights)$0.00 Additional Charges:$0 Total $10,840.00 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is Fee simple. 4. Title to the Fee simple or interest in the land is at the Effective Date vested in: Jean J. Delynn and John Ian Taylor (as to Unit: A-1), The Margaret Jane McGavock Trust dated January 15, 2016 (as to Unit: A-2), Matt Grubbs (as to Unit: A-3), Heidi Gorbitz and Patric Gorbitz (as to Unit:A-4), Drew I. Goodman (as to Unit: A-5), Alix Samuelson (as to Unit:A-6), 337 Midland Ave LLC (as to Unit: A-7) and Aspen Hills Unit A-8, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (as to Unit:A-8) P223 VI.A. Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All right reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. 16003559 5. The land referred to in the Commitment is described as follows: SEE EXHIBIT A ATTACHED HERETO For informational purposes only, the property address is: 331-338 Midland Avenue, Units: A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, Aspen, CO 81611. Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of Aspen, LLC By: Winter VanAlstine Authorized Officer or Agent FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES OR SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THIS COMMITMENT, CONTACT: Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of Aspen, LLC,715 West Main Street, Suite 202, Aspen, CO 81611, Phone: 970 925-7328, Fax: 970 925-7348. P224 VI.A. Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All right reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. 16003559 American Land Title Association ALTA Commitment Form Adopted 6-17-06 First American Title Insurance Co. Commitment No.: 16003559 SCHEDULE B 1. Requirements: 1.Pay the agreed amounts for the interest in the land and/or the mortgage to be insured. 2.Pay us the premiums, fees and charges for the policy. 3.Documents satisfactory to us creating the interest in the land and/or the mortgage to be insured must be signed, delivered and recorded. 4.You must tell us in writing the name of anyone not referred to in this Commitment who will get an interest in the land or who will make a loan on the land. We may then make additional requirements or exceptions. 5.Payment of all taxes, charges and assessments, levied and assessed against the subject premises which are due and payable. 6.A Certification of Taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction shall be obtained from the County Treasurer or an authorized agent (pursuant to Senate Bill 92-143, CRS 10-11-122). 7.Receipt by the Company of the appropriate affidavit as to new construction and indemnifying the Company against any unfiled materialmen's or mechanic's liens. 8.Deed of Trust from Aspen Hills Investors LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the benefit of Silver Arch Capital Partners, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company, to secure an indebtedness in the principal sum of $TBD. 9.Certificate of Good Standing from the Colorado Secretary of State for Aspen Hills Investors LLC, a Colorado limited liability company. 10.A copy of the properly signed and executed Operating Agreement if written, for Aspen Hills Investors LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, to be submitted to the Company for review. 11.Record a Statement of Authority to provide prima facie evidence of existence of Aspen Hills Investors LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, an entity capable of holding property, and the name of the person authorized to execute instruments affecting title to real property as authorized by C.R.S. Section 38-30-172. 12.Evidence to the Company that all assessments and liens due under the Declaration referred to in Schedule B have been paid. 13.Receipt by Company of satisfactory Rent Roll for all leases in place at closing. 14.Improvement Survey Plat sufficient in form, content and certification acceptable to the Company. Exception will be taken to adverse matters disclosed thereby. P225 VI.A. American Land Title Association ALTA Commitment Form Adopted 6-17-06 First American Title Insurance Co. Commitment No.: 16003559 SCHEDULE B (Continued) Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All right reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. 16003559 15.This Title Commitment is subject to underwriter approval. Requirements 16-17 below affect Unit: A-1 only. 16.Warranty Deed must be sufficient to convey the fee simple estate or interest in the land described or referred to herein, from Jean J. Delynn, as to an undivided 33% interest and John Ian Taylor, as to an undivided 67% interest, to Aspen Hills Investors LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, the proposed insured, Schedule A, item 2A. NOTE: C.R.S. Section 38-35-109(2) required that a notation of the purchaser's legal address, (not necessarily the same as the property address) be included on the face of the Deed to be recorded. 17.Full disclosure from Seller, of any monetary liens and open Deeds of Trust of record. If you have any knowledge of an outstanding obligation secured by the subject property, you must contact us immediately for further review prior to closing. Requirements 18-22 below affect Unit: A-2 only. 18.Warranty Deed must be sufficient to convey the fee simple estate or interest in the land described or referred to herein, from The Margaret Jane McGavock Trust dated January 15, 2016, to Aspen Hills Investors LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, the proposed insured, Schedule A, item 2A. NOTE: C.R.S. Section 38-35-109(2) required that a notation of the purchaser's legal address, (not necessarily the same as the property address) be included on the face of the Deed to be recorded. 19.Full disclosure from Seller, of any monetary liens and open Deeds of Trust of record. If you have any knowledge of an outstanding obligation secured by the subject property, you must contact us immediately for further review prior to closing. 20.A true and correct copy of the Trust Agreement which creates The Margaret Jane McGavock Trust dated January 15, 2016, providing, among other things, the designation of the trustee(s) and specification of the trustee(s) powers under that trust. 21.Record a Statement of Authority to provide prima facie evidence of existence of The Margaret Jane McGavock Trust dated January 15, 2016, an entity capable of holding property, and the name of the person authorized to execute instruments affecting title to real property as authorized by C.R.S. Section 38-30-172. 22.Evidence furnished by the Office of the Director of Finance, City of Aspen, that the following real estate taxes have been paid, or that conveyance is exempt from said taxes: (1) The "Wheeler Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant to Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979) and; (2) The "Housing Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant to Ordinance No. 13 (Series of 1990); pursuant to the Quit Claim Deed recorded March 10, 2016, as Reception No. 627681. P226 VI.A. American Land Title Association ALTA Commitment Form Adopted 6-17-06 First American Title Insurance Co. Commitment No.: 16003559 SCHEDULE B (Continued) Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All right reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. 16003559 Requirements 23-26 below affect Unit: A-3 only. 23.Warranty Deed must be sufficient to convey the fee simple estate or interest in the land described or referred to herein, from Matt Grubbs, to Aspen Hills Investors LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, the proposed insured, Schedule A, item 2A. NOTE: C.R.S. Section 38-35-109(2) required that a notation of the purchaser's legal address, (not necessarily the same as the property address) be included on the face of the Deed to be recorded. 24.Release of the Deed of Trust from Matt Grubbs to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the benefit of Washington Mutual Bank, FA, a federal association, to secure an indebtedness in the principal sum of $327,000.00, and any other amounts and/obligations secured thereby, dated April 9, 2003, and recorded April 18, 2003, as Reception No. 481610, and Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust, dated March 14, 2014, and recorded March 20, 2014, as Reception No. 608768. 25.Release of the Deed of Trust from Matthew F. Grubbs to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the benefit of David G. Sweiderk and Robert Bystrowski, to secure an indebtedness in the principal sum of $50,000.00, and any other amounts and/obligations secured thereby, dated June 24, 2004, and recorded September 10, 2004, as Reception No. 501794. 26.Evidence furnished by the Office of the Director of Finance, City of Aspen, that the following real estate taxes have been paid, or that conveyance is exempt from said taxes: (1) The "Wheeler Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant to Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979) and; (2) The "Housing Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant to Ordinance No. 13 (Series of 1990); pursuant to the Personal Representative's Deed, dated January 17, 2001, and recorded March 22, 2001, as Reception No. 452641, and Quit Claim Deed dated February 14, 2001, and recorded March 22, 2001, as Reception No. 452642. Requirements 27-29 below affect Unit: A-4 only. 27.Warranty Deed must be sufficient to convey the fee simple estate or interest in the land described or referred to herein, from Heidi Gorbitz and Patric Gorbitz, to Aspen Hills Investors LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, the proposed insured, Schedule A, item 2A. NOTE: C.R.S. Section 38-35-109(2) required that a notation of the purchaser's legal address, (not necessarily the same as the property address) be included on the face of the Deed to be recorded. 28.Release of the Deed of Trust from Heidi Gorbitz and Patric Gorbitz, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the benefit of Pinnacle Mortgage Group Inc. to secure an indebtedness in the principal sum of $272,000.00, and any other amounts and/obligations secured thereby, dated February 2, 2012, and recorded February 7, 2012, as Reception No. 586552, and re-recorded February 9, 2012, as Reception No. 586633. P227 VI.A. American Land Title Association ALTA Commitment Form Adopted 6-17-06 First American Title Insurance Co. Commitment No.: 16003559 SCHEDULE B (Continued) Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All right reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. 16003559 29.Release of the Deed of Trust from Patric Gorbitz and Heidi Gorbitz to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the benefit of Alpine Bank, a Colorado Banking Corporation, to secure an indebtedness in the principal sum of $50,000.00, and any other amounts and/obligations secured thereby, dated March 13, 2012, and recorded March 30, 2012, as Reception No. 587876, and Modification of Deed of Trust, dated April 25, 2017, and recorded May 8, 2017, as Reception No. 638147. Requirements 30-31 below affect Unit: A-5 only. 30.Warranty Deed must be sufficient to convey the fee simple estate or interest in the land described or referred to herein, from Drew I. Goodman to Aspen Hills Investors LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, the proposed insured, Schedule A, item 2A. NOTE: C.R.S. Section 38-35-109(2) required that a notation of the purchaser's legal address, (not necessarily the same as the property address) be included on the face of the Deed to be recorded. 31.Full disclosure from Seller, of any monetary liens and open Deeds of Trust of record. If you have any knowledge of an outstanding obligation secured by the subject property, you must contact us immediately for further review prior to closing. Requirements 32-33 below affect Unit: A-6 only. 32.Warranty Deed must be sufficient to convey the fee simple estate or interest in the land described or referred to herein, from Alix Samuelson to Aspen Hills Investors LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, the proposed insured, Schedule A, item 2A. NOTE: C.R.S. Section 38-35-109(2) required that a notation of the purchaser's legal address, (not necessarily the same as the property address) be included on the face of the Deed to be recorded. 33.Full disclosure from Seller, of any monetary liens and open Deeds of Trust of record. If you have any knowledge of an outstanding obligation secured by the subject property, you must contact us immediately for further review prior to closing. Requirements 34-39 below affect Unit: A-7 only. 34.Warranty Deed must be sufficient to convey the fee simple estate or interest in the land described or referred to herein, from 337 Midland Avenue, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company to Aspen Hills Investors LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, the proposed insured, Schedule A, item 2A. NOTE: C.R.S. Section 38-35-109(2) required that a notation of the purchaser's legal address, (not necessarily the same as the property address) be included on the face of the Deed to be recorded. 35.Release of the Deed of Trust from Jordan Nemirow to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the benefit of Ally Bank Corp. f/k/a GMAC Bank to secure an indebtedness in the principal sum of $374,262.00, and any other amounts and/obligations secured thereby, dated February 23, 2011, and recorded March 3, 2011, as Reception No. 578037. P228 VI.A. American Land Title Association ALTA Commitment Form Adopted 6-17-06 First American Title Insurance Co. Commitment No.: 16003559 SCHEDULE B (Continued) Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All right reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. 16003559 36.Release of the Deed of Trust from 337 Midland Avenue, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the benefit of ANB Bank, to secure an indebtedness in the principal sum of $1,400,000.00, and any other amounts and/obligations secured thereby, dated March 30, 2017, and recorded March 31, 2017, as Reception No.637222. 37.Certificate of Good Standing from the Colorado Secretary of State for 337 Midland Avenue, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company. 38.Record a Statement of Authority to provide prima facie evidence of existence of 337 Midland Avenue, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, an entity capable of holding property, and the name of the person authorized to execute instruments affecting title to real property as authorized by C.R.S. Section 38-30-172. 39.A copy of the properly signed and executed Operating Agreement if written, for 337 Midland Avenue, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, to be submitted to the Company for review. Requirements 40-45 below affect Unit: A-8 only. 40.Warranty Deed must be sufficient to convey the fee simple estate or interest in the land described or referred to herein, from Aspen Hills Unit A-8 LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, to Aspen Hills Investors LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, the proposed insured, Schedule A, item 2A. NOTE: C.R.S. Section 38-35-109(2) required that a notation of the purchaser's legal address, (not necessarily the same as the property address) be included on the face of the Deed to be recorded. 41.Full disclosure from Seller, of any monetary liens and open Deeds of Trust of record. If you have any knowledge of an outstanding obligation secured by the subject property, you must contact us immediately for further review prior to closing. 42.Certificate of Good Standing from the Colorado Secretary of State for Aspen Hills Unit A-8 LLC, a Colorado limited liability company. 43.Record a Statement of Authority to provide prima facie evidence of existence of Aspen Hills Unit A-8 LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, an entity capable of holding property, and the name of the person authorized to execute instruments affecting title to real property as authorized by C.R.S. Section 38-30-172. 44.A copy of the properly signed and executed Operating Agreement if written, for Aspen Hills Unit A-8 LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, to be submitted to the Company for review. P229 VI.A. American Land Title Association ALTA Commitment Form Adopted 6-17-06 First American Title Insurance Co. Commitment No.: 16003559 SCHEDULE B (Continued) Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All right reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. 16003559 45.Evidence furnished by the Office of the Director of Finance, City of Aspen, that the following real estate taxes have been paid, or that conveyance is exempt from said taxes: (1) The "Wheeler Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant to Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979) and; (2) The "Housing Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant to Ordinance No. 13 (Series of 1990); pursuant to the Bargain and Sale Deed and Assignment, dated February 24, 2017, and recorded February 24, 2017, as Reception No. 636359. 2. Schedule B of the policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1.Any facts, rights, interests or claims which are not shown by the Public Records, but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 2.Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the Public Records. 3.Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the Land would disclose, and which are not shown by the Public Records. 4.Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown in the Public Records. 5.Any and all unpaid taxes, assessments and unredeemed tax sales. 6.(a) Intentionally deleted; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records. 7.Taxes and assessments for the year 2017, and subsequent years, a lien not yet due or payable. 8.Intentionally deleted. 9.The premises hereby granted, with the exception of the surface, may be entered by the proprietor of any other vein, lode or ledge, the top or apex of which lies outside of the boundary of said granted premises, should the same in its dip be found to penetrate or intersect or extent into said premises for the purpose of extracting and removing the ore from such other vein, lode or ledge; and right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States as reserved in United States Patent, recorded June 28, 1892, in Book 39 at Page 78, as Reception No. 047892, and in the United States Patent, recorded May 20, 1949, in Book 175 at Page 170, as Reception No. 096346. P230 VI.A. American Land Title Association ALTA Commitment Form Adopted 6-17-06 First American Title Insurance Co. Commitment No.: 16003559 SCHEDULE B (Continued) Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All right reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. 16003559 10.Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations and rights of ingress and egress, specified under the Warranty Deed, dated January 21, 1965, and recorded April 12, 1965, in Book 212 at Page 322, as Reception No. 120355. 11.Intentionally deleted. 12.Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Condominium Declaration for Aspen Hills (a Condominium) dated July 2, 1969, and recorded July 2, 1969, in Book 241 at Page 877, as Reception No. 136011, and First Amendment to Condominium Declaration for Aspen Hills (a Condominium) dated September 2, 1969, and recorded September 5, 1969, in Book 243 at Page 83, as Reception No. 136864. 13.Any and all notes, easements and recitals as disclosed on the recorded Condominium Map of Aspen Hlils Plat, recorded July 15, 1969, in Plat Book 4 at Page 8, as Reception No. 136131. 14.Any and all notes, easements and recitals as disclosed on the recorded Aspen Hills Annexation Plat, recorded June 14, 1971, in Plat Book 4 at Page 200, as Reception No. 146061. 15.Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Agreement, dated July 10, 1978, and recorded July 12, 1978, in Book 351 at Page 229, as Reception No. 205645. 16.Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Quit Claim Deed, dated August 29, 1978, and recorded August 29, 1978, in Book 353 at Page 531, as Reception No. 206866, and under the Quit Claim Deed, dated August 28, 1978, and recorded August 29, 1978, in Book 353 at Page 528, as Reception No. 206864, and under the Quit Claim Deed, dated August 28, 1978, and recorded August 29, 1978, in Book 353 at Page 530, as Reception No. 206865. 17.Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Decree Quieting Title, dated December 5, 1983, and recorded December 27, 1983, in Book 457 at Page 888, as Reception No. 255947. NOTE: This exception affects Unit: A-2 only. 18.Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Grant of Easement, dated April 1, 2006, and recorded May 22, 2006, as Reception No. 524387. 19.Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under Resolution No. 5 (Series of 2017) recorded March 1, 2017, as Reception No. 636494. P231 VI.A. American Land Title Association ALTA Commitment Form Adopted 6-17-06 First American Title Insurance Co. Commitment No.: 16003559 SCHEDULE B (Continued) Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All right reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. 16003559 20.Any existing leases or tenancies, and any and all parties claiming by, through or under said lessees. Upon receipt and review of the rent roll as referenced in Requirement No. 13, the above Exception will be modified to read as follows on the Owner's Title Policy to be issued hereunder: Right of tenants in possession, as tenants only, pursuant to written but unrecorded leases in effect as of the date of this Policy. 21.Encroachment of trash reciprocal and railroad tie retaining wall onto adjoining property along the westerly boundary line, encroachment of concrete walkway onto adjoining property along the southerly boundary line, encroachment of concrete walkway, concrete pads, wooden gates, and gas meters onto adjoining property along the easterly boundary line, as shown on the ALTA/ACSM Improvement Survey Plat, provided by Tuttle Surveying Services, dated December 8, 2017. 22.Any loss or damage by reason of fences not coinciding with property boundary lines, as shown on the ALTA/ACSM Improvement Survey Plat, provided by Tuttle Surveying Services, dated December 8, 2017. P232 VI.A. ALTA Commitment 16003559 Exhibit A First American Title Insurance Co. Commitment No.: 16003559 EXHIBIT A PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: Condominium Units A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7 and A-8, ASPEN HILLS, A CONDOMINIUM, according to the Map thereof recorded July 15, 1969 in Plat Book 4 at Page 8 as Reception No. 136131 and as defined and described in the Condominium Declaration for Aspen Hills, a Condominium, recorded July 2, 1969 in Book 241 at Page 877 as Reception No. 136011 and First Amendment thereto recorded September 5, 1969 in Book 243 at Page 83 as Reception No. 136864, Pitkin County, Colorado. P233 VI.A. First American Title Insurance Company DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to C.R.S. 30-10-406(3)(a) all documents received for recording or filing in the Clerk and Recorder’s office shall contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right and bottom margin of at least one-half of an inch. The Clerk and Recorder will refuse to record or file any document that does not conform to the requirements of this section. NOTE: If this transaction includes a sale of the property and the price exceeds $100,000.00, the seller must comply with the disclosure/withholding provisions of C.R.S. 39-22-604.5 (Nonresident withholding). NOTE: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-2 requires that “Every title insurance company shall be responsible to the proposed insured(s) subject to the terms and conditions of the title commitment, other than the effective date of the title commitment, for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title insurance company, or its agent, conducts the closing and settlement service that is in conjunction with its issuance of an owner’s policy of title insurance and is responsible for the recording and filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed. Pursuant to C.R.S. 10-11-122, the company will not issue its owner’s policy or owner’s policies of title insurance contemplated by this commitment until it has been provided a Certificate of Taxes due or other equivalent documentation from the County Treasurer or the County Treasurer’s authorized agent; or until the Proposed Insured has notified or instructed the company in writing to the contrary. The subject property may be located in a special taxing district. A Certificate of Taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction shall be obtained from the County Treasurer or the County Treasurer’s authorized agent. Information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor. NOTE: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-123, notice is hereby given: This notice applies to owner’s policy commitments containing a mineral severance instrument exception, or exceptions, in Schedule B, Section 2. A. That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate and that there is a substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and B. That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner’s permission. NOTE: Pursuant to Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-2, Affirmative mechanic’s lien protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception no. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment from the Owner’s Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following conditions: NOTE: Pursuant to Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-2, Affirmative mechanic’s lien protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception no. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment from the Owner’s Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following conditions: A. The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single family residence which includes a condominium or townhouse unit. B. No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or material-men for purposes of construction on the land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months. C. The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against un-filed mechanic’s and material-men’s liens. D. The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium. E. If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased within six months prior to the Date of the Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded liens will include: disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as to the seller, the builder and or the contractor; payment of the appropriate premium, fully executed Indemnity Agreements satisfactory to the company, and, any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by the Company. No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or agreed to pay. P234 VI.A. First American Title Insurance Company NOTE: Pursuant to C.R.S. 38-35-125(2) no person or entity that provides closing and settlement services for a real estate transaction shall disburse funds as a part of such services until those funds have been received and are available for immediate withdrawal as a matter of right. NOTE: C.R.S. 39-14-102 requires that a real property transfer declaration accompany any conveyance document presented for recordation in the State of Colorado. Said declaration shall be completed and signed by either the grantor or grantee. NOTE: Pursuant to CRS 10-1-128(6)(a), It is unlawful to knowingly provide false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to an insurance company for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the company. Penalties may include imprisonment, fines, denial of insurance and civil damages. Any insurance company or agent of an insurance company who knowingly provides false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to a policyholder or claimant for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the policyholder or claimant with regard to a settlement or award payable from insurance proceeds shall be reported to the Colorado division of insurance within the department of regulatory agencies. NOTE: Pursuant to Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-3, notice is hereby given of the availability of an ALTA Closing Protection Letter which may, upon request, be provided to certain parties to the transaction identified in the commitment. Nothing herein contained will be deemed to obligate the company to provide any of the coverages referred to herein unless the above conditions are fully satisfied. P235 VI.A. ATTORNEYS TITLE INSURANCE AGENCY OF ASPEN, LLC 715 West Main Street, Suite 202 Aspen, CO 81611 Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of Aspen, LLC Privacy Policy Notice PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE Title V. of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) generally prohibits any financial institution, directly or through it affiliates, from sharing non-public personal information about you with a nonaffiliated third party unless the institution provides you with a notice of its privacy policies and practices, such as the type of information that it collects about you and the categories of persons or entities to whom it may be disclosed. In compliance with the GLBA, we are providing you with this document, which notifies you of the privacy policies and practices of Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of Aspen, LLC. We may collect nonpublic personal information about you from the following sources: Information we receive from you, such as on application or other forms. Information about your transactions we secure from out files, or from our affiliates or others. Information we receive from a consumer reporting agency. Information that we receive from others involved in your transaction, such as the real estate agent or lender. Unless it is specifically stated otherwise in an amended Privacy Policy Notice, no additional nonpublic personal information will be collected about you. We may disclose any of the above information that we collect about our customers or former customer to our affiliates or to nonaffiliated third parties as permitted by law. We also may disclose this information about our customers or former customers to the following types of nonaffiliated companies that perform marketing services on our behalf or with whom we have joint marketing agreements: Financial service providers such as companies engaged in banking, consumer finance, securities and insurance. Non-financial companies such as envelope stuffers and other fulfillment service providers. WE DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY NONPUBLIC PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU WITH ANYONE FOR ANY PURPOSE THAT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED BY LAW. We restrict access to nonpublic personal information about you to those employees who need to know that information in order to provide products or services to you. We maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards that comply with federal regulations to guard your nonpublic personal information. TELEPHONE 970 925-7328 FACSIMILE 970 925-7348 P236 VI.A. 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM August 8, 2018 Ms. Jessica Garrow, AICP Community Development Director City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Aspen Hills Condominiums (331-338 Midland Avenue) Ms. Garrow: Please accept this letter authorizing BendonAdams, LLC, to represent our ownership interests in Aspen Hills Condominiums and act on our behalf on matters reasonably associated in securing land use approvals for the property. If there are any questions about the foregoing or if I can assist, please do not hesitate to contact me. Aspen Hills Condominiums Units: A1 – Parcel ID: 2737-074-05-001 A2 – Parcel ID: 2737-074-05-006 A3 – Parcel ID: 2737-074-05-002 A4 – Parcel ID: 2737-074-05-008 A5 – Parcel ID: 2737-074-05-007 A6 – Parcel ID: 2737-074-05-003 A7 – Parcel ID: 2737-074-05-005 A8 – Parcel ID: 2737-074-05-004 Common Area – Parcel ID: 2737-074-05-801 Kind Regards, William Boehringer Chief Executive Officer Aspen Hills Investors LLC, a Colorado limited liability company PO Box 3807 Aspen, CO 81612 (917) 977.0541 WilliamB@WEBCapLLC.com Exhibit B5 P237 VI.A. ASLU Planned Development 310 & 330 E. Main Street PID # 4 Bill Boehringer, Chief Executive Officer Aspen Hills Investors LLC, a Colorado limited liability company WilliamB@WEBCapLLC.com Aspen Hills Condominiums 331-338 Midland Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 (917) 977.0541 Bill Boehringer, Chief Executive Officer Aspen Hills Investors LLC, a Colorado limited liability company 02/01/2018 Exhibit B6 P238 VI.A. 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM March 15, 2018 Jennifer Phelan, AICP Deputy Planning Director City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Aspen Hills Condominiums HOA Approval Ms. Phelan: Aspen Hills Investors LLC is the owner of one unit and the contract purchaser of all remaining units within the Aspen Hills Condominiums. The contract enables pursuit of land use entitlements for the property. Upon purchase execution, Aspen Hills will own the entirety of the property and control 100% of the Homeowners Association. The improvements/changes described in the land use application submitted by BendonAdams have been approved by Aspen Hills Investors LLC If there are any questions about the foregoing or if I can assist, please do not hesitate to contact me. Kind Regards, William Boehringer Chief Executive Officer Aspen Hills Investors LLC, a Colorado limited liability company PO Box 3807 Aspen, CO 81612 (917) 977.0541 WilliamB@WEBCapLLC.com P239 VI.A. May 16, 2018 Ms. Jessica Garrow, AICP Community Development Director City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Aspen Hills Condominiums (331-338 Midland Avenue) Ms. Garrow: Please accept this letter as authorization for Aspen Hills Investors, LLC (Buyer) to submit planning & permit applications to the City for potential improvements to the property comprising the Aspen Hills Condominium Association, located on Midland Avenue in Aspen, Colorado. Approvals may be processed, however Buyer shall not have authority to create or agree to any obligations that would encumber or be binding on the Property or on any of the current owners of the Property, until after the Buyer owns all of the condominium units or as otherwise approved in writing by the Association. Kind regards, Aspen Hills Condominium Association, Inc. __________________________ By: Jordan Nemirow, President jordanaspen1@gmail.com DocuSign Envelope ID: 874F41E8-3D2A-4419-B3E0-2932F0D35F94 P240 VI.A. Exhibit B7 Aspen Hills Condominiums 331-338 Midland Avenue – Vicinity Map P241 VI.A. Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the margins such that they no longer line up on the labels sheet. Print actual size. From Parcel: 273707405801 on 02/16/2018 Instructions: Disclaimer: http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com Exhibit B8 P242 VI.A. BROOKS KERRI L ASPEN, CO 81611 112 MIDLAND PARK PL TAYLOR JOHN IAN ASPEN, CO 81611 331 MIDLAND AVE KALTENBOCK ERNST CANADA M4B 3A4, 1612 WOODBINE HEIGHTS BLVD TORONTO ONTARIO 315-317 PARK AVE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 315 PARK AVE SILVER LAKE FAMILY TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 424 PARK CIR TH 1 SUNIER ALAIN BRONXVILLE, NY 10708 29 VILLAGE LN MCKNIGHT SPENCER ASPEN, CO 81611 403 PARK AVE #10 IBARA RON CAYUCOS, CA 93430 PO BOX 776 MCDONALD FRANCIS B ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 4671 BIBBIG DIETER ASPEN, CO 81611 333 PARK AVE LOWE GREGG & DIANA DURHAM, NC 277137599 483 ROSEMONT DR HEMMING GREGG S & KAREN S ASPEN, CO 81611 311 MIDLAND AVE GRUBBS MATT ASPEN, CO 81611-2412 333 MIDLAND AVE #3 BERNARD RANDY ASHEVILLE, NC 28805 18 PLATEAU RD HACH STEPHEN C ASPEN, CO 81611 23 SMUGGLER GROVE RD AMES MARTHA E ASPEN, CO 81611 23 SMUGGLER GROVE RD STEIN DEBORAH ASPEN, CO 81611 710 MIDLAND PARK PL WHITE WILLIAM P ASPEN, CO 81611 326 MIDLAND AVE #204 CHAUNER RONALD & JACKIE ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8782 PITKIN COUNTY BASALT, CO 81621 123 EMMA RD #204 PHILLIPS ARTHUR R & HELEN B ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8245 COERDT CLINTON CLAUSS ASPEN, CO 816111595 726 VINE ST MCINTYRE GEOFF & LEE AMORY ASPEN, CO 81611 403 PARK AVE #7 FUENTES DAVID & KATHARINE D ASPEN, CO 81611 302 MIDLAND PARK PL CMTR LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 7631 HELBING ATHENA ASPEN, CO 81611 403 PARK AVE #6 ASPEN VIEW CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 326 MIDLAND AVE 328 PARK/327 MIDLAND CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 328 PARK AVE 165 PARK CIRCLE CONDO ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA HUMPHREY JESS ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1775 P243 VI.A. K & W PROPERTIES I LLC BLACKSBURG, VA 24060 PO BOX 744 CUNNINGHAM PAMELA M ASPEN, CO 81611 502 MIDLAND PARK PL GORBITZ HEIDI & PATRIC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 647 PIERCE ROBERT KING ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 3118 DP ASPEN LLC SYOSSET, NY 11791 300 ROBBINS LN MCPHEE JAMES MICHAEL & ANNE MARIE ASPEN, CO 81611 401 MIDLAND PARK PL WILLCOX DENNIS ASPEN, CO 81611 722 MIDLAND PARK PL HOLLINGER JONATHAN CARBONDALE, CO 81623 326 HWY 133 #270H POST MARISA JOY ASPEN, CO 81611 403 MIDLAND PK PL # D3 SMITH DONALD NELSON ASPEN, CO 81611 501 MIDLAND PARK PL NARAT APSARA ASPEN, CO 81611 415 PARK CIR #5 GOODMAN DREW I GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80121-1336 5721 GREEN OAKS DR ASPEN HILLS INVESTORS LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1048 LUU VINH ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8513 ROCKY MTN PROPERTY LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 73 SMUGGLER GROVE RD SPONAR ANTON K & JUDY ASPEN, CO 81611-2486 222 MIDLAND PARK PL TAILINGS CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 424 PARK CIR BIRRFELDER BRIGITTE T ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 3035 MEBEL GREGORY E PAIA, HI 967799723 30 KUPONO ST STEAR RONALD & MARIA F ASPEN, CO 81611 402 MIDLAND PARK PL EPSTEN VIRGINIA H QPR TRUST KANSAS CITY, MO 64112 5038 WALNUT ST HTM PROPERTIES LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 43 A SMUGGLER GROVE RD GOLDEN SALLIE ASPEN, CO 81611 325 PARK AVE WINKLER JILL C ASPEN, CO 81611 212 MIDLAND PARK PL KEARN ROBERT & ORENE FAMILY TRUST HILLSBOROUGH, CA 94010 1831 WILLOW RD LACROIX TIMOTHY ASPEN, CO 81611 113 MIDLAND PARK PL RUSSELL LYNN C ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8904 DODINGTON SUSAN M ASPEN, CO 81611 221 MIDLAND PARK PL WERTZ LIMOR ASPEN, CO 81611 403 PARK AVE #2 LOUTHIS PETER ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 4254 P244 VI.A. MCKELVEY CHRISTINE M REV TRUST CARBONDALE, CO 81623 301 TREE FARM DR COLORADO MTN NEWS MEDIA CARSON CITY, NV 89702 PO BOX 1927 RESTAINO BECKER TRUST SAN ANSELMO, CA 94960 72 ALDER AVE MANUEL CATHERINE & LINCOLN ASPEN, CO 81611 409 PARK CIR #2 1208 EAST HOPKINS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 623 E HOPKINS AVE BESTIC JEFFREY B ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 2267 CASTLE PEAK ASPEN LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 600 E MAIN ST #104 LEE BARBARA C TRUST BROOKLINE, MA 02445 35 FISHER AVE LOWE SARA M & CORY J ASPEN, CO 81611 407 PARK AVE #B TERKUN MARK ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 329 EVERETTE JOHN ASPEN, CO 81611 712 MIDLAND PARK PL HITCHCOCK SAMANTHA ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 329 BEYER ALAN R ASPEN, CO 81611 410 N MILL ST #B11 SNELL NANCY L ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX YY KROMELOW BASIL M & LAUREANNE L CHICAGO, IL 60610 55 W DELAWARE PL BROWN RUTH H ASPEN, CO 81611 410 N MILL ST #B11 MARTHINSSON NOSTDAHL CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 403 PARK AVE 311 PARK AVE LLC SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94123 3047 FILLMORE ST ASPEN ASSET LLC GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 816014395 2701 MIDLAND AVE #8312 GOLDBERG DANIEL J ASPEN, CO 81611 424 PARK CIR # 3 LEVIN AMY ASPEN, CO 81611 811 MIDLAND PARK PL #H11 MACCRACKEN SCOTT R ASPEN, CO 81611 403 MIDLAND PK PL # D3 WEBSTER DAVID H ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 10362 HTM PROPERTIES LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 43 A SMUGGLER GROVE RD BAKKEN JOHN & LIZA N ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 12064 VICENZI HEATHER L TRUST ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2238 WELDEN TODD E & DEBORAH C ASPEN, CO 81611 503 MIDLAND PARK PL #E3 EIS JENNIFER L ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 11315 PERLEY PAUL S ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 12155 CALAMARI MICHAEL METAIRIE, LA 700053469 317 RUE SAINT ANN P245 VI.A. FAT CITY APARTMENTS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 625 S WEST END STREET #4 EPLER ANDI E ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 785 BIRACH KAREN ASPEN, CO 81611-2414 122 MIDLAND PARK PL MUNROE KRISTIN EPLER TRUST ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 785 KEARN ROBERT & ORENE FAMILY TRUST HILLSBOROUGH, CA 94010 1831 WILLOW RD KNUTSON RODNEY D ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX YY FARRELL SCOTT W ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9656 SCHUR JACOB A ASPEN, CO 816112498 424 PARK CIRCLE #TH5 LEE JONATHAN O TRUST BROOKLINE, MA 02445 35 FISHER AVE CHAZEN DAVID FRANKLIN II NEW YORK, NY 10155 150 E 58TH ST 27TH FL PATTEN DAVID N ASPEN, CO 81611 810 MIDLAND PARK PL HEYMAN BRUCE QPR TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 625 E MAIN ST #102 BOX 411 ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY ASPEN, CO 81611 210 E HYMAN AVE #202 KURNOS TIMOTHY A ASPEN, CO 81611 403 PARK AVE #9 NICHOLS SCOTT A ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 3035 MCPHERSON GREGORY J ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2073 TUSHINGHAM DARREN ASPEN, CO 81611 326 MIDLAND AVE #205 OLDFIELD BARNEY F GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 816014395 2701 MIDLAND AVE #8312 BALLOU JONATHAN ASPEN, CO 81611 403 PARK AVE #6 DELYNN JEAN J ASPEN, CO 81611 331 MIDLAND AVE BMH INVESTMENTS LTD HOUSTON, TX 77002 1001 FANNIN ST # 3850 MIDLAND PARK PLACE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 112 MIDLAND PARK PL JOHNSTON PEGGY REV TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 111 MIDLAND PARK PL MCLAUGHLIN KEVIN ASPEN, CO 81611 403 PARK AVE #4 BLOMQUIST JENIFER L ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 12155 MCCOY CARLTON ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9349 CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81611 130 S GALENA ST KOLBERG JUDITH A ASPEN, CO 81611 501 MIDLAND PARK PL SHERIDAN MARGARET BRONXVILLE, NY 10708 29 VILLAGE LN HERMELIN ASPEN LLC FRANKLIN, MI 48025 32205 BINGHAM RD P246 VI.A. JACOBIE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA PARK CIR VANGARDEREN TEJAY ASPEN, CO 81611 407 PARK AVE #A MCGAVOCK MARGARET JANE TRUST ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 533 JEFFERSON GREG ASPEN, CO 81611 711 MIDLAND PARK PL HENDRICKS LYNDELL B ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 11152 LUPI-PEATE NATALIA ANDREA ASPEN, CO 81611 121 MIDLAND PARK PL # I 21 PARK AVENUE TOWNHOMES CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 407 PARK AVE UNIT A HANSEN BETH ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1775 SMUGGLER GROVE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 23 SMUGGLER RD GARTON SARA B ASPEN, CO 81611 110 MIDLAND PARK PL COWLING LINDA ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9656 SEMPLE SASHA L ASPEN, CO 81611 601 E HYMAN AVE COLORADO MTN NEWS MEDIA CARSON CITY, NV 89702 PO BOX 1927 JOHNSON SHAEL ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 3549 GLEASON AMY ASPEN, CO 81611 712 MIDLAND PARK PL HECK JAMES C ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8416 DAVIS D STONE ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8904 MERZBACH NINA SANTA BARBARA, CA 93108 195 SHEFFIELD DR MOYER MARY ASPEN, CO 81611 424 PARK CIR #6 HEYMAN VICKI QPR TRUST OGDENSBURG , NY 136695000 PO BOX 5000 ANDRULAITIS FIONA MCWILLIAM & TIMOTHY A ASPEN, CO 81611 409 PARK CIR #4 HUA VINH ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2439 PARK AVENUE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 102 PARK AVE KOCH KATHRYN S & JOHN F ASPEN, CO 81611 304 MIDLAND PARK PL C-4 KELLEY BRAD BUCKLEY & SHARI L EDEN, UT 84310 1736 N 6250 E GRIFFITHS THOMAS W ASPEN, CO 81611 504 MIDLAND PARK PL GRAHAM MARGOT ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2254 ASPEN HILLS UNIT A-8 LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 616 W MAIN ST CALK LAURA E ASPEN, CO 81611-2472 722 MIDLAND PARK PL 337 MIDLAND AVE LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 612 W MAIN ST P247 VI.A. EPSTEN BRADFORD M QPR TRUST KANSAS CITY, MO 641122757 5038 WALNUT ST PHILLIPS JESSICA ASPEN, CO 81611 407 PARK AVE #A ARNAL ALVARO JOSE ASPEN, CO 816111595 726 VINE ST SMITH JACK L & DIANE M EVERGREEN, CO 80439 434 COTTONWOOD DR MCDONALD FRANCIS B ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 4671 FERLISI MARY SANDRA LIVING TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 326 MIDLAND AVE #307 PEATE WILLIAM DOUGLAS ASPEN, CO 81611 121 MIDLAND PARK PL # I 21 HAGEN CATHERINE ANNE ASPEN, CO 81611 210 MIDLAND PARK PL HOUBEN CYNTHIA MICHELE ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9616 DUNIGAN PATRICK A DALLAS, TX 75205 4245 N CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY STE 460 MOONEY TIMOTHY ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8931 FEINSTEIN JEROME FAM TRUST LONGBOAT KEY, FL 34228 1211 GULF OF MEXICO DR #901 HIGGINS PAUL ASPEN, CO 81611 303 MIDLAND PARK PL #C-3 P248 VI.A. Exhibit C1 P249 VI.A. P250 VI.A. P251 VI.A. P252 VI.A. P253 VI.A. P254 VI.A. P255 VI.A. P256 VI.A. P257 VI.A. P258 VI.A. P259 VI.A. P260 VI.A. P261 VI.A. P262 VI.A. P263 VI.A. P264 VI.A. P265 VI.A. P266 VI.A. P267 VI.A. P268 VI.A. P269 VI.A. P270 VI.A. P271 VI.A. Exhibit C2P272VI.A. P273VI.A. P274VI.A. P275VI.A. P276VI.A. P277VI.A. P278VI.A. P279VI.A. P280VI.A. P281VI.A. RESOLUTION NO. 5 (SERIES OF 2017) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, A DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE, AND THE ISSUANCE OF CERTFICATES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDIT FOR THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS ASPEN HILLS SUBDIVISION, UNITS A-1 THROUGH A-8, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 331-338 MIDLAND AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO ParcelIDs:27370740S801,273707405001,27370740S008,273707405002,273707405007, 273707405003,273707405006,273707405004,273707405005 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from WEB Capital LLC (Applicant), represented by Chris Bendon of Bendon Adams, requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission approve Growth Management Reviews for Affordable Housing, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, and a Dimensional Variance related to parking requirements at 331 - 338 Midland Ave; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.050(8) of the Land Use Code, Growth Management for affordable housing allotments may be granted by ·the Planning and Zoning Commission at"a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, pursuant· to Subsection 26.470.070(4), Affordable Housing may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.070, the number of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.314, a· dimensional variance related to varying on� site parking may be combined with other reviews and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable co�e s�dards, the Cc_>mmunity Development Director has recommended continuation of the application and the denial of the request for a dimensional variance allowing for the conversion of two one-bedroom housing units into two two-bedroom affordable housing units; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, has reviewed and considered 'the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority, Engineering, Building, and Environmental Health Departments, and has taken and considered public comment; and, WHEREAS, during a public hearing on January 31, 2017, th� Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 5, Series of 2017 by a six to zero ( 6-0) vote, approving the applicant's requests for Growth Management, Affordable Housing, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, and Dimensional Variance; and, Exhibit A to Aspen Hills Development Agreement P282 VI.A. P283 VI.A. P284 VI.A. P285 VI.A. P286 VI.A. P287 VI.A. P288 VI.A. P289 VI.A. P290 VI.A. P291 VI.A. P292 VI.A. P293 VI.A. P294 VI.A. P295 VI.A. P296 VI.A. P297 VI.A. P298 VI.A. P299 VI.A. P300 VI.A. P301 VI.A. P302 VI.A. P303 VI.A. P304 VI.A. file:///G|/.../PLANNING/Land%20Use%20Cases/Current/Garrett/Aspen%20Hills%20II/DRC/Trash%20and%20Recycling%20Comments.htm[8/1/2018 4:53:11 PM] From: Liz Chapman Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 2:43 PM To: Garrett Larimer Subject: Re: DRC | July 25th, 2018 | Aspen Hills Condo | 331-338 Midland Ave Hi Garrett;Here's a few of my raw notes on this project. They were advised that the trash area needs to be labeled and dimensions shown on the plans.Need to show what type of door will be used to access the area.We also discussed that dumpsters are preferable to totes for a complex of this size. - the trash area on page 1.11, just past the parking spaces is 210 SF (required to have 139.5 SF for 23 units) - 10’ height clearance - No currently ADA accessible from units; indicated they need to provide ADA access to trash on-site (myself and building) - Discussed the need for enhanced fire construction and sprinklers with the enclosed nature of the trash area - Discussed that the distance the current plan requires a significant distance for the dumpsters to be moved (past cars, bikes, etc.) and LC advises against it. Applicants indicated they would discuss this arrangement with the waste companies about whether they would service this location in this configuration. Liz O'Connell ChapmanWaste Reduction and Environmental Health SpecialistEnvironmental Health and SustainabilityCity of Aspen(970) 429-1831 office(970) 319-6890 cell liz.chapman@cityofaspen.com https://www.cityofaspen.com/348/Recycling PS -Please note my last name has changed to 'Chapman'. From: Garrett Larimer Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 2:25 PM To: Development Review Committee Cc: Jessica Garrow Subject: RE: DRC | July 25th, 2018 | Aspen Hills Condo | 331-338 Midland Ave Good Afternoon DRC, Since the DRC meeting on Wednesday for the redevelopment of the Aspen Hills Condos, we’ve been incontact with the applicant about some of the challenges this project is facing. It’s been determined thatbecause of the list of issues with the current project, a major redesign is needed. The applicant has told usthey will be resubmitting a significantly different plan. You do not need to put in more time reviewing the application and polishing your final comments. If you could just send me what you have at this point we would like to document and communicate the concerns with the redevelopment of this site. Hopefully the major items that need to be considered will beincorporated into the new design so we don’t have to go over it again. Exhibit J DRC Round 1 Comments P305 VI.A. file:///C|/...loads/Fwd%20DRC%20%20July%2025th%202018%20%20Aspen%20Hills%20Condo%20%20331-338%20Midland%20Ave.htm[8/1/2018 4:50:40 PM] From: David Radeck Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 4:46 PM To: Garrett Larimer Cc: Ian Gray Subject: Fwd: DRC | July 25th, 2018 | Aspen Hills Condo | 331-338 Midland Ave Sent from my iPhone Please also include air spading around trees that remain or on neighboring lots will be required. Thanks! Begin forwarded message: From: Ian Gray <ian.gray@cityofaspen.com > Date: July 27, 2018 at 2:35:16 PM MDT To: Garrett Larimer <garrett.larimer@cityofaspen.com > Cc: David Radeck <david.radeck@cityofaspen.com > Subject: RE: DRC | July 25th, 2018 | Aspen Hills Condo | 331-338 Midland Ave Hi Garrett, Parks main concern was that the design required the removal of most of the trees currently on the parcel with very little space allocated for the planting of new trees. To retain at least a modicum of native woody vegetation Parks was going to insist that the clump of cottonwoods on the northwest corner be preserved. This has implications for any building foundations and shoring in the vicinity of the driplines there and it appeared that the original design in the area of unit #4 was incompatible with that requirement. Parks also had concerns about the green roof – green infrastructure is encouraged but it needs to conform to the water efficient landscape standard and no data was offered for that design. That’s our feedback in a nutshell. Best, <image006.png> Ian Gray City Forester Parks Department 585 Cemetery Lane Aspen, CO 81611 p: 970.429.2031 ian.gray@cityofaspen.com www.cityofaspen.com <image007.jpg> <image008.jpg> <image009.jpg> P306 VI.A. Aspen Hills DRC   7/25/2018  Initial Zoning Comments    Survey: Historic and Existing   Survey ‘Historic Topographical Study”   o Land‐use approval is required to utilize historic topography for building permit  application.  o Surveyor must stamp, sign and date the survey.   Non‐conforming development encroaches into the South and East setbacks and beyond  property line; Tuttle Survey dated December 20, 2017, illustrates structures (the existing  building, the kiln, etc.) in the setback on the east end of the building, as well as, roof over‐hang  and a window well over the property line. The south side stairs and a walkway likewise extend  over the property line.   If the existing setback nonconformities and encroachment into neighboring properties are to be  continued, an easement should be secured from the adjacent property owners or pursue a land  use application for lot line adjustment.  Existing Floor Area Sheet 1.3:     Subgrade calculations: Subgrade exposure does not appear to align with existing site conditions;  the existing subgrade exposure should be verified.    The main level stair exemption has not been applied. Please add detail to sheet 1.3; this will  reduce the floor area for each unit.   The loft storage is not considered floor area, please remove the 48 square feet of floor area  allocated to each unit.  The height of the lofts is less than 5’ 6” and is not included in floor area  calculations.   Please reference 26.575.020(D)(4), Decks, balconies, loggias, …exterior stairways.  Please include  all exterior stairs in the deck calculations.  Demolition sheet 1.3   Demolition calculations provided require additional detail.  Please include windows and doors  on all facades. The windows provided do not match the window openings used to calculate sub‐ grade exemption. Please update the demolition calculations accordingly.  Proposed Floor Area:   Please provide detail about non‐unit floor area. The non‐unit floor area will be allocated among  the units.   Please amend the deck numbers to include all elements which attribute to deck. For example,  the walkways on top of the new structure and along the existing structure all attribute to deck  totals.    P307 VI.A.  The subgrade calculations and height shall use the same approved survey. Pursuant to the Code,  subgrade is calculated from the lower of natural or finished grade. It appears that the subgrade  calculations are based on the historic grade survey which has not yet been approved. Sheet 1.5      Sheet 1.5 – 1.10: please differentiate the subgrade calculations for each building. Provide a table  in which illustrates the floor area for each building. The table provided combines or merges the  floor areas and it is difficult to verify the proposed floor area.   This development is 5.25 square feet of floor area over the allowable (sheet 1.7) in R/MF zone  district. Please provide a higher level of detail for the interior of the units. For example, interior  stairs, legends, gridlines, location of mechanical, storage, etc.   Net Livable:    Sheets 1.11 – 1.13  o Please provide a table for the totals of net livable existing and proposed. What is the 45  square feet identified in each unit of the existing building? Stairs or storage?  Setbacks and height:   The proposed west façade has structure in the setback which does not meet the limitations of  structure in the setback. For example, stairways and entry features.   Retaining wall to support half a berm on North in East side yards setbacks is a concern. Retaining  walls are permitted in a setback but the measurement for the height of the retaining wall is  from the lower of natural or finished grade. See section 26.575.2020(E)(5)(k).   The proposed new construction includes Street facing facades on the north and west sides of  the subject property; a minimum 20‐foot setback from the Street facing façade is required.    26.575.020(F)(4)(c), Elevator and Stair Enclosure, see application sheet 4.1  c) “Elevator and Stair Enclosures.  On structures other than a single‐family or duplex residential  building or an accessory building, elevator overrun enclosures and stair enclosures may  extend up to five (5) feet above the specified maximum height limit.  Elevator and stair enclosures may extend up to ten (10) feet above the specified maximum  height limit if set back from any Street facing façade of the b uilding a minimum of twenty (20)  feet and the footprint of the elevators or stair enclosures are minimized and combined to the  greatest extent practicable.    For single‐family and duplex residential buildings and for accessory buildings, elevator and  stair enclosures are not allowed a height exception.”  Site Plan:   26.312.030(F)(2), Purposeful Destruction.  If the project is granted approval through Special  Review to maintain structure in the setback and over the property line; then the non‐conformity  may remain.  This is applicable to all existing setback encroachments and any other existing  nonconformities.  P308 VI.A.  26.575.020(E)(5) Allowed Exception to Setback. Please provide a setback table to verify the  proposed veneer will not encroach into the minimum setback, unless otherwise varied via the  land use approval procedures.  o Please identify on the site plan any anticipated ancillary improvements within the  setbacks, such as mechanical equipment.  o “t)  Wildlife‐resistant Trash and Recycling enclosures located in residential zone districts  shall be prohibited in all yards facing a Street.  These facilities may be placed within non‐ street facing yards if the enclosure is the minimum reasonably necessary in both height  and footprint, is an unconditioned space not integrated with other structures on the  property, and serves no other purpose such as storage, garage space, or other purposes  unrelated to protecting wildlife.”   26.575.020(F)(3)(b), Grade.  In instances where the natural grade of a property has been  affected by prior development activity the Community Development Director may accept an  estimation of pre‐development topography prepared by a registered land surveyor or civil  engineer.  Roof Plan:   Please provide a proposed roof plan which illustrates the mechanical, venting penetrations,  solar and all other ancillary improvements proposed to be located on the roof.   Height Calculations:   26.575.020(F)Measuring Building Height.  Please provide roof over topography with roof points  and a corresponding table on Elevation sheets provided (Sheet 4.1 and 4.2); which correspond  to the approved survey.    P309 VI.A. AspenHillsDRC_BuildingComments_1 Page: 5 File Name: A14 Proposed Plans - 3-29-18.pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Identify accessible parking spaces and provide dimensions per 2015 IBC 1106 and ICC A117.1 ch5. A14 Proposed Plans - 3-29-18.pdf (27) Page: 5 File Name: A14 Proposed Plans - 3-29-18.pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: 1 van accessible parking space required (11' wide parking space, 5' wide access aisle, 98" height clearance required) -2015 IBC table 1106.1, 1106.5, ICC A117.1-2009 section 502. Page: 5 File Name: A14 Proposed Plans - 3-29-18.pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Need 2nd exit from parking garage (max 29 occupants and 75' travel distance for single exit parking garage - 2015 IBC table 1006.3.2(2)). 7,735sqft = 39 occupants at 1/200. Travel distances far exceed 75'. Page: 11 File Name: A14 Proposed Plans - 3-29-18.pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Trash is an incidental use; 1 hr protected or sprinklered and sealed for smoke. 2015 IBC 509. Page: 11 File Name: A14 Proposed Plans - 3-29-18.pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Need accessible on property route to this trash. 2015 IBC 1104.2, 1104.3. 1,113 sq ft 422 sq ft 350 sq ft 173 sq ft 521 sq ft 1,436 sq ft 677 sq ft1,859 sq ft 558 sq ft 80 sq ft 182 sq ft 10 sq ft 44'-7 1/2"41'-8 1/2"10"79'-7"88'-4 1/2" 114'-5 17/32" 79'-7" 26'-0"16'-3"16'-3"41'-8 1/2"12'-6"12'-6"16'-3"88'-4 1/2"16'-3"41'-8"16'-3"114'-5"12'-6"44'-7 1/2" WALL 001 WALL 004 WALL 006 WALL 007 8'x16' COMPACT 25 23 22 21 20 24 11 1718 7 8 9 19 5 6 WALL 006 WALL 007 WALL 005 WALL 003 WALL 002WALL 001 WALL 004 PROPERTY LINESETBACK 10 8,239 sq ft STAIRELEV Lowe Overall Total Wall Areas ( Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft % of Exposed Wall (Expos Lower Level Gross Floor A Parking Exemption (Sq Ft Lower Level Gross Floor A Lower Level Countable Fl Total Lower Level Counta Total Proposed Floor Are Garage Level Floor Area ( Main Level Floor Area (Sq Second Level Floor Area ( Third Level Floor Area (Sq Roof Level Floor Area (Sq Deck/Porch Floor Area (S Total Proposed Floor Are Proposed Lower Level W Proposed Lower Level Fl Identify accessible parking spaces and provide dimensions per 2015 IBC 1106 and ICC A117.1 ch5. PROJECT No:DRAWN BY: DRAWING S COPYRIGHT 2017 ALI CORPS LLC. ALL RIG FLOOR AREA C 1 SCHEMATIC DE P&Z APPLICATIO P&Z APPLICATIO ADD. INFO 1,113 sq ft 350 sq ft 44'-7 1/2"41'-8 1/2"10"79'-7"88'-4 1/2"10"41'-8 3/32"9'-7"16'-3"12 8'x16' COMPACT 8.5'X18' STANDARD WALL 002 WALL 003 WALL 004 WALL 005 WALL 006 8'x16' COMPACT 25 23 22 21 20 24 14 15 16171819 WALL 006 005 8,239 sq ft 0 4'8'16' EA 1 van accessible parking space required (11' wide parking space, 5' wide access aisle, 98" height clearance required) -2015 IBC table 1106.1, 1106.5, ICC A117.1-2009 section 502. DESIGN CORPSALIUS DESIGN CORPSALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE1614 ISSUE PROJECT No:DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGNCORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 1.5 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 03/29/2018P&Z APPLICATIONADD. INFO 1,113 sq ft 422 sq ft 350 sq ft 173 sq ft 521 sq ft 1,436 sq ft 558 sq ft 80 sq ft 10 sq ft 44'-7 1/2"41'-8 1/2"10"79'-7"88'-4 1/2"10"41'-8 3/32"114'-5 17/32" 79'-7" 26'-0"16'-3"16'-3"41'-8 1/2"12'-6"16'-3"88'-4 1/2" 41'-8"114'-5"12'-6"44'-7 1/2" 8'x16' COMPACT 8.5'X18' STANDARD WALL 001 WALL 002 WALL 003 WALL 004 WALL 005 WALL 006 WALL 007 8'x16' COMPACT 25 23 22 21 20 24 11 12 13 14 15 161718 7 8 9 19 5 6 WALL 006 WALL 007 WALL 005 WALL 003 WALL 002WALL 001 WALL 004 PROPERTY LINESETBACK 10 8,239 sq ft STAIRELEV 6 1,113.00 350.00 7 422.00 173.00 8 776.00 188.00 9 322.00 24.00 10 776.00 188.00 11 332.00 0.00Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft)8,792.00 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)1195.00% of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total) Lower Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)14,412.00 Parking Exemption (Sq Ft)5,750.00 Lower Level Gross Floor Area for FAR Calc (Sq Ft)8,662.00 Lower Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,212.68 (8662*.14)Total Lower Level Countabe Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,212.68 Total Proposed Floor Area Calcuations Garage Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,213 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)10,585 Second Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)7,145Third Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,260Roof Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)42Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)489 Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)22,734 Proposed Lower Level Floor Area Calculations 0 4'8'16'8" = 1'-0" RAGE LEVEL II FLOOR AREA Need 2nd exit fromparking garage (max29 occupants and 75'travel distance forsingle exit parkinggarage - 2015 IBCtable 1006.3.2(2)).7,735sqft = 39occupants at 1/200.Travel distances farexceed 75'. 415 sq ft 420 sq ft 420 sq ft 422 sq ft 415 sq ft 420 sq ft 420 sq ft 422 sq ft 2 43 PROPERTY LINESETBACK 1 UNIT A-1 UNIT A-2 UNIT A-3 UNIT A-4 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-6 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-8 STAIRELEV Trash is an incidental use; 1 hr protected or sprinklered and sealed for smoke. 2015 IBC 509. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE1614 ISSUE PROJECT No:DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGNCORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NET LIVABLE CALCULATIONS 1.11 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 03/29/2018P&Z APPLICATIONADD. INFO415 sq ft 420 sq ft 420 sq ft 422 sq ft 415 sq ft 420 sq ft 420 sq ft 422 sq ft 2 43 PROPERTY LINESETBACK 1 UNIT A-1 UNIT A-2 UNIT A-3 UNIT A-4 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-6 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-8 STAIRELEV 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 LOWER/GARAGE LEVEL NET LIVABLE Need accessible onproperty route to thistrash. 2015 IBC1104.2, 1104.3. P310 VI.A. Page: 11 File Name: A14 Proposed Plans - 3-29-18.pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Need accessible route from parking to units if this parking serves type b units. 2015 IBC 1106.2 Page: 11 File Name: A14 Proposed Plans - 3-29-18.pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Need exiting from this parking level complying with 2015 IBC 1006. Page: 17 File Name: A14 Proposed Plans - 3-29-18.pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Accessible route req'd to type b units 5 and 6. 2015 IBC 1107. Stairs can't reduce egress court to less than 44" Page: 17 File Name: A14 Proposed Plans - 3-29-18.pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: bonniem Color: 60% of entrances rrequired to be accessible 1105.1 Page: 17 File Name: A14 Proposed Plans - 3-29-18.pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Not enough information to determine if accessible route and entrances are adequate. 2015 IBC ch 11. 415 sq ft 420 sq ft 420 sq ft 422 sq ft 2 43 PROPERTY LINESETBACK 1 UNIT A-2 UNIT A-4 UNIT A-6 UNIT A-8 STAIRELEV Need accessible routefrom parking to units ifthis parking servestype b units. 2015 IBC1106.2 DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE161 ISSUE PROJECT No:DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGNCORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NET LIVABLE CALCULATIONS 11/16/20 SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/20 P&Z APPLICATION 03/29/20 P&Z APPLICATIONADD. INFO415 sq ft 420 sq ft 420 sq ft 422 sq ft 415 sq ft 420 sq ft 420 sq ft 422 sq ft 2 43 PROPERTY LINESETBACK 1 UNIT A-1 UNIT A-2 UNIT A-3 UNIT A-4 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-6 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-8 STAIRELEV Need exiting fromthis parking levelcomplying with2015 IBC 1006. 7954.75 7955 7958.5 7963 7953.75 7966.5 7953.75 LINE OF HEADER ABOVE LINE OF BUILDINGPERIMETER LINE OF HISTORICTOPOGRAPHY LANDSCAPE WALLSAND STAIRS NEW CURB CUT2% SLOPE AT CROSSINGNOT TO BE EXCEEDED PRIVATESTAIR PRIVATESTAIR AREA OF BIKE PARKINGINSIDE; SEE GARAGE LEVEL PLAN DOOR OF BACK UNIT PROPERTY LINESETBACK79557956795879607962 7964796679687970MULTI-UNIT BUILDING T.O. SLAB @ GARAGEENTRANCE T.O. ASPHALT @MIDLAND AVENEUE T.O. CONC. @ATRIUM T.O. CONC. @ COURT MULTI-UNIT BUILDING EXIST. MULTI-UNIT BUILDING T.O. CONC. @RAMP START T.O. PLY. @ EXIST. FLOOR APPROX. HEIGHTOF WALKWAY @ GRADE LINE OF HEADER ABOVE LINE OF BUILDINGPERIMETER LINE OF HISTORICTOPOGRAPHY LANDSCAPE WALLSAND STAIRS NEW CURB CUT2% SLOPE AT CROSSINGNOT TO BE EXCEEDED PRIVATESTAIR PRIVATESTAIR AREA OF BIKE PARKINGINSIDE; SEE GARAGE LEVEL PLAN DOOR OF BACK UNIT Accessible route req'd to type b units 5 and6. 2015 IBC 1107. Stairs can't reduce egress court to less than 44" 7954.75 7955 7958.5 7963 7953.75 7966.5 7953.75 LINE OF HEADER ABOVE LINE OF BUILDINGPERIMETER LANDSCAPE WALLSAND STAIRS NEW CURB CUT2% SLOPE AT CROSSINGNOT TO BE EXCEEDED PRIVATESTAIR PRIVATESTAIR AREA OF BIKE PARKINGINSIDE; SEE GARAGE LEVEL PLAN LINE OF WALKING DISTANCE: 200 FT LINE OF CROW'S FLIGHT DISTANCE: 150 FTACCESS POINT PROPERTY LINESETBACK7955956958602 796479667968MULTI-UNIT BUILDING T.O. SLAB @ GARAGEENTRANCE T.O. ASPHALT @MIDLAND AVENEUE T.O. CONC. @ATRIUM T.O. CONC. @ COURT MULTI-UNIT BUILDING EXIST. MULTI-UNIT BUILDING T.O. CONC. @RAMP START T.O. PLY. @ EXIST. F APPROX. HEIGHTOF WALKWAY @ GRADE LINE OF HEADER ABOVE LINE OF BUILDINGPERIMETER LANDSCAPE WALLSAND STAIRS NEW CURB CUT2% SLOPE AT CROSSINGNOT TO BE EXCEEDED PRIVATESTAIR PRIVATESTAIR AREA OF BIKE PARKINGINSIDE; SEE GARAGE LEVEL PLAN LINE OF WALKING DISTANCE: 200 FT LINE OF CROW'S FLIGHT DISTANCE: 150 FTACCESS POINT SCALE: 1" = 10'1 TIA PLAN 60% of entrances rrequired to be accessible 1105.1 7954.75 7955 7958.5 7963 7953.75 7966.5 7953.75 LINE OF HEADER ABOVE LINE OF BUILDINGPERIMETER LANDSCAPE WALLSAND STAIRS NOT TO BE EXCEEDED PRIVATESTAIR PRIVATESTAIR LINE OF WALKING DISTANCE: 200 FT LINE OF CROW'S FLIGHT DISTANCE: 150 FTACCESS POINT DOOR OF BACK UNIT MULTI-UNIT BUILDING T.O. SLAB @ GARAGEENTRANCE T.O. ASPHALT @MIDLAND AVENEUE T.O. CONC. @ATRIUM T.O. CONC. @ COURT MULTI-UNIT BUILDING EXIST. MULTI-UNIT BUILDING T.O. CONC. @RAMP START T.O. PLY. @ EXIST. FLOOR APPROX. HEIGHTOF WALKWAY @ GRADE LINE OF HEADER ABOVE LINE OF BUILDINGPERIMETER LANDSCAPE WALLSAND STAIRS NOT TO BE EXCEEDED PRIVATESTAIR PRIVATESTAIR LINE OF WALKING DISTANCE: 200 FT LINE OF CROW'S FLIGHT DISTANCE: 150 FTACCESS POINT DOOR OF BACK UNIT SCALE: 1" = 10'1 TIA PLAN SITE Not enough information to determine if accessible route and entrances are adequate. 2015 IBC ch 11. P311 VI.A. Page: 18 File Name: A14 Proposed Plans - 3-29-18.pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: bonniem Color: Egress and fire separation plans were not included. Page: 18 File Name: A14 Proposed Plans - 3-29-18.pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: All units required to be Type B except for multi story units. This means units 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 must be Type B. Bathrooms and kitchens do not comply. 2015 IBC 1107.6.2.2 No Type A required 2015 IBC 1107.6.2.2.1 exception 2. Page: 18 File Name: A14 Proposed Plans - 3-29-18.pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Label which units are AHUs Page: 18 File Name: A14 Proposed Plans - 3-29-18.pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Accessible door maneuvering clearance at elevator required. ICC A117.1-2009 section 404.2.3 Page: 18 File Name: A14 Proposed Plans - 3-29-18.pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Inadequate separation between buildings and between exterior balcony/stair and adjacent building (2015 IBC 602, 705.8, 1021.4, 1027.5). If considered all as one building, must either be Type VA or NFPA 13 throughout (need to upgrade existing building). 2015 IBC table 506.2 B5.2 Egress and fire separation plans were not included. FREDWFREDW FREDWFREDW FRE DWF RE DWFRE DWF RE DWFREDWFREDWFREDW7'-5 1/2"5'-5 1/2"10'-5 1/2"15.1 B5.2 B5.2 D5.2 14.4 14.3 14.2 PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK PLANTINGS AND SOD BASE PLATER BOX/RETAININGWALL ENTRANCE VIA PRIVATE STAIR WALKWAY/RAMP TO EXIST.UNITS UNIT A-1 UNIT A-2 UNIT A-3 UNIT A-4 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-6 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-8 DECK DECK DECKEDGE OF PAVEMENTGRAND ENTRYWAY ENTRYWAY ATRIUM ON GRADE WALKWAY E. UPUP UNIT 1 UNIT 12 UNIT 2 KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN BEDROOM 0 LAN All units required to be Type B except for multi story units. This means units 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 must be Type B. Bathrooms and kitchens do notcomply. 2015 IBC 1107.6.2.2 No Type A required2015 IBC 1107.6.2.2.1 exception 2. DESIGN CORPSALIUS DESIGN CORPSALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE1614 ISSUE PROJECT No:DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGNCORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 3.3 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 03/29/2018P&Z APPLICATIONADD. INFO F RE DW FREDWFREDW FREDWFREDW FRE DWF RE DW FRE DWF RE DW F RE DWF RE DW F REDW FRE DW 7'-5 1/2"5'-5 1/2"10'-5 1/2"15.1 15.1 B5.2 B5.2 D5.2 D5.2 E5.1E5.1 14.4 14.1 14.3 14.2 PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK PLANTINGS AND SOD BASE PLATER BOX/RETAININGWALL ENTRANCE VIA PRIVATE STAIR WALKWAY/RAMP TO EXIST.UNITS UNIT A-1 UNIT A-2 UNIT A-3 UNIT A-4 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-6 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-8 DECK DECK DECK SETBACK LINE EDGE OF PAVEMENTGRANDENTRYWAY ENTRYWAYATRIUM ON GRADE WALKWAY ON GRADE PATIO AREA MIDLAND AVE. UPUP PROPERTY LINESETBACK UNIT 1 UNIT 15 UNIT 12 UNIT 13 UNIT 14 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 STAIR ELEVUNIT 5 UNIT 6 BEDROOM KITCHEN KITCHENBEDROOMBEDROOM KITCHEN BEDROOM BEDROOM KITCHEN KITCHEN BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN BEDROOM KITCHEN 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL PLAN LabelwhichunitsareAHUs F RE DW F RE DWFREDW5'-5 1/2"10'-5 1/2"15.1 D5.2 E5.1 14.1 DECK SETBACK LINE GRAND ENTRYWAY ENTRYWAY ATRIUM ON GRADE WALKWAY ON GRADE PATIO AREA UP PROPERTY LINESETBACK UNIT 15 UNIT 12 UNIT 13 UNIT 14 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 STAIR ELEVUNIT 5 UNIT 6 BEDROOM KITCHEN KITCHENBEDROOMBEDROOM KITCHEN BEDROOM BEDROOM KITCHEN KITCHEN BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM KITCHEN KITCHEN Accessible door maneuvering clearance at elevator required. ICC A117.1-2009 section 404.2.3 DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE1614 ISSUE PROJECT No:DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGNCORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 3.3 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 03/29/2018P&Z APPLICATIONADD. INFO F RE DW FREDWFREDW FREDWFREDW FRE DWF RE DW FRE DWF RE DW FREDWF RE DWFREDWFREDW7'-5 1/2"5'-5 1/2"10'-5 1/2"15.1 15.1 B5.2 B5.2 D5.2 D5.2 E5.1E5.1 14.4 14.1 14.3 14.2 PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK PLANTINGS AND SOD BASE ENTRANCE VIA PRIVATE STAIR WALKWAY/RAMP TO EXIST.UNITS UNIT A-1 UNIT A-2 UNIT A-3 UNIT A-4 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-6 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-8 DECK DECK DECK SETBACK LINE GRANDENTRYWAY ENTRYWAYATRIUM ON GRADE WALKWAY ON GRADE PATIO AREA UPUP PROPERTY LINESETBACK UNIT 1 UNIT 15 UNIT 12 UNIT 13 UNIT 14 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 STAIR ELEVUNIT 5 UNIT 6 BEDROOM KITCHEN KITCHENBEDROOMBEDROOM KITCHEN BEDROOM BEDROOM KITCHEN KITCHEN BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN BEDROOM KITCHEN 0 4'8'16' Inadequate separationbetween buildings andbetween exteriorbalcony/stair andadjacent building(2015 IBC 602, 705.8,1021.4, 1027.5). Ifconsidered all as onebuilding, must eitherbe Type VA or NFPA13 throughout (need toupgrade existing building). 2015 IBCtable 506.2 P312 VI.A. Page: 18 File Name: A14 Proposed Plans - 3-29-18.pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: bonniem Color: Elevator may not open into exit passageway. 1024.5 Page: 18 File Name: A14 Proposed Plans - 3-29-18.pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Egress court less than 10' requires 1 hour protection for 10' up and 45min rated windows and doors (2015 IBC 1028.4). Must be unobstructed to sky for width of 44" Page: 19 File Name: A14 Proposed Plans - 3-29-18.pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: There may only be 4 residential units on a floor that has a single exit. 2015 IBC 1006.3.2. Page: 19 File Name: A14 Proposed Plans - 3-29-18.pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Egress court must be uncovered and unobstructed to the sky for width of 44" (roof may not over hang it). 2015 IBC 202. Page: 19 File Name: A14 Proposed Plans - 3-29-18.pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Door can't reduce required egress width by more than half. 2015 IBC 1005.7.1 DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPSALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE1614 ISSUE PROJECT No:DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGNCORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 3.3 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 03/29/2018P&Z APPLICATIONADD. INFO F RE DW FRE DW F RE DW FREDWFRE DW FRE DWF RE DWFRE DW F RE DWFREDWF RE DWFREDWFREDW7'-5 1/2"5'-5 1/2"10'-5 1/2"15.1 15.1 B5.2 B5.2 D5.2 D5.2 E5.1E5.1 14.4 14.1 14.3 14.2 PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK PLANTINGS AND SOD BASE PLATER BOX/RETAININGWALL ENTRANCE VIA PRIVATE STAIR WALKWAY/RAMP TO EXIST.UNITS UNIT A-1 UNIT A-2 UNIT A-3 UNIT A-4 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-6 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-8 DECK DECK DECK SETBACK LINE EDGE OF PAVEMENTGRANDENTRYWAY ENTRYWAYATRIUM ON GRADE WALKWAY ON GRADE PATIO AREA IDLAND AVE. UPUP PROPERTY LINESETBACK UNIT 1 UNIT 15 UNIT 12 UNIT 13 UNIT 14 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 STAIR ELEVUNIT 5 UNIT 6 BEDROOM KITCHEN KITCHENBEDROOMBEDROOM KITCHEN BEDROOM BEDROOM KITCHEN KITCHEN BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN BEDROOM KITCHEN 0 4'8'16'" = 1'-0" N LEVEL PLAN Elevator may not openinto exit passageway.1024.5 DESIGN CORPSALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE1614 ISSUE PROJECT No:DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGNCORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 3.3 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 03/29/2018P&Z APPLICATIONADD. INFO F RE DW FRE DW F RE DWFRE DW F RE DWFRE DW F RE DW FRE DW F RE DW FRE DWF RE DWF RE DWF RE DW7'-5 1/2"5'-5 1/2"10'-5 1/2"15.1 15.1 B5.2 B5.2 D5.2 D5.2 E5.1E5.1 14.4 14.1 14.3 14.2 PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK PLANTINGS AND SOD BASE PLATER BOX/RETAININGWALL ENTRANCE VIA PRIVATE STAIR WALKWAY/RAMP TO EXIST.UNITS UNIT A-1 UNIT A-2 UNIT A-3 UNIT A-4 UNIT A-5 UNIT A-6 UNIT A-7 UNIT A-8 DECK DECK DECK SETBACK LINE EDGE OF PAVEMENTGRANDENTRYWAY ENTRYWAYATRIUM ON GRADE WALKWAY ON GRADE PATIO AREA MIDLAND AVE. UPUP PROPERTY LINESETBACK UNIT 1 UNIT 15 UNIT 12 UNIT 13 UNIT 14 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 STAIR ELEVUNIT 5 UNIT 6 BEDROOM KITCHEN KITCHENBEDROOMBEDROOM KITCHEN BEDROOM BEDROOM KITCHEN KITCHEN BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN BEDROOM KITCHEN 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL PLAN Egress court less than10' requires 1 hourprotection for 10' upand 45min ratedwindows and doors(2015 IBC 1028.4).Must be unobstructedto sky for width of 44" DESIGN CORPSALIUS DESIGN CORPSALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE1614 ISSUE PROJECT No:DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGNCORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SECOND LEVEL PLAN 3.4 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 03/29/2018P&Z APPLICATIONADD. INFO F RE DWFREDW FRE DW F RE DW15.1 15.1 B5.2 B5.2 D5.2 D5.2 E5.1E5.1 14.4 14.1 14.3 14.2 LINE OF ROOF BELOW PROPERTY LINESETBACK UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 8UNIT 9 UNIT 7 STAIR ELEV BEDROOM BEDROOM KITCHEN KITCHEN BEDROOM BEDROOM KITCHENKITCHEN BEDROOMBEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 SECOND LEVEL PLAN There may only be 4residential units on afloor that has a singleexit. 2015 IBC1006.3.2. DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPSALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE1614 ISSUE PROJECT No:DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGNCORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SECOND LEVEL PLAN 3.4 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 03/29/2018P&Z APPLICATIONADD. INFOFREDWFREDWFREDWFREDW15.1 15.1 B5.2 B5.2 D5.2 D5.2 E5.1E5.1 14.4 14.1 14.3 14.2 LINE OF ROOF BELOW PROPERTY LINESETBACK UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 8UNIT 9 UNIT 7 STAIR ELEV BEDROOM BEDROOM KITCHEN KITCHEN BEDROOM BEDROOM KITCHENKITCHEN BEDROOMBEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 SECOND LEVEL PLAN Egress court must beuncovered andunobstructed to thesky for width of 44"(roof may not overhang it). 2015 IBC 202. DESIGN CORPSALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS 160 MIDLAND AVENUE ASPEN, COASPEN HILLS PHASE IIMTE1614 ISSUE PROJECT No:DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGNCORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SECOND LEVEL PLAN 3.4 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 03/29/2018P&Z APPLICATIONADD. INFOFREDWFREDW FRE DWF RE DW15.1 15.1 B5.2 B5.2 D5.2 D5.2 E5.1E5.1 14.4 14.1 14.3 14.2 LINE OF ROOF BELOW PROPERTY LINESETBACK UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 8UNIT 9 UNIT 7 STAIR ELEV BEDROOM BEDROOM KITCHEN KITCHEN BEDROOM BEDROOM KITCHENKITCHEN BEDROOMBEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 SECOND LEVEL PLAN Door can't reducerequired egress widthby more than half.2015 IBC 1005.7.1 P313 VI.A. Page: 20 File Name: A14 Proposed Plans - 3-29-18.pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: bonniem Color: Measure 125' travel distance to exit from most remote point of roof decks. 1006.3.3 Page: 20 File Name: A14 Proposed Plans - 3-29-18.pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: These stairs don't line up with the floor plans below. Page: 20 File Name: A14 Proposed Plans - 3-29-18.pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Need roof plan above. Page: 21 File Name: A14 Proposed Plans - 3-29-18.pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Indicate floor levels and grade plane (as defined by 2015 IBC 202) on each elevation. Calculate which story is the first story above grade plane (as defined by 2015 IBC 202). Page: 21 File Name: A14 Proposed Plans - 3-29-18.pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Verify that you are not 4 stories above grade plane (per definitions in 2015 IBC 202). 2015 IBC table 504.4 requires Type VA construction and fully sprinklered to have 4 stories of R2. Stair tower serving roof deck not typically counted as a story if it is just stairs. B5.2 D5.2 E5.1 14.1 14.2 LINE OF ROOF BELOW SETBACK STAIR STAIR STAIR UNIT 10 BEDROOM KITCHEN DECK DECK DECK Measure 125' travel distance to exit from most remote point of roof decks. 1006.3.3 FF15.1 B5.2 D5.2 14.3 14.2 LINE OF ROOF BELOW STAIR STAIR UNIT 10 UNIT 11 BEDROOMBEDROOMBEDROOM DECK DECK SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 THIRD LEVEL PLAN These stairs don't line up with the floor plans below. E5.1 Need roof plan above. MTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET NORTH ELEVATION 4.1 11/16/201 SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/201 P&Z APPLICATION 03/29/201 P&Z APPLICATION ADD. INFO LINE OF HISTORIC GRADE 0 4'8'12' Indicate floor levels and grade plane (as defined by 2015 IBC 202) on each elevation. Calculate which story is the first story above grade plane (as defined by 2015 IBC 202). LINE OF HISTORIC GRADE STAIR TOWER BEYOND STAIR TOWER BEYOND SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION Verify that you are not4 stories above gradeplane (per definitionsin 2015 IBC 202).2015 IBC table 504.4requires Type VAconstruction and fullysprinklered to have 4stories of R2. Stairtower serving roofdeck not typicallycounted as a story if itis just stairs. P314 VI.A. Page: 23 File Name: A14 Proposed Plans - 3-29-18.pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: bonniem Color: Check opening separation from property line. Windows may need to be reduced. Only 25% of wall area allowed per floor when 5' from property line. 2015 IBC 705.8 Page: 24 File Name: A14 Proposed Plans - 3-29-18.pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Windows may need to be reduced. Only 25% of wall area allowed per floor when 5' from property line. 2015 IBC 705.8 LINE OF GRADELOWER LEVEL WALLBEYOND LINE OF HISTORIC GRADELINE OF GRADE LINE OF OFFSET 32' HEIGHT LIMIT (FROM HIST. GRADE)LINE OF 32' OFFSET GRADE AREA OF ELEVATION BEYOND EXISTING BUILDING RAMP BEYOND 0 4'8'12'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 SOUTH ELEVATION Check openingseparation fromproperty line. Windowsmay need to bereduced. Only 25% ofwall area allowed perfloor when 5' fromproperty line. 2015IBC 705.8 16 A MTE 1614 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGNCORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED EAST ELEVATION 4.4 11/16/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/12/2018P&Z APPLICATION 03/29/2018P&Z APPLICATIONADD. INFO STAIR TOWER BEYONDLINE OF OFFSET 32' HEIGHT LIMIT (FROM HIST. GRADE) LINE OF GRADE LINE OF 32' OFFSET GRADE AREA OF NORTH ELEVATIONBEYOND 0 4'8'12' Windows may need to be reduced. Only 25% of wall area allowed per floor when 5' from property line. 2015 IBC 705.8 P315 VI.A. DRC Eng comments Page: [1] 160 Midland-C100 Author: pjm File Name: A10 Engr Report and Hist Topo.pdf Water service size needs to be determined prior to building permit application. 18" separation required from existing tap. A10 Engr Report and Hist Topo.pdf (7) Page: [1] 160 Midland-C100 Author: pjm File Name: A10 Engr Report and Hist Topo.pdf Call out BOW elevations. If wall is greater than 4' a structural engineer will need to provide a design. Page: [1] 160 Midland-C100 Author: pjm File Name: A10 Engr Report and Hist Topo.pdf Are roof drains tied to this piping system or internally routed? Address in conceptual drainage report. Page: [1] 160 Midland-C100 Author: pjm File Name: A10 Engr Report and Hist Topo.pdf Align north edge of drive entrance with north edge of intersection. Page: [1] 160 Midland-C100 Author: pjm File Name: A10 Engr Report and Hist Topo.pdf Identify where electric service is coming from. Will a new transformer be required for the development? If so show location within property limits for the new transformer. The easement will need to be finalized prior to building permit issuance. Alternatively provide a letter from the electric service provider that there is adequate capacity to serve the development.AND AVENUETOW:7958.5 T ROW WALL NEW 2- TO 4-INCH WATER SERVICE ABANDON EXISTING WATER SERVICE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANTER 955TOW:7957.50 TOW:7958 Water service size needs to be determined prior to building permit application. 18" separation required from existing tap.TOW:7960.25TOW:7962.50TOW:7962.50TOW:7960.25 Call out BOW elevations. If wall is greater than 4' a structural engineer will need to provide a design.79707966796779687969ADDITIONAL ELECTRIC METERS 7970 79757969 797 1 7972 7973 7974 7976 79777965797079709647966796779687969965 797079707966 7967 79687968 79697969TOW:7973 - 7970TOW:7970TOW:7969 - 7966TOW:7966TOW:7966TOW:7968TOW:7969 - 7968TOW:7967.50 TOW:7969 TOW:7972.50 TOW:7970 TOW:7970 TOW:7973TOW:7971.50 TOW:7964 Are roof drains tied to this piping system or internally routed? Address in conceptual drainage report.7956795779587959NEW CURB CUT 7955-7954.74 EXISTING MAILBOXES EXISTING DUMPSTER ABANDON EXISTING SANITARY SERVICE REPLACE AS REQUIRED 79 5 5 7 9 5 4 795 6 ASPHALT DRIVEWAY PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANTER CAR ELEVATOR ENTRANCE 795579567957WORST CA DRYWELL SYST RETAIN 100 PERCE OF THE LO VOLUME REQUIRE 1554 C VOLUME PROVIDE 1630 C 7955 7956795779 5 7 7957 795 8 79 TOW:7961TOW:7959 TOW:7959.50TOW:796 0 TOW:7961.50 TOW:7963.50TOW:7962 Align north edge of drive entrance with north edge of intersection.797079687969ADDITIONAL ELECTRIC METERS 79 79 7 0 7975 79 7 5 7967796879697971 79 7 1 7972 79 7 2 7973 79 7 3 7974 79 7 4 7 9 7 6 7976 797779 7 77978 7965797079707966796779687969797079707967 79687968 79697969TOW:7973 - 7970TOW:7970TOW:7969 - 7966TOW:7966TOW:7966TOW:7968TOW:7969 - 7968TOW:7969 TOW:7972.50 TOW:7970 TOW:7973TOW:7971.50 TOW:7964 G W E Identify where electric service is coming from. Will a new transformer be required for the development? If so show location within property limits for the new transformer. The easement will need to be finalized prior to building permit issuance. Alternatively provide a letter from the electric service provider that there is adequate capacity to serve the development. P316 VI.A. Page: 1 Author: pjm File Name: A10 Engr Report and Hist Topo.pdf The following are required per Engineering Design Standards requirements for Land use submittals Section 1.3: - A conceptual drainage report that meets all requirements - Show proposed sidewalk alignment (not in the deferred zone) no C&G - Final landscape plan - A utility plan showing service line connections and abandonments (Letters of service from the utility providers) Page: 2 Author: pjm File Name: A10 Engr Report and Hist Topo.pdf FIL is applicable if this property can be tied to new manhole location associated with 404 Park Ave project. FIL cannot be used if condition increases a drainage issue at the drywell location or impacts a neighboring property. Page: 1 Author: pjm File Name: A11 Survey.pdf Call out error of closure and that survey was performed in accordance with Title 38, Article 51, C.R.S 1973 as amended from time to time. A11 Survey.pdf (4) Page: 1 Author: pjm File Name: A11 Survey.pdf Show existing utility services Page: 1 Author: pjm File Name: A11 Survey.pdf Include survey notes 1-7? ng enue Development The following are required per Engineering Design Standards requirements for Land use submittals Section 1.3: - A conceptual drainage report that meets all requirements - Show proposed sidewalk alignment (not in the deferred zone) no C&G - Final landscape plan - A utility plan showing service line connections and abandonments (Letters of service from the utility providers) d on the conceptual architectural drawings provided to WCE, the requirements of the URMP be met with onsite treatment of the water quality capture volume (“WQCV”) and either onsite ntion or fee-in-lieu of detention. C100 depicts the use of a drywell system to retain the entire ssuming the site is 100 percent impervious. Other options may be viable, including the use e-in-lieu of detention. We request the Engineering Department determine whether fee-in- of detention is acceptable at this location. The architectural drawings depict that a portion of oof will be covered by a green roof. This will significantly reduce the size of the drywell m if incorporated. development runoff rates were not calculated for this project because the project proposes to ze a drywell retention system. Post-development 100-year flowrates will be zero cfs. erely, Rice, P.E. dy Creek Engineering, LLC FIL is applicable if this property can be tied to new manhole location associated with 404 Park Ave project. FIL cannot be used if condition increases a drainage issue at the drywell location or impacts a neighboring property. Call out error of closure and that survey was performed in accordance with Title 38, Article 51, C.R.S 1973 as amended from time to time. Show existing utility services Include survey notes 1-7? P317 VI.A. Page: 1 Author: pjm File Name: A11 Survey.pdf Tie to survey. Page: 1 Author: pjm File Name: A12 Interp Topo Study.pdf Tie to survey. A12 Interp Topo Study.pdf (2) Page: 1 Author: pjm File Name: A12 Interp Topo Study.pdf Needs stamp, signature, date and error of closure. Page: 1 Author: pjm File Name: A8 TIA 2-13-18.pdf Show that there is a need for this in this neighborhood. Discuss with Lynn from Transportation. A8 TIA 2-13-18.pdf (3) Page: 6 Author: pjm File Name: A8 TIA 2-13-18.pdf Meets standards size for bike parking Tie to survey. City of As en· tlPS PNT •. · Elev.=7925. N B5'25' A E1L4 1355, . Rim= 7954.24' · Inv. ·1n= 7946.96 · Ll·lnv.Out:"'794� . . ss /I : . . . z "' S 89"46'0" E 215.00' S 89'46'0" E 157.88' Hills ,r 78 I Tie to survey. CO & VICINITY MAP BUGAS & MERRICK ENGs. ELEVA TlON ADJUSTED 5.0' FEET HIGHER lliAN lliE CONTOURS SHOWN ON lliE 1958 FALCON MAP TO CONFORM Willi NA 1-D BB BEARINGS ARE BASED UPON FOUND N0.5 REBAR Willi A 1 1/4' 'r'Ell.OW PLASTlC CAP l.S. NO. 9018 ON lliE NORlliERL Y LINE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AND A FOUND NO. 5 REBAR 1 1/4• 'r'Ell.OW PLASTlC CAP STAMPED TR/CO AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAIDASPEN HILLS CONDO BK 4, PG� USING A BEARING OF S 21'39'50' E BETWEEN THE 7ffl:IDESCRIBED MONUMENTS. THIS SURVEY DOES NOT REPRESENT A Tlll.E SEARCH BY THIS SURVEYOR TO DETERMINE OWNERSHIP OR TO DISCOVER EASEMENTS OR OlliER ENCUMBRANCES OF RECORD. All INFORMA TlON PERTAINING TO OWNERSHIP, EASEMENTS OR OTHER ENCUMBRANCES OF RECORD PER FIRST AMERICAN 71Tl£ INSURANCE COMPANY COMMITMENT DA TED JULY 14, 2016 FILE NO. 16003559 Surveyor's Certificate: I, JEFFREY ALLEN 71/mE. being a Registered land Surveyor In the state of Colorado, do hereby certify that this map of historical conditions was prepared by me and under my supervision from a survey made by me and under my supervision on Januuary 22, 2018 and that both the survey and map are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. JEFFREY ALLEN 71/TTLE, l.S.33638 DATE 160 Midland Colorado. 81611 Oratvn by: DMC Oate:01/22/2018 Z: \2018\ASPENHILLS CONDO\ 160MIDLANO.OWG TOPOSTVOY.OWG 1 Needs stamp, signature, date and error of closure. 4. Explain the Enforcement and Financing Plan for the selected measure. 5. Explain the scheduling and implementation responsibility of the mitigation measure.6. Attach any additional information and a site map to the narrative report. Project Description In the space below provide a description of the proposed project. Redevelopment of an existing 8-unit free-market residential property with a combination of 11 free-market units and 12 affordable units. Net gain is 15 units. MMLOS Explain what driveways are removed and how this benefits the pedestrian experience. The entire frontage is currently an unregulated curb-cut with tandem, head-in parking. The proposed plan isolates vehicle access to one driveway and eliminates backing into the right-of-way. Explain any additional minor bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff. The applicant is interested in exploring a WeCycle station and/or Car-to-Go facility in the immediate area as a way to reduce the cash-in-lieu of parking costs. Include any additional information that pertains to the MMLOS plan in the space provided below. Show that there is a need for this in this neighborhood. Discuss with Lynn from Transportation. Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 22 Is a new bicycle path being implemented with City approved design?No 0 23 Do new bike paths allow access without crossing a street or driveway?NA 0 24 Is there proposed landscaping, striping, or signage improvements to an existing bicycle path?NA 0 25 Does the project propose additional minor bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?Yes 5 26 Does the project propose additional major bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0 5 Bicycle Parking27 Is the project providing bicycle parking?Yes 5 5 10 Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 28 Is seating/bench proposed?No 0 29 Is a trash receptacle proposed?No 0 30 Is transit system information (signage) proposed?No 0 31 Is shelter/shade proposed?No 0 32 Is enhanced pedestrian-scale lighting proposed?No 0 33 Is real-time transit information proposed?No 0Basic AmenitiesSubtotal Subtotal Bicycles Total*Modifications to Existing Bicycle PathsMeets standards size for bike parking P318 VI.A. Page: 7 Author: pjm File Name: A8 TIA 2-13-18.pdf Not applicable to residential properties. Is a workplace parking pricing strategy implemented?No What is the daily parking charge? What percentage of employees are subject to priced parking? Is a compressed work weeks strategy implemented?No What percentage of employees are participating? What is the workweek schedule? Is an employer sponsered shuttle program implemented?No What is the employer size? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a carpool matching strategy implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligble? Is carshare participation being implemented?Yes How many employee memberships have been purchased?<100 What percentage of employees are eligble?100% Is participation in the bikeshare program WE-cycle being implemented?Yes How many memberships have been purchased?<100 What percentage of employees/guests are eligble?100% Is an end of trip facilities strategy being implemented?Yes What is the degree of implementation? High What is the employer size? Small Is a self-funded emergency ride home strategy being implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a carpool/vanpool priority parking strategy being implemented?No What is the employer size? What number of parking spots are available for the program? Is a private employer shuttle strategy being implemented?No What is the employer size? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a trip reduction marketing/incentive program implemented?Yes What percentage of employees/guests are eligible?100%21 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 Workplace Parking Pricing Compressed Work Weeks Employer Sponsored Vanpool Carpool Matching Carshare Program Self-funded Emergency Ride Home Carpool/Vanpool Priority Parking Private Employer Shuttle Trip Reduction Marketing/Incentive Program End of Trip Facilities Cross Category Maximum Reduction, Neighborhood and Transit Global Maximum VMT Reductions Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category Bikeshare Program Not applicable to residential properties. P319 VI.A. file:///G|/..._CITY/PLANNING/Land%20Use%20Cases/Current/Garrett/Aspen%20Hills%20II/DRC/RE%20Aspen%20Hills%20TIA%20.htm[8/1/2018 4:59:10 PM] From: Lynn Rumbaugh Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 1:11 PM To: Garrett Larimer Subject: RE: Aspen Hills TIA Hi Garrett: See below for a bunch of comments. Please feel free to call me and we can talk through. I admit to not being super clear regarding what is allowed/not allowed related to cash-in-lieu. I see that the applicant wants to pursue an in-lieu of fee for its parking on the order of $400k and wants to offset that amount via bike or carshare investments. See some comments below: CASH IN LIEU CAR TO GO We currently have car to go vehicles in the vicinity and are not planning to add new cars to the area. WE-cycle WE-cycle also offers nearby stations, so I’m not sure if adding a station does much in this area. Perhaps support for the nearby station(s) would be an option. ADDITIONAL OPTIONS Items in our short-term plan that could be an option for participation include: 1. A transit service increase on this route (Hunter Creek) is in our transit plan. Participation in this increase, which will require a new vehicle, could be an option. 2. We also have bus stop improvements in our 10-year plan, although none are directly adjacent to the site. We would be interested in applying any cash-in-lieu to those improvements if that were an option. TIA 1. WE-cycle is now free, so the membership is not required. We have an update to the TIA forthcoming at which time we can correct this item. 2. I also wouldn’t count these units as having end-of-trip facilities. This measure is meant for a work place (ie: you can use a locker at your office to store your bike). 3. I do think the CAR TO GO and educational components meet the intent of the TIA and are good options for this site. Call me with any questions. Thanks! From: Garrett Larimer Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 11:44 AM To: Lynn Rumbaugh <lynn.rumbaugh@cityofaspen.com> P320 VI.A. 1 Garrett Larimer From:Liz Chapman Sent:Thursday, September 6, 2018 4:44 PM To:Garrett Larimer Cc:Garrett Larimer Subject:RE: Aspen Hills DRC trash room/enclosure design approval Hello Garrett, I think a meeting would help resolve the outstanding concerns I have, so I am sending these comments to facilitate our conversation. Aspen Hills Condos – Space Allotment for Trash and Recycling Storage (comments) Liz Chapman – Environmental Health and Sustainability 1- The dimensions required for this multi-family building is 139.5 square feet (with 10’ height clearance) for trash and recycling storage (Municipal Code 12.10.050 A. b.). a.The most recent drawings on page 3.1 show two separate areas. One is 100 SF, the other is 56 SF and the two are connected by a ‘hallway’ of 60 SF. This is not the standard configuration and requires Special Review by the Environmental Health department to be approved. b.One area (100 SF) appears to be open to the covered parking, although it is labeled as “trash enclosure”. What constitutes the “enclosure”? c.There is s note indicating there will be a rollup door to access the trash area (100 SF) in the covered parking. What will it be attached to? 2- The applicant indicated they were interested in having two areas for trash and recycling to serve the free market and APCHA housing residents separately. a.The areas need to be labeled on the drawings to indicate what purpose they are serving. b.It is unclear how the connecting “hallway” will serve as waste storage. c.If the area which is marked as 116 SF is to serve the APCHA units and the “hallway” is intended to store waste, then it needs to be impervious to wildlife to allow for compost collection. 3- The letter from one of the potential haulers indicates they are willing to service dumpsters located in an area 12’ x 8’ but does not address servicing dumpsters located in the shared garage area. The letter does not address the issues with accessing dumpsters and totes located within a garage or within a narrow 3’ 4” “hallway” shown on the plans. a.There is only a letter from one hauling company. Waste hauling companies frequently go out of business, so it would more meaningful to get feedback from more than one company who services dumpsters in Aspen. 4 – It is concerning to have the dumpsters moving past vehicles within a garage for service. This sets up a scenario for damage and injury. a.What is the height clearance of the garage? b.Is there a door on the shared garage which would prevent wildlife from accessing the trash area? c.What is the slope of the garage and the covered parking from the trash area to the exit? Thank you, Exhibit K DRC Round 2 Comments P321 VI.A. 1 Aspen Hills DRC 8/27/18 Revised Proposal Zoning Comments Entitlement Process Items: Survey: • A survey establishing historic ‘Natural Grade’, or interpolated grade is necessary. o Because the Land Use Code require that both height and subgrade calculations be derived utilizing either ‘natural’ or finished graded, whichever is lower. The plans provided reference ‘existing’ grade; which may not equate to the ‘natural’ grade. o In instances where the natural grade of a property has been affected by prior development activity the Community Development Director may accept an estimation of pre-development topography prepared by a registered land surveyor or civil engineer. [26.575.020(F)(3)(b), Grade] • Surveyor must stamp, sign and date the survey. • Non-conforming development encroaches into the South and East setbacks and beyond property line. The survey provided [Tuttle Survey dated September 30, 2016] illustrates structures the existing building, and ancillary improvements, in the setback on the east end of the building. A portion of the roof over-hang is over the property line on the east side. The south side stairs and a walkway likewise extend over the property line. • If the existing setback nonconformities and encroachment into neighboring properties are to be continued, an easement should be secured from the adjacent property owners or pursue a land use application for lot line adjustment. Floor Area: Sheet 1.3 Existing Floor Area Calculations. • The floor area exemption for interior stairs does not appear to have been applied. Please add to sheet 1.3; this will reduce the floor area for each unit. • The loft storage is not considered floor area, please remove the 48 square feet of floor area allocated to each unit. • Please reference 26.575.020(D)(4), Decks, balconies, loggias, …exterior stairways. Please reference the land use code section pertaining to ‘deck’ and features included in the ‘deck’ calculations. For example, all exterior stairs need to be included in the deck calculations. • Subgrade calculations: The existing subgrade exposure will be verified at the time of building permit application. It is important that the presented subgrade exposure aligns with existing site conditions. • The existing wall area and exposed wall numbers are not consistent with Sheet 1.3 Please update with information based on existing conditions. • Sheet 1.5 Proposed Floor Area Calculations. o Accurate numbers will be required with the building permit application, as they will ultimately affect the impact fees for this project. Also, accurate floor area numbers are P322 VI.A. 2 necessary for the existing structure to know how much floor area remains available for the new proposed development. • Subgrade Floor Area Calculations – Sheet 1.5 o The subgrade calculations are to be calculated as one building and a higher level of detail is required o The land use code specifically requires that the subgrade floor area be calculated based on the area of subgrade walls which are exposed above natural or finished grade, whichever is lower. [The Land Use Code (section 26.575.020(D)(8) Sub-grade Areas. The percentage of the gross area of a partially sub-grade level to be counted as Floor Area shall be the surface area of the exterior walls exposed above natural or finished grade, whichever is lower, divided by the total exterior wall area of that level. Sub-grade stories with no exposed exterior surface wall area shall be excluded from floor area calculations.] o Please provide finished and natural grade lines (labeled and with unique line weights) based on a stamped and signed survey. (the natural grade will be derived from the required Historic Grade survey). o Please include reference grid lines. o Please outline all existing window wells with dashed lines as was done for the South Elevation on Sheet 4.1. o Window well exposure is not accounted for where the proposed new building wall is adjacent to the north wall of the existing building. o Please provide additional detail for the window well system between the existing building and the proposed new structure. o Please provide a legend for shading and/or patterns on all plan sheets. • Please show in the Floor Area Table on Sheet 1.5 how the deck calculations were derived. • Please provide calculations for the Garage and Carports in the Floor Area Table on Sheet 1.5. [per 26.575.020.(D).7] • Sheets 1.5 – 1.7: please provide a higher level of detail for the interior of the units. For example, interior stairs, location of mechanical, storage, etc., as well as, legends and gridlines. Setbacks and height: • No indication has been provided on the elevations, or roof plans as to how the proposed roof decks are to be accessed and whether there will be stair enclosures. If so, how tall, and where are they to be located? • Elevator and stair enclosures may extend up to 5 feet above the specified maximum height limit. If these features extend more than 5 feet above, and no more than 10 feet above the height limit, then they will need to be setback a minimum of 20 feet from any street-facing façade. 26.575.020(F)(4)(c), Elevator and Stair Enclosure, see application sheet 4.1 c) “Elevator and Stair Enclosures. On structures other than a single-family or duplex residential building or an accessory building, elevator overrun enclosures and stair enclosures may extend up to five (5) feet above the specified maximum height limit. P323 VI.A. 3 Elevator and stair enclosures may extend up to ten (10) feet above the specified maximum height limit if set back from any Street facing façade of the building a minimum of twenty (20) feet and the footprint of the elevators or stair enclosures are minimized and combined to the greatest extent practicable. For single-family and duplex residential buildings and for accessory buildings, elevator and stair enclosures are not allowed a height exception.” Site Plan: • 26.312.030(F)(2), Purposeful Destruction. If the project is granted approval through Special Review to maintain structure in the setback and over the property line; then the non-conformity may remain. • 26.575.020(E)(5) Allowed Exception to Setback. • Regarding allowed exceptions to minimum setback requirements: o Please provide a site plan and accompanying setback table demonstrating that all proposed improvements in the setbacks meet the allowed exception to setback. o Please identify on the site plan any anticipated ancillary improvements within the setbacks, such as retaining walls and mechanical equipment. o All retaining walls encroaching into the minimum required setbacks may not exceed 30” above, or 30” below grade. The height is measured from the lower of natural or finished grade. o Retainage related to the existing berm should be addressed as part of the land use entitlement process. Roof Plan: • Please provide a proposed roof plan which illustrates the mechanical, venting penetrations, solar and all other ancillary improvements proposed to be located on the roof. • Height Calculations: • 26.575.020(F)Measuring Building Height. Please provide roof over topography with roof points and a corresponding table. Height measurements are taken from the lower of ‘Natural Grade’ or ‘Finished Grade’. The topography lines shall be derived from a stamped and signed survey and illustrated accordingly. Garage / Carport: • Unless otherwise approved through the entitlement process, all parking spaces will be required to meet the minimum dimensions (18’ L x 8.5’ W x 7’ H) and quantity requirements of the land use code. Building Permit Application Items: Demolition Sheet: • Demolition calculations provided require additional detail. Please include windows and doors on all facades. The window wells depicted on Sheet 1.3 do not appear to match the window openings used to calculate sub-grade exemption on Sheet 1.5. Please update the demolition calculations accordingly. P324 VI.A. 4 Net Livable: • Sheets 1.10 – 1.13: Please provide a table for the totals of net livable existing and proposed. • The lower level of Unit 1 does not appear to be included in the Net Livable calculations. Setbacks and Height / Roof Plan: • Please provide railing details in compliance with the land use code [26.575.020.(F).4.], as well as, all other proposed roof top amenities. Permanent roof top amenities, such as hot tubs, fire pits & grills connected to a gas line, etc. are not allowed an exception to height. Height Calculations: • On the Elevation plan sheets provided (Sheet 4.1 and 4.2); Please provide drop down lines to the most restrictive grade. Clearly label both natural and finished grade lines. Please use different line weights for the grades. Please also include this information in the building heights table. • Please provide height measurements within 15 feet of the building’s perimeter as set forth in the land use code. See Section 26.575.020.(F)(3)(b), Measuring Building Heights. Garage / Carport: • Please provide exemption calculations for the proposed Garage and Carport, per 26.575.020.(D).7. P325 VI.A. DRC 8-22-18-Aspen Hills Condos 331-338 Midland Ave. Created on 8/16/2018 2:40:00 PM Page 1 of 2 MEMO Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District 565 North Mill St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 970-925-3601 Fax: 970-925-2537 Date: 8/16/18 To: Garrett Larimer Cc: From: Hamilton Tharp RE: DRC: Aspen Hills Condominium, ACSD Comments Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundat ion, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. Interior condominium parking areas served by floor drains connected to the sanitary sewer must have a sand & oil separator. Soil nails are not allowed in the ROW or easements without prior review and acceptance by the District. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements will be requ ired where more than one unit is served by a single service line. An on-site wastewater collection system serving all buildings, with a single connection to the ACSD system is acceptable. Existing service lines or laterals connected to the District’s main line, serving the subject property and adjacent properties, must be identified, located and isolated from soil stabilization processes or other potential damage, or properly disconnected from the ACSD main line at the point of connection according to specific ACSD requirements. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. P326 VI.A. DRC 8-22-18-Aspen Hills Condos 331-338 Midland Ave. Created on 8/16/2018 2:40:00 PM Page 2 of 2 All AC SD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an Impact fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Glycol heating and snow melt systems must be designed to prohibit the discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed building and utility plans are available. HT P327 VI.A. \. . . L2 City of As en· tlPS PNT •. · Elev.=7925. N B5'25' A E1L4 1355, . Rim= 7954.24' · Inv. ·1n= 7946.96 · Ll·lnv.Out:"'794� . . ss /I : . . . z "' • S 89"46'0" E 215.00' S 89'46'0" E 157.88' Aspen HillsCOndomlnium A portion of Mascotte Lode Claim per Rec. No. 120355 \ \ Bushes ...J ---l ...J tO tO tO t-, O') O') " (}\ � di CQS"lll t..:> -'> 10' 10' 58.4' -·(GCE) I I I -----------------I r---------- 1.---=-i 4.5' Eave i.----,Bri , Chimney ·. (GCE) ,r 78. I I I I I ·.,.. i ·,. '• . . • ... l . . · ... 1 • ·-• . ·1 'r" .. ·r ; o. : ·.- ·l . ·,e ·. � , ·trco.--t,,1·. ·. 'a·-. . ID. ',+ .• ·.:-.. -.lo· ·r. �.• I (\t, . .... -<. Unlt A-2 -.. � -\',."· m. .. · · , .· �-4.0' Eave I --­. ,; ... -._ . I ' . .... __ � ·:··· • ;-I .• ·• I I I I I I -------t Unlt A-1 \ \ Balcony (GCE) 1:-, ..... · ... i�t £14 92.' nlt A-4 Unlt A-6 Utility \ ' Unlt A-B \ . (GCE) Aspen Hnle j ,1,1 £ / fjeondomlnlume4•x� • -------i;-\;.fir'���;;;;;;;a;&(8 Units) _______ rit -----• &>•ted �� ----( )'Plea! 15,159.5 Sq Ft \ 1 :..�� 0.348 Ac. ·�·• Unlt A-7 � .•• Unlt A-3 (o.,,,:-60, .-..q,ro"';,:- '\ Unlt A-5 >9_,.�'l- � 92-* 4.5' Eave o.1· --------------------------------------£--8------------- -- • Lowe Level Hate I I I \ \ or I \ I \ I \ I \ I I I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I City of Aspen GPS PNT. #1 Elev.=7945.54' _________ :__] 2.0• wld Pon ----------------------------------------GRAPHIC SCALE I Tract BK 212, PG 322Aspen Hill Annexation -- ""� Rec. f/'""1e,,t Lode 99 7o• eq N s • ..,_<'1;,-7o� • .,., 'f9'tJ• "' ,16 < ,._. � J o.o<, w"'7.oa, Found #5 Rebar with ----- I Parcel Detail SCALE: 1" • 500' 1 1/4" Yellow Plastlc Cap stomped Cor #3 of TRICO & P.O.B. of Tract 99 Lode I Note: This topography map compiles with National Map Accuracy standards for topographic maps. Where checked 90% of points should be within 1/2 the contour interval and well defined points should be plotted within 1/50' of their true position. Cr!t!cal design should be based upon spot elevations, please contact Tuttle Surveying Services for this spot elevation in formation. 10 0 • 10 20 � I I I { DI FEET ) 1 iDoh -10 fL Contour Elevation = 2.0' LE:�l;Jll:l IT]= Electric Meter 4 Im = Electric Meter g 1ml = Telephone Box e [ID = Electric Box R el><I = Irrigation Valve �= Irrigation Control Box • llaMl = Gas Meter 0 g = Cleanout e:B <o.= Utility Pole = Wooden gate = Guy Wire 131 = Mailbox �= Reciprocal N 89'46'0" W 121.27' bk 212, pg 322 S 89'46'0" E 255.59' N 89'46'0" W 215.00' Notice: .Accort:ling lo Colorado Jaw, vou must commenceanv hlgrd action tJased upon any defect in thlS survey �'In Hlrse years a.,Yer you ftrsl discover such defect. fn no event may an1,1 leglU action tJassd upon any defect in th.:s- S'U?'T.lllf/ be co7n'HIDnCerf 17JDrtJ than ten years from Hu, date of U,,e cerlificah'on shown "8re,m. 7'177'7'.£..li' Sl7.HY..li'Y/JVC S..li'RY/C..li'S 72 7 Blake A venue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 {970) 928-9708 {FAX 947-9007) Smail-.i'e//Ofas-ua. corn Historic Topographical Study .. I RECEP11ON NO. 136131 AND AS DEFINED AND DESCRIBED IN 11lE CONDOMINIUM DECLARA11ON FOR ASPEN 1flUS,, A CONDOMINIUM, RECORDED JULY� 1969 IN BOOK 241 AT PAGE 877 AS RECEP11ON NO. 136011 AND FIRST AMENDMENI' 11lERETO RECORDED SEPTEMBER 5, 1969 IN BOOK 243 AT PAGE 83 AS RECEP11ON NO. 136864, PlTKIN COUNTY, COLORADO; 0 3"9l R=10' 0 3•111 R=10' (General Common Element) Line Table LINE BEARING LENGTH GCEL1 S 89'43'1 o• E 11.92' GCEL2 N 4'54'42" W 2.54' GCEL3 N 85'44'33" E 36.00' GCEL4 S 4'54'55" E 10.10' GCEL5 N 85'44 33 E 107.74 LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LENGTH L1 N 6'23'0" W 66.46' L2 N 69"43'10" W 11.92' L3 S 4'54'42" E 65.47' L4 S 85"44'33" W 10.17' L5 N 6'23'0" W 44.02' L6 S 89'46'0" E 37.67' L7 S 4·54•42• E 19.30' LB S 85"44'33" W 20.87' L9 S 4i5'27• E 3.42' L10 s as·44•33• w 7.77' L11 N 4i5'27" W 3.42' L12 S 85'44'33" W 38.63' L13 S 415'27" E 3.42' L14 S 85'44'33" W 7.77' L15 N 415'27" W 3.42' L16 S 4"15'2r E 48.65' L17 N 85"44'33" E 14.0J' L18 S 415'27" E 22.87' L19 S 85'44'33" W 14.03' L20 S 415'27" E 18.10' L21 N 85'44'33" E 2.14' L22 S 415'27" E 6.58' L23 S 85"44'33" W 2.14' L24 S 415'27" E 1.84' CURVE TABLE THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS FIRST AMERICAN Tlll.E INSURANCE COMPANY COMMITMENT DA TED JULY 14, 2016 IS LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, STA TE OF COLORADO, AND IS MORE PARTlCULARL Y DESCRIBED AS FOll.OWS: lliE LAND REFERRED TO IN lli/S COMMITMENT IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: CONDOMINIUM UNITS A-1, A-2, A-J, A-4, A-� A-6, A-7 AND A-� ASPEN HILLS, A CONDOMINIUM, ACCORDING TO lliE MAP lliEREOFRECORDED JULY 1� 1969 IN PLAT BOOK 4 AT PAGE B AS RECEPTlON NO. 136131 AND AS DEFINED ANDDESCRIBED IN THE CONDOMINIUM DECLARA TlON FOR ASPEN HILLS, A CONDOMINIUM, RECORDED JULY 2,1969 IN BOOK 241 AT PAGE 877 AS RECEPTlON NO. 136011 AND FIRST AMENDMENT THERETO RECORDEDSEPTEMBER � 1969 IN BOOK 243 AT PAGE 83 AS RECEPTlON NO. 136864, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO;EXCEPT lliA T PORTlON OF lliE COMMON AREA CONVE'r'ED TO lliE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFlliE PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUlliORITY BY AGREEMENT DA TED JULY 10, 197� AND RECORDED JULY 12,197� IN BOOK 351 AT PAGE 229, AS RECEPTlON NO. 205645. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO.HIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTlONS PER SAID 71Tl£ COMMITMENT NO. 160035598.ALL MINERAL RIGHTS UNDERLYING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. (Nothing to show)9.THE PREMISES HEREBY GRANTED, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SURFACT, MAY BE ENTERED BY THEPROPRIETOR OF ANY OTHER VEIN, LODE OR LEDGE, THE TOP OR APEX OF WHICH LIES OUTSIDE OF THEBOUNDARY OF SAID GRANTED PREMISES, SHOULD THE SAME IN ITS DIP BE FOUND TO PENETRATE ORINTERSECT OR EXTENT INTO SAID PREMISES FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXTRACTING AND REMOVING THE OREFROM SUCH OTHER VEIN, LODE OR LEDGE; AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BYTHE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT, RECORDED JUNE 28,1892, IN BOOK 39 AT PAGE 78, AS RECEPTION NO. 047B92, AND IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT,RECORDED MAY 20, 1949, IN BOOK 175 AT PAGE 170, AS RECEPTION NO. 096346. (Nothing to show)10.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, AGREEMENTS AND OBLIGATIONS AND RIGHTS OF INGRESS ANDEGRESS, SPECIFIED UNDER THE WARRANTY DEED, DATED JANUARY 21, 1965, AND RECORDED APRIL 12, 1965, IN BOOK 212 AT PAGE 322, AS RECEPTION NO. 120355. (Tract of land as shown hereon in Parcel Detail) 11.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, AGREEMENTS AND OBLIGATIONS SPECIFIED UNDER THE CONDOMINIUMDECLARATION FOR ASPEN HILLS (A CONDOMINIUM) DATED JULY 2, 1969, AND RECORDED JULY 2, 1969, IN BOOK 241 AT PAGE 877, AS RECEPTION NO. 136011, AND FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION FOR ASPEN HILLS (A CONDOMINIUM) DATED SEPTEMBER 2, 1969, AND RECORDED SEPTEMBER 5, 1969, IN BOOK 243 AT PAGE 83, AS RECEPTION NO. 136864. (As shown hereon) 12.ANY AND ALL NOTES, EASEMENTS AND RECITALS AS DISCLOSED ON THE RECORDED CONDOMINIUM MAPOF ASPEN HLILS PLAT, RECORDED JULY 15, 1969, IN PLAT BOOK 4 AT PAGE 8, AS RECEPTION NO. 136131. (As shown hereon.) 13.ANY AND ALL NOTES, EASEMENTS AND RECITALS AS DISCLOSED ON THE RECORDED ASPEN HILLSANNEXATION PLAT, RECORDED JUNE 14, 1971, IN PLAT BOOK 4 AT PAGE 200, AS RECEPTION NO.146061.(Tract of land as shown hereon in Parcel Detail)14.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, AGREEMENTS AND OBLIGATIONS SPECIFIED UNDER THE AGREEMENT,DATED JULY 10, 1978, AND RECORDED JULY 12, 1978, IN BOOK 351 AT PAGE 229, AS RECEPTION NO. 205645. (Nothing to show) 15.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, AGREEMENTS AND OBLIGATIONS SPECIFIED UNDER THE DECREEQUIETING TITLE, DATED DECEMBER 5, 1983, AND RECORDED DECEMBER 27, 1983, IN BOOK 457 AT PAGE 888, AS RECEPTION NO. 255947. NOTE: THIS EXCEPTION AFFECTS UNIT: A-2 ONLY. (Nothing to show) 16.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, AGREEMENTS AND OBLIGATIONS SPECIFIED UNDER THE GRANT OFEASEMENT, DATED APRIL 1, 2006, AND RECORDED MAY 22, 2006, AS RECEPTION NO. 524387. (Nothing to show) 17.ANY EXISTING LEASES OR TENANCIES, AND ANY AND ALL PARTIES CLAIMING BY, THROUGH OR UNDERSAID LESSEES. (Nothing to show) 1 LEGEND AND NOTES: El IND/CA TES SET N0.5 REBAR Willi A 1 1/4' RED PLASTlC CAP l.S. NO. 33638 •INDICATES FOUND N0.5 REBAR Willi A 1 1/4• 'r'ELLOW PLASTlC CAP LS. NO. 9018 DA TE OF SURVEY: NOVEMBER 09, 2014.UNIT OF MEASUREMENT.· US SURVEY FOOTlli/S PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN ZONE X (AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE 500 'r'EARFLOODPLAIN} PER FEMA MAP PANEL NO. 08097C0203C DATED JUNE 04, 1987 TAKENFROM THE FEMA MAP SERVICE CENTER AND THE CITY OF ASPEN ENGINEERINGDEPARTMENT WEBSITE. THIS PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN A MUDFLOW HAZARDACCORDING TO THE CITY OF ASPEN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ASPEN MOUNTAINMUDFLOW HAZARD MAP. lliE PROPERTY HAS DIRECT ACCESS TO EAST HOPKINS A VENUEA OED/CA TED PUBLIC STREET, AND lliERE IS NO RECORDING INFORMA TlON FOR A OED/CA TED ALLEY ACCESS WAY PER _____ _ £Z.EVA TlONS REFERANCED FROM FALCON MAPS DENVER CO. TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASPEN, CO & VICINITY MAP BUGAS & MERRICK ENGs. ELEVA TlON ADJUSTED 5.0' FEET HIGHER lliAN lliE CONTOURS SHOWN ON lliE 1958 FALCON MAP TO CONFORM Willi NA 1-D BB BEARINGS ARE BASED UPON FOUND N0.5 REBAR Willi A 1 1/4' 'r'Ell.OW PLASTlC CAP l.S. NO. 9018 ON lliE NORlliERL Y LINE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AND A FOUND NO. 5 REBAR 1 1/4• 'r'Ell.OW PLASTlC CAP STAMPED TR/CO AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAIDASPEN HILLS CONDO BK 4, PG� USING A BEARING OF S 21'39'50' E BETWEEN THE 7ffl:IDESCRIBED MONUMENTS. THIS SURVEY DOES NOT REPRESENT A Tlll.E SEARCH BY THIS SURVEYOR TO DETERMINE OWNERSHIP OR TO DISCOVER EASEMENTS OR OlliER ENCUMBRANCES OF RECORD. All INFORMA TlON PERTAINING TO OWNERSHIP, EASEMENTS OR OTHER ENCUMBRANCES OF RECORD PER FIRST AMERICAN 71Tl£ INSURANCE COMPANY COMMITMENT DA TED JULY 14, 2016 FILE NO. 16003559 Surveyor's Certificate: I, JEFFREY ALLEN 71/mE. being a Registered land Surveyor In the state of Colorado, do hereby certify that this map of historical conditions was prepared by me and under my supervision from a survey made by me and under my supervision on Januuary 22, 2018 and that both the survey and map are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. JEFFREY ALLEN 71/TTLE, l.S.33638 DATE CURVE I LENGTH I RADIUS I CHORD I BEARING c, I 37.36' I 22.50' I 33.22· I s 42·39'39• w 160 Midland Aspen Colorado. 81611 Oratvn by: DMC Oate:01/22/2018 Z: \2018\ASPENHILLS CONDO\ 160MIDLANO.OWG TOPOSTVOY.OWG 1 Exhibit L HistonC 7'opographtCal dy CONDOMINIUM UNJTS A-1, A-� A-3, A-4, A-5; A-� A-7 AND A� ASPEN 1{11.18, A CONDOMINIUM, ACCORDING ro 11lE MAP 11/EREOF RECORDED JULY 15, 1969 IN PLAT BOOK 4 AT PAGE 8 AS P328VI.A. 1 Garrett Larimer From:Alain Sunier <alain.sunier@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, November 28, 2018 9:52 AM To:Garrett Larimer Subject:Aspen Hills Condominiums Hi Garrett:    I am writing to you and the planning and zoning commission ahead of a scheduled public hearing on Dec 4 during which  the Aspen Hills Condominium project at 331‐338 Midland Ave is to be discussed.  I look forward to learning more about  the project, but unfortunately we will be out of town early next week so we will not be able to attend.  My wife, Meg,  and I have recently become full time Aspen residents at 315 Midland Avenue.  We are encouraged to see thoughtful  development in the neighborhood and we are very much in support of the goal of fostering affordable housing for local  residents.  We do have concerns about the parking plan for this project, however, if accommodation is not made for  additional on‐site parking.  Media reports indicate that possibly no new on‐site parking would be provided despite the  addition of four new units.  I hope I am mistaken.  The area is already likely to see a significant increase in street parking  when the nearby project at 404 Park Circle is completed.  That project is short 15 (!) parking spots from normal city  requirements, if media reports are correct.  A further deficit for the Aspen Hills project would make a potentially bad  situation even worse.  Street parking is already typically fully occupied, especially during the busy season (it is  increasingly common for this neighborhood's street parking to be used by non‐residents seeking to avoid limited paid  parking in town).  Respectfully, please give special consideration to an adequate parking plan in your evaluation of this  project.    Thank you,  Alain Sunier  P329 VI.A. 1 Garrett Larimer From:Barney Oldfield <bfoldfield@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 11:55 AM To:Garrett Larimer Subject:Aspen Hills Condominiums Re: The City of Aspen's Planning and Zoning Commission    Hello Garrett Larimer,    Per our phone conversation this 11/26/18 morning, I wanted to express neighboring Aspen View Condominiums' owners  disappointment with the massive Aspen Hills Condominiums (AHC) planned development expansion.  I will be unable to  personally attend the 12/04/18, 4:30 PM special review, and request that you to add the following for the "Decision  Making Body:"    I have owned Aspen View Condominiums (AVC) units #206 and #306 for decades.  The approximate forty foot distance  between AVC and the Aspen Hills Condominiums (AHC) complex, with the surrounding close proximity of the Midland  Park Place complex, currently engulfs the north and east sides of AVC.      Any additional developed AHC height will further reduce AVC's limited northern facing daily indirect sunlight, causing  complete daylight isolation of the AVC's lengthy one‐lane driveway and parking area, allowing winter ice accumulation  to become an even more dangerous situation.  Any skyward views from the north facing AVC condominiums and rights  to unit privacy would be eliminated as well.  The proposed upper AHC level of proposed development will allow AHC  occupants to maintain direct views into AVC units' north facing slider and bedroom window units.    The pending disastrous AHC effect of further increased residential population with pets,  will undoubtedly allow existing  parking problems to become even more complicated after the massive (401‐?) Park Avenue development is approved  for development.  Aspen's labeled "east end ghetto" will become even more fitting, as the finite amount of unrealistic  overgrowth is continuously over maximized.    The AVC owned units' real estate investment losses is also of concern.  There are other city areas that could be  accommodated for additional residential development, and to allow Aspen's east side to mainly bear the brunt of even  more subsidized housing, will be sadly regrettable when the full undesirable impact results with over populating our east  Aspen area neighborhood.    Thank you for considering my and other's neighbor's objections to AHC's overly excessive development plans,    Barney Oldfield    P330 VI.A. 3 From: Barbara Lee <barbaracolelee@gmail.com>   Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 3:56 PM  To: chris@bendonadams.com; Garrett Larimer <garrett.larimer@cityofaspen.com>  Cc: Jon <jonleeaspen@gmail.com>; Adam Frisch <adam.frisch@cityofaspen.com>; Meg <meg.sunier@gmail.com>;  Mitch Osur <mitch.osur@cityofaspen.com>  Subject: Midland Avenue Parking Problem     Hi Chris.  Hi Garrett,       My name is Barbara Lee. We live at 327 Midland Avenue for about 6 months a year.(Chris, Sheri did our landscape  planning when the house was built by Paul Nicoletti.  We have met before.)  This is our home and we try to be good  residents and good neighbors. My husband Jon has become a resident of Colorado; that is where he will vote this mid  term election. So ’tourist’ or ’second home owner’ is not how we feel being part of the Aspen community.      During the summer I was in touch with Mitch Osur and Adam Frisch about the frustrating and never ending problem of  parking in front of our house and the lack of parking on Midland Ave. We have had tractor trailers, large RVs, detached  trailers, and old junk cars sitting for days and week in front of our house. They take up the few parking spaces on  Midland and we believe they belong to people that don’t even live on the street . It is not only an eyesore but they have  parked overlapping our driveway so that a few times we could hardly get out or see the traffic coming from the other  direction. We repeatedly report them and they will move up or go across the street only to come back to start the clock  on another 72 hour warning.     And now we are facing 2 big construction projects next door and across the street‐both with inadequate parking spaces.     1. Aspen East End sees new housing development:      https://www.aspentimes.com/news/local/aspens‐east‐end‐will‐see‐new‐housing‐ development/?utm_source=boomtrain&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=sunrise‐ rundown&bt_ee=V+3J3KTqnLx3+2cGQ3wHqTIz6SKriJP1IPXkoKWTc9qB2myorSTv4/or32Z6l5od&bt_ts=1537790581 387&utm_source=boomtrain&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=sunrise‐ rundown&bt_ee=coLhiQZP995yhjn4nKfvE2y5FeiUscKpDDwuUFfLo9khVJWJGv6KM5koCu12RAoR&bt_ts=15377905 81367     I hear you, Chris, are the land planner hired by the developer for this project, and you, Garrett, are the city Project  Manager. Can you please explain to me where these extra 6 apartment residences are going to park their one or two  cars each?  It is going to become a HUGE problem on our street, especially when the bigger apartment complex at Park  Circle is completed. I am told that the Council approved that plan already knowing that there will be 20 spaces that will  not be accounted for. The outside parking area to the condos talked about in the article already has back to back parking  with no empty spaces! As much as everyone would hope that people living in Aspen will not have cars or have fewer  cars, I think that is an unrealistic wish.      There are so many condos in this SMALL area of Midland Ave and Park Circle with NO additional parking spaces being  provided!  I am told P&Z will review the growth management, parking, and residential design requirements. I am hoping  they will include actual neighbors who live on this street to assess the current situation and plan for the future.     In a recent article in the Aspen Times a West End resident argued against any parking restrictions on RV and trailers  because she has one that she wants to park in front of her house. I understand her perspective but why should the front  of our house be cluttered with 5‐6 rotating junk cars owned by someone not living on our street, RV and flat beds being  dumped there all summer or winter, and us and other home owners not having any parking be available to us or our  guests? The Mayor has said he does not want to “burden the life style” of Aspenites by limiting their campers, etc. We  are Aspenites, too and the all of Midland Ave houses have been updated and pay much of Aspen taxes.   P331 VI.A. 4    2. I have asked Mitch Osur to designate Midland Avenue as Parking by Permit only and a 2 hour minimum. Since parking  rates have gone up in town, Midland Ave has become the parking lots for all day parking for people going into town. He  has assured me that a parking plan can be presented to the council after January.      Please let me know how you can help and if there is anything we neighbors and direct abutters can do to mitigate this situation in some other way than a piecemeal approach to a real problem.      I am hoping that the developers for the projects on Midland will prove to be good neighbors too!    barbara and jon lee  ___________    barbara lee  327 midland avenue  aspen, co 81611  c.617.974.2008  c.617.571.3510    P332 VI.A. 1 Garrett Larimer From:Barbara Lee <barbaracolelee@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 12:53 PM To:Garrett Larimer Cc:chris@bendonadams.com; Jon Lee; Adam Frisch; Meg; Mitch Osur; David Halverson; Mark Terkun Subject:Re: Midland Avenue Parking Problem Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Garrett,     Sorry for my delayed response to your informative email. We have received the Notice of Public Hearing for the Aspen  Hills Condominiums. It is quite confusing as the printed material says December 4 at 4:30 at City Hall, yet near the  address label on the other side of the card is another sticker that says the information meeting is on December 3 at 4:30  at the Red Brick. Can you please clarify?    Also, unfortunately we do not arrive until Dec 6 and I know a few of the neighbors don’t arrive until the end of that  week. I am going to ask our house manager, David Halverson, who is quite familiar with the parking issues on Midland to  represent our interests.     Again if an additional six free market units over and above what is already there is discussed,  PLEASE make sure there is  an adequate parking plan for these extra units. As much as the city may hope for a car free zone and encourage people  not to be a one or two car family or unit, that is wishful thinking and just not realistic. There is just not enough spaces on  Midland to accommodate these extra units! Please insist that the developers include an off street parking area within  their development to accommodate these extra units…  Thank you for you time and I look forward to getting together to discuss when I am in town. barbara lee ___________ barbara lee 327 Midland Avenue Aspen, CO.81611 h.970.544.0074 c.617.974.2008     On Oct 17, 2018, at 6:40 PM, Garrett Larimer <garrett.larimer@cityofaspen.com> wrote:    Hi Barbara and Jon,      Thank you for reaching out to express your thoughts regarding the parking situation in the Midland Ave neighborhood. I  hear your concern of the potential impacts the proposed development would have on the parking situation in the  neighborhood.     Regarding the proposed Aspen Hills Development at 331 Midland Ave, the applicant is working with City Staff to move  forward the code compliant design for the Planning and Zoning Commission to review.  A review of the parking provided  P333 VI.A. 1 Garrett Larimer From:Frank McDonald <mcvino@sopris.net> Sent:Tuesday, December 4, 2018 2:38 PM To:Garrett Larimer Subject:Aspen Hills Condos - Development - Protest Attachments:Francis McDonald.vcf Importance:High Dear Garrett, in response to the upcoming hearing of Aspen Hills 331-338 Midland Avenue Aspen I am objecting to this proposed development on the following grounds:  Several encroachments by Aspen Hills building on to the property of Aspen View.  Increased population density.  Significant increase in employee housing on Midland Avenue.  Loss of light / views or overshadowing.  Overlooking/loss of privacy.  Diminishment of property values of Aspen View.  Visual amenity (but not loss of private view)  Adequacy of parking/loading/turning.  Road safety on Midland Avenue.  Traffic generation on Midland Avenue.  Noise and disturbance resulting from use and construction.  Hazardous materials as a result of construction.  Pollution generated from the construction project. I intend to attend the public hearing today Tuesday 4th December at 4.30 pm. Please confirm receipt of the above objections.  Frank McDonald President Aspen View HOA Owner of units # 207 and # 203 326 Midland Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 USA Tel. 970-920-3216  P334 VI.A. TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Garrett Larimer, Planner THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director RE: Special Review of 2019 (Continued from 11/20/18) MEETING DATE: January 22, 2019 APPLICANT: Brent and Debbie Sembler Central Ave., St. Petersburg, FL 33707 REPRESENTATIVE: BendonAdams, 300 S Spring St. #202, Aspen, CO 81611 LOCATION: 222 S. Cleveland St. CURRENT ZONING: Residential Multi-Family (RMF) SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking Review for a variation to the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Design Standards to replace an ADU that was removed without the necessary approvals. The ADU was approved under a that allowed subgrade ADUs. The applicant is interested in replacing the unit in the same location, but the current code does not allow for subgrade ADUs. This agenda item was continued from its original hearing date on November 13, 2018. Elements of the ADU have been revised and those changes are reflected in the memo resolution, and review criteria. Revisions and updates from the original application are underlined in the memo. MEMORANDUM City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Garrett Larimer, Planner Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director Special Review – ADU Design Standards – 222 S Cleveland St., Resolution No. (Continued from 11/20/18) , 2019 Brent and Debbie Sembler, 5858 Spring St. Family (RMF) The applicant is seeking Special Review for a variation to the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Design Standards to replace an ADU hat was removed without the necessary was approved under a code s. The applicant is interested in replacing the unit in the same the current code does not allow for continued from its original hearing date on November 13, 2018. Elements of the ADU have been revised and those changes are reflected in the memo, Revisions and updates from the original application are STAFF POSITION: Staff recommends either recognizing the circa 1996 ADU design allowances and approving the variations requested via Special Review or, in the alternative, recognizing that the replacement of the ADU should meet todays’ design standards or be vacated pursuant to the code. Page 1 of 5 , Resolution No. __, Series recommends either recognizing the circa design allowances and approving the variations eview or, in the alternative, recognizing that the replacement of the ADU should meet todays’ design pursuant to the code. P335 VI.B. Page 2 of 5 REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: · Special Review – Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standard Variation The applicant is requesting approval for a variation to the ADU Design Standards related the replacement of an ADU in the basement of the residence and per section 26.520.080.D. The Code allows the Planning and Zoning Commission to grant special review approval for variations to the ADU Design Standards. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority. LOCATION/BACKGROUND: The subject property, 222 S Cleveland St. is a single-family residence located on a lot in the RMF zone district in the Aspen Infill area. The property was developed in the mid-1990s and received a Certificate of Occupancy in 1996. The land use code at the time allowed for subgrade ADUs, and an ADU was constructed, out of a number of mitigation options, in the basement to mitigate for the affordable housing impact fees generated by the development. Although construction of an ADU is an acceptable form of mitigation, the land use code does not require rental of the unit. Since the property received its Certificate of Occupancy, elements of the ADU were removed without the necessary approval. A building permit was submitted and issued for the renovation of the residence and minor changes to the ADU, which still maintained minimum requirements to be considered an ADU. During an inspection of the property for the renovation, it was noted by City staff that the ADU did not have the required kitchen appliances. The specific design requirements have changed over time, but since the late-nineties there have been defined requirements for the minimum components needed to qualify as an ADU. The current code requires that an ADU contain a full kitchen including a 4-burner stove, a refrigerator, and a sink. The unit must also have storage, a bathroom, and access to the unit’s mechanical systems and electrical panel among other standards. A brief history of ADU requirements is attached as Exhibit D. Once it was discovered the ADU did not exist and was required, staff informed the applicant of their options: to replace the ADU meeting current code standards, to apply for special review to replace the ADU with variations from the current code requirements, or legally remove it. The applicant is interested in replacing the unit with variations from today’s standards. CURRENT REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Special Review approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission to replace an ADU that was removed without approval. Special Review is required when the Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards are not met. If the Planning and Zoning Commission feels it is appropriate for the unit to be replaced in the previously approved location, the following standards will need to be varied via Special Review: 1. ADUs are required to have more than 50% of the finished floor level above grade and be detached from the primary residence. The proposed ADU would be attached to the primary residence and located entirely below grade. This is the original condition. 2. The amount of storage provided is below the minimum storage requirements of the code. The current code requires 10% of the unit’s square footage be provided for storage. Currently one closet is shown at approximately 22 sq. ft. or 6.2% of the units overall square footage. This is an increase from the original application, the original size was 4.3% of the overall square footage of the unit. 3. The current code requires a full kitchen which includes a sink, dishwasher, 24 square feet of counter space, 15 cubic feet of cabinets, a 30inch wide oven with 4-burner stove top and 20 cubic foot refrigerator with a freezer. o The application does not include a dishwasher. o The refrigerator will be a minimum 9.5 cubic feet. This is an increase from the 6-cubic foot refrigerator in the original application. P336 VI.B. Page 3 of 5 o An oven with four-burner stove is proposed. The original application only included a two-burner stove. The increase in the number of burners slightly reduces the square footage of counter space provided. o Approximately 4.5 sq. ft. of counter top space is shown. The only cabinets provided in the original application were below the kitchen counter, the revised proposal includes the cabinet below the counter and includes cabinets to be installed above the kitchen counter tops increasing the amount of cabinet space to approximately 12 cubic feet, which is still below the minimum required. 4. An interior connection between the primary residence and the ADU exists and is proposed to remain. This appears to be the original condition. In order to allow for an entry connection between the two units, current code requires special review and approval from the Planning & Zoning Commission. 5. The current code requires the ADU have separately accessible utility and mechanical systems. The primary residence and ADU share mechanical equipment, which is located in a mechanical room outside the interior connection between the ADU and primary residence. This appears to be the original condition. 6. The current code requires washer and dryer hookups, which are proposed in the shared mechanical room. The ADU will have access to the washer and dryer and the space appears to be able to accommodate a 27” unit, which is the minimum required by the code. 7. A half glass entry door is proposed to increase the amount of natural light to the unit. Staff and the applicant have discussed the applicability of older ADU regulations given the era the ADU was originally constructed. On November 8th, 1999, which is after the unit was built, the ADU Design Standards were amended and included more detail, especially for the kitchen requirements. Under the 1999 amended code requirements, the earliest available with specific standards, a number of items are also not met. The elements of the ADU that don’t comply with the 1999 Code include: 1. The storage provided must be 10% of the units net livable, the plan shows approximately 6.2 %. 2. The interior connection must have been approved by the P&Z Commission. No approval was originally given, as it was not required at the time the ADU was initially built. It’s important to note that the kitchen complies with all requirements of the 1999 code. Issues for Discussion: The application is reviewed under the current code for replacement purposes but given the unique nature of this situation and the fact that existing infrastructure for an ADU exists, the unit could be replaced essentially in its original condition with certain variations from today’s standards. Staff also recognizes that the ADU was removed without any formal approval and there are other paths in the current code to reestablish or remove the unit. In response to the discussion at the original hearing, the applicant has revised the floor plan. The changes include: an enlarged closet, washer and dryer hook ups in the mechanical room, a larger refrigerator/freezer, cabinets above the kitchen counter, a four-burner stove, and a half glass entry door to increase the amount of natural light in the unit. The four-burner stove slightly reduces the amount of counter space provided. If the commission feels the additional counter space is preferable, the applicant is willing to consider a two-burner stove. The storage provided is an improvement from the original proposal but is still below current standards. The applicant believes, and staff agrees, that increasing the amount of storage to the 10% minimum required by the code is less beneficial in the current unit configuration as it reduces the amount of living space in the unit. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff acknowledges approval was originally granted to place the unit in the basement, but the unit was removed without proper approvals, and a land use application is required to bring the property back into compliance. All P337 VI.B. Page 4 of 5 land use applications are subject to the current code in which they apply, however, this is a unique situation in that the larger house is already constructed and the ADU is proposed to be located where it was originally. At this time, staff does not recommend the unit be replaced, given the standards in the current code. Under the Purpose clause of the land use code for ADUs, the code notes anticipate that “ADUs and carriage houses represent viable housing opportunities for working residents,” and that the ADUs provide additional housing opportunities in the town. The purpose section also notes that “detached ADUs and carriage houses are more likely to be occupied by a local working resident and that “Aspen desires occupied ADUs and carriage houses”. The commission can choose to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Special Review request to vary the Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards and allow the ADU to be replaced in the basement. If the Planning and Zoning commission finds replacing the ADU in the basement appropriate, it can choose to include variations for the other standards that have not been met or can require that the applicant comply with as many as of the standards as the commission feels appropriate. If the Planning and Zoning Commission accepts the replacement of the ADU, staff recommends the following variations be granted, given the existing construction, all of which are reflected in the resolution. The list of variations has been updated to reflect the revised application. 1. A 100% subgrade location of the ADU is permitted. 2. The mechanical systems of the primary residence and ADU are located in a shared mechanical room. 3. A washer and dryer hookup, with dryer vent rough in, to accommodate a minimum 27” wide washer/dryer unit must be installed in the shared mechanical room. 4. Interior access requirement is varied to allow for direct access between the unit and primary residence to remain. 5. The following kitchen requirements shall be met: an oven with a four-burner stove, a sink, a refrigerator/freezer with a minimum capacity of 9.5 cubic feet, and 12 cubic feet of cabinets. 6. A reduction in the minimum storage or closet space required is granted to allow a minimum twenty-two square foot closet. 7. The deed restriction shall be updated to comply with Section 26.520.070, which requires lease terms of no less than six months. 8. The ADU exterior door must contain at least 50% glass to allow for increase natural light. Staff recognizes that improvements to the application have been made to improve the livability of the unit. Staff still remains concerned that the unit will not be occupied. The recent renovations removing the window on the west wall of the ADU significantly reduced the amount of natural light, and because of this, the unit is not being replaced as it was. PROPOSED MOTION (WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): The Resolution as written grants approval of a Special Review request of the applicant allowing for a subgrade ADU and certain design variations. If the Planning and Zoning Commission wishes to approve the request the following motion can be used: “I move to approve Resolution No.___, Series of 2019 to vary the ADU Design Standards to allow for the ADU at 222 S Cleveland St. to be replaced in the originally approved location in the basement as shown in Exhibit A.” ALTERNATIVE MOTIONS: #1 P338 VI.B. Page 5 of 5 If the Planning and Zoning Commission does not wish to grant the Special Review request, the Planning and Zoning Commission can make a motion to deny the Resolution and use the following motion: “I move to deny Resolution #___ series of 2019 to grant a variation to the ADU Design Standards via Special Review.” Attachments: Exhibit A – Proposed Drawing Exhibit B – ADU Design Standards - Review Criteria Exhibit C – Special Review – Review Criteria Exhibit D – Summary of ADU Code Requirements Exhibit E – Original Application Exhibit F – Addendum 1.8.19 P339 VI.B. RESOLUTION NO. (SERIES OF 2019) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING SPECIAL REVIEW FOR VARIATIONS TO THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT DESIGN STANDARDS IN ORDER TO REINSTALL AN ADU FOR THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS, LOT 1, FELLMAN LOT SPLIT, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED OCTOBER 31, 1994 IN PLAT BOOK 35 AT PAGE 67, AND COMMONLY KNOWN AS 222 S. CLEVELAND ST. Parcel No. 2737-182-040-004 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Chris Bendon of BendonAdams LLC, on behalf of Brent and Debbie Sembler, requesting Special Review approval for a variation to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards to replace an ADU that had been removed without requisite city approval, in it’s the original location within the basement; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application for compliance with the current applicable review standards; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended denial of the Special Review for a variation to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on November 13, 2018; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was continued to November 20, 2018 at which point it was opened and continued to January 15, 2019. On January 15, 2019 the hearing was opened and continued to January 22, 2019; and, WHEREAS, on January 15th the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on January 22, 2019; and, P340 VI.B. WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets the applicable review criteria and that the approval of the request is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution #___, Series of 2019, by a _____ to _____ (___ - ___) vote, granting approval of Special Review for a variation to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards as identified herein. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission: Section 1: Special Review for a Variation to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves a variation to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Design standards via Special Review as identified in the attached Exhibit A, to reinstall the ADU with the following conditions: 1. A 100% subgrade location of the ADU is permitted. 2. The mechanical systems of the primary residence and ADU are located in a shared mechanical room that can be accessed through an interior connection by the ADU. 3. A washer and dryer hookup, with dryer vent rough in, to accommodate a minimum 27” wide washer/dryer unit must be installed in the shared mechanical room. 4. Interior access requirement is varied to allow for direct access between the unit and primary residence to remain. 5. The following kitchen requirements shall be met: an oven with a four-burner stove, a sink, a refrigerator/freezer with a minimum capacity of 9.5 cubic feet, and 12 cubic feet of cabinets. 6. A reduction in the minimum storage or closet space required is granted to allow a minimum twenty-two square foot closet. 7. The deed restriction shall be updated to comply with Section 26.520.070, which requires lease terms of no less than six months. 8. The ADU exterior door shall contain at least 50% glass to allow for increase natural light. Section 2: This approval does not exempt the project from compliance with applicable zoning, building, or any other applicable code regulations within the City of Aspen’s Municipal Code, including Ordinance 40, Series of 2016. The applicant must submit a building permit application demonstrating compliance with all applicable codes prior to any development on site. Section 3: P341 VI.B. 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 site development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its meeting on January 15, 2019. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: ____________________________ ______________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Skippy Mesirow, Chair ATTEST: ____________________________ Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager Attachments: Exhibit A: Proposed Floor Plan of the ADU P342 VI.B. 0----0----- 0---- �---- 0----- I I --t I ----�--- I ,( � EXISTING EGRESS I I 7'-7" WINDOW I 2'-0' ,( -- EXISTING BA-,_----1 c·-,1rJ•, ''>;--d,·:c_:� ---=-1 ==--==--0�] I .- NEW T.S. COLUMN 1, REF, STRUCTURAL I 11 __ !\I_�. EXISTING BATH. EXISTING ,-----EXISTING EGRESS WINDOW EXISTINCl BEDROOM EX[STING BATH 11-11 I I I I ,_c ·'\I_-�, ,---'/'\ \---. <'--7_ \ ' .. BASEMENT ' STACKED W/D I I ----LIGHTING ANDVENTltl\TION REQUIREMENTS ARE MET THROUGH EXISTING\WIN,DOWS FOR THE FAMILY ROO,M ___ i EXISTt� MECH. ___ _ 8'-1" I I I r-1--REF./ FREEZER MIN. ' EXISTING WINDOW RANGE HOOD JI -0 en -0 ----© / FULL HEIGHT BUILT-IN STORAGE CABINETS ABOVE jFOUR BURNER RANGE SINK-/; UPPER -----LIGHTING AND VENTILATION � REQUIREMENTS AR�ET BY 4 DOOR AND WINDOW!l;fOR TH A202 ADU. ...... CLOSET 2'-4 1/2' \__ 5 1/211 CABINETS LAMINATE-�' \ COU NTERTOP1------------;;;F--/ ---------__ ,-,- . 11 ,- -11•�1 1/�1 , __ 1, __\ 21'-2 1/2" 33'-o· EXISTING ADU 355 SQJFT. 12'-2 1/2"1 ,( ,( ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 'NEW GLASS EGRESS DOOR EXISTING STAIRWAY 1 Al04 LEGEND II NOT IN SCOPE c::::J EXISTING WALLS GENERAL NOTES, 1.EXISTING CONDITIONSMUST BE FIELD VERIFIED FOREXACT DIMENSIONS 2.DIMENSIONS ARE FROMGRID, FACE OF STUD, ORCONCRETE WALL3.DOORS AND WINDOWS AREDIMENSIONED TO CENTERLINE4.COLUMNS ARE DIMENSIONEDTO CENTERLINE LOWER LEVEL PROPOSED PLAN 1/4"=1'-0' I :l 605 EAST MAIN ST REET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (T) 970 / 925 4755 {Fl 970 I 920 2950 Consultant Issue: 01-07-2019 Final Set SEMBLER RESIDENCE ADU RESTORATION 222 S. CLEVEIAND ST. ASPEN, COLCRADO C) NORTH PROJECT NO, 21546.0 DWG Fil[ 21541.00A104ADU.dwg SHEET TITLE LOWER LEVEL PROPOSED PLAN A104 Ce) 2019 �M��fl1llW��Jroo, P.C TilE INFORMATION AND DESI� INTENT CONTAINED ON 11-ISOOCI.NENTISTilE PROPERTY OF Bill POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTIJRE NII PLANNING, P,C, NO PART [JflHIS ltfilRMAllON MAY BE USEDWITtO./TlfE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF Bill POSSAtll ASS{ICIATES, NlCHITICTUREAND PLANNNG, PC BILL POSSANOASS{ICIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNlt«:, P,C. SHALlRETAIN All COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGITS, IM::t.lOltl. COPYRIGKT lHERETO, Exhibit 1 P343VI.B. Exhibit B ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 1 of 6 Summary of Review Criteria for Section 26.520.050 MET NOT MET DOES NOT APPLY Design Standards: All ADUs and carriage houses shall conform to the following design standards unless otherwise approved, pursuant to Subsection 26.520.080.D, Special Review: 1. An ADU must contain between three hundred (300) and eight hundred (800) net livable square feet, ten percent (10%) of which must be a closet or storage area. A carriage house must contain between eight hundred (800) and one thousand two hundred (1,200) net livable square feet, ten percent (10%) of which must be closet or storage area. NOT MET 2. An ADU or carriage house must be able to function as a separate dwelling unit. This includes the following: a. An ADU or carriage house must be separately accessible from the exterior. An interior entrance to the primary residence may be approved, pursuant to Special Review; YES b. An ADU or carriage house must have separately accessible utility systems, controls and disconnect panels. This does not preclude shared services; YES Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards P344 VI.B. Exhibit B ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 2 of 6 2c. An ADU or carriage house shall contain a full-size kitchen containing at a minimum: i. Minimum 30-inch wide oven, 4-burner stovetop. ii. A sink, dishwasher, and a minimum 20 cubic foot refrigerator with freezer. iii. Minimum 24 square feet of counter space and a minimum of 15 cubic feet of cabinet space. iv. Kitchens may not be located in a closet. NOT MET 2d. An ADU or carriage house shall contain a ¾ or larger bathroom containing, at a minimum, a sink, a toilet and a shower. YES 2e.    An ADU or carriage house shall contain washer/dryer hookups, with a dryer vent rough-in, to accommodate minimum 27-inch wide washer/dryer units. YES 3. One (1) parking space for the ADU or carriage house shall be provided on-site and shall remain available for the benefit of the ADU or carriage house resident. The parking space shall not be located in tandem, or “stacked,” with a space for the primary residence. YES 4. The finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit’s net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. NOT MET 5.    The ADU or carriage house shall be detached from the primary residence. An ADU or carriage house located above a detached garage or storage area or connected to the primary residence by an exterior breezeway or trellis shall still qualify as detached. No interior connections to the primary residence, or portions thereof, shall qualify the ADU or carriage house as detached. NOT MET P345 VI.B. Exhibit B ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 3 of 6 26.520.050 Design standards All ADUs and carriage houses shall conform to the following design standards unless otherwise approved, pursuant to Subsection 26.520.080.D, Special Review: 1. An ADU must contain between three hundred (300) and eight hundred (800) net livable square feet, ten percent (10%) of which must be a closet or storage area. A carriage house must contain between eight hundred (800) and one thousand two hundred (1,200) net livable square feet, ten percent (10%) of which must be closet or storage area. Staff Response: The ADU is shown at 355 sq./ft. which complies with the minimum size requirements of the current code and 1999 code (original approval granted under mid- 90’s Land Use Code). The closet measures roughly 22 sq./ft. which equates to approximately 6.2% of the overall unit square footage, which is below today’s standards and the 1999 standards. The applicant increased the amount of storage from the 6.    An ADU or carriage house shall be located within the dimensional requirements of the Zone District in which the property is located. DOES NOT APPLY 7.    The roof design shall prevent snow and ice from shedding upon an entrance to an ADU or carriage house. If the entrance is accessed via stairs, sufficient means of preventing snow and ice from accumulating on the stairs shall be provided. YES 8. ADUs and carriage houses shall be developed in accordance with the requirements of this Title which apply to residential development in general. These include, but are not limited to, building code requirements related to adequate natural light, ventilation, fire egress, fire suppression and sound attenuation between living units. This standard may not be varied. YES 9. All ADUs and carriage houses shall be registered with the Housing Authority and the property shall be deed restricted in accordance with Section 26.520.070, Deed restrictions and enforcement. This standard may not be varied. YES P346 VI.B. Exhibit B ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 4 of 6 previous approval, but since the proposed storage is below the minimum size requirements, staff finds this criterion to be not met, and Special Review approval would be required. 2. An ADU or carriage house must be able to function as a separate dwelling unit. This includes the following: a. An ADU or carriage house must be separately accessible from the exterior. An interior entrance to the primary residence may be approved, pursuant to Special Review; Staff Response: An exterior stair provides access to the ADU. Interior access is also provided from the primary structure which, along with the subgrade location, requires Special Review and approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission. This standard has remained unchanged from the 1999 version, attached ADU’s with interior connections weren’t prohibited when the unit was originally approved. Special Review is required for the internal connection, but staff finds this criterion to be met. b. An ADU or carriage house must have separately accessible utility systems, controls and disconnect panels. This does not preclude shared services; Staff Response: The floor plan for the ADU shows an existing mechanical room accessible by both the primary residence and the ADU. The ADU will be required to provide access to a subpanel for the unit. Since shared services are allowed and the ADU has access to this mechanical room, staff finds this criterion to be met. c. An ADU or carriage house shall contain a full-size kitchen containing at a minimum: i. Minimum 30-inch wide oven, 4-burner stovetop. ii. A sink, dishwasher, and a minimum 20 cubic foot refrigerator with freezer. iii. Minimum 24 square feet of counter space and a minimum of 15 cubic feet of cabinet space. iv. Kitchens may not be located in a closet. Staff Response: The proposed kitchen is shown to meet the 1999 code requirements for a kitchen in an ADU. The house was built under a mid-1990’s code and the kitchen standards were silent. It’s been discussed between City Staff and the applicant that the 1999 standards, which adopted more clear guidelines for a kitchen in an ADU, may be used to provide guidance for the kitchen requirements. The applicant revised some of the kitchen elements in response to the first hearing. A four-burner stove top, sink, kitchen cabinets (12 cu. ft.), and “apartment” refrigerator and freezer (minimum 9.5 cubic ft.) are proposed, which would meet these 1999 standards. The proposed kitchen does not meet the current code requirements. Under today’s code the refrigerator is still below the 20-cubic foot minimum size required, dishwasher, and 24 sq./ft. of counter P347 VI.B. Exhibit B ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 5 of 6 top space would be required under the current code. Since the proposed kitchen does not meet the current standards, staff finds this criterion to not be met, and Special Review approval would be required. d. An ADU or carriage house shall contain a ¾ or larger bathroom containing, at a minimum, a sink, a toilet and a shower. Staff Response: The code requirements in 1999 are the same as todays requirements. The proposed ADU contains a shower with a tub, toilet, and sink. Staff finds this criterion to be met. e. An ADU or carriage house shall contain washer/dryer hookups, with a dryer vent rough-in, to accommodate minimum 27-inch wide washer/dryer units. Staff Response: Washer and dryer hook ups and a stacked washer/dryer system are proposed in the shared mechanical room for the resident of the ADU. No dimensions of the washer dryer unit was provided, however, there appears to be room to accommodate a 27” unit. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. One (1) parking space for the ADU or carriage house shall be provided on-site and shall remain available for the benefit of the ADU or carriage house resident. The parking space shall not be located in tandem, or “stacked,” with a space for the primary residence. Staff Response: At least one parking space is provided for use by the resident of the ADU, staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit’s net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Staff Response: ADU is entirely below grade. The code under which this property was approved and built did not prohibit subgrade ADU’s and was in conformance with the applicable code at the time. The applicant is requesting to replace the ADU in the same location, staff finds this criterion to be not met, and Special Review approval would be required. 5. The ADU or carriage house shall be detached from the primary residence. An ADU or carriage house located above a detached garage or storage area or connected to the primary residence by an exterior breezeway or trellis shall still qualify as detached. No interior connections to the primary residence, or portions thereof, shall qualify the ADU or carriage house as detached. Staff Response: The code in which the property was originally built allowed attached ADU’s and did not prohibit interior connections. If the commission determines it’s appropriate to replace the ADU in the originally approved location, it’s impractical given the circumstances to require the applicant to comply with the requirements of this section since the illegal removal of the kitchen triggered the replacement of the ADU process. That being said, the ADU does not comply with the requirements of this P348 VI.B. Exhibit B ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 6 of 6 standard, and therefore, staff finds this criterion to not be met, and Special Review approval would be required. 6. An ADU or carriage house shall be located within the dimensional requirements of the Zone District in which the property is located. Staff Response: Accessory dwelling units are an allowed use in the R/MF zone district. An analysis of height, floor area, and other dimensional requirements of this zone district are not included in this review. The applicable dimensional requirements of this zone district are legally established and are not subject to review as part of this application. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 7. The roof design shall prevent snow and ice from shedding upon an entrance to an ADU or carriage house. If the entrance is accessed via stairs, sufficient means of preventing snow and ice from accumulating on the stairs shall be provided. Staff Response: The stairs are open to above but are snow melted, staff finds this criterion to be met. 8. ADUs and carriage houses shall be developed in accordance with the requirements of this Title which apply to residential development in general. These include, but are not limited to, building code requirements related to adequate natural light, ventilation, fire egress, fire suppression and sound attenuation between living units. This standard may not be varied. Staff Response: Light and ventilation is provided by windows between the unit and the stairwell, the entry door to the unit will be replaced with a half glass door to increase the amount of natural light, and the stairs provide emergency egress from the residence. The assemblies separating the ADU and primary residence are not being altered in this scope of work and are presumed to comply with the requirements of the code at the time the structure was built. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 9. All ADUs and carriage houses shall be registered with the Housing Authority and the property shall be deed restricted in accordance with Section 26.520.070, Deed restrictions and enforcement. This standard may not be varied. Staff Response: The property is deed restricted according to the deed restriction with Reception #383889. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P349 VI.B. Exhibit C Special Review – ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 1 of 3 Summary of Review Criteria for Section 26.520.080.D MET NOT MET DOES NOT APPLY D. Special Review. An application requesting a variation of the ADU and carriage house design standards shall be processed as a Special Review in accordance with the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304. The Special Review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been posted, mailed, and published pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the property is an historic landmark, on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures or within a Historic Overlay District, the Historic Preservation Commission shall consider the Special Review. A Special Review for an ADU or Carriage House may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The proposed ADU or carriage house is designed in a manner which promotes the purpose of the ADU and carriage house program, promotes the purpose of the Zone District in which it is proposed and promotes the unit's general livability. NOT MET 2. The proposed ADU or carriage house is designed to be compatible with and subordinate in character to, the primary residence considering all dimensions, site configuration, landscaping, privacy and historical significance of the property. YES Special Reivew - Variation of Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards P350 VI.B. Exhibit C Special Review – ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 2 of 3 D. Special Review. An application requesting a variation of the ADU and carriage house design standards shall be processed as a Special Review in accordance with the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304. The Special Review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been posted, mailed, and published pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the property is an historic landmark, on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures or within a Historic Overlay District, the Historic Preservation Commission shall consider the Special Review. A Special Review for an ADU or Carriage House may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The proposed ADU or carriage house is designed in a manner which promotes the purpose of the ADU and carriage house program, promotes the purpose of the Zone District in which it is proposed and promotes the unit's general livability. Staff Response: The ADU was built according to the applicable code requirements of the mid-1990’s. In general the proposed features of the ADU do allow for general livability; however, the variations may discourage the likelihood of the unit being occupied as it is not detached and is connected to the primary residence, as noted in the purpose statement of the ADU Program below. The ADU is below grade but meets the minimum size requirements, provides natural light to the unit, has storage, an adequate bathroom, and serviceable kitchen, but would need variances to meet the minimum requirements for multiple items in the ADU. Overall the unit is livable, however, given the purpose statement listed below, staff does not find that the ADU promotes the purpose of the ADU and Carriage House Program. Because of this, staff finds this criterion to not be met. 26.520.010 Purpose The purpose of the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and carriage house program is to promote the longstanding community goal of socially, economically and environmentally responsible development patterns which balance Aspen the resort and Aspen the community. Aspen values balanced neighborhoods and a sense of commonality between local working residents and part-time residents. ADUs and carriage houses represent viable housing opportunities for working residents and allow employees to live within the fabric of the community without their housing being easily identifiable as “employee housing.” ADUs and carriage houses support local Aspen businesses by providing an employee base within the City and providing a critical mass of local residents important to preserving Aspen's character. ADUs and carriage houses allow second homeowners the opportunity to hire an on-site caretaker to maintain their property in their absence. Increased employee housing opportunities in close proximity to employment and recreation centers is also an environmentally preferred land use pattern, which reduces automobile reliance. P351 VI.B. Exhibit C Special Review – ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 3 of 3 Detached ADUs and carriage houses emulate a historic development pattern and maximize the privacy and livability of both the ADU or carriage houses and the primary unit. Detached ADUs and carriage houses are more likely to be occupied by a local working resident, furthering a community goal of housing the workforce. Aspen desires occupied ADUs and carriage houses; therefore, detached ADUs and carriage houses which are deed restricted as "for sale" units, according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended, and sold according to the procedures established in the guidelines, provide for certain floor area and affordable housing credit incentives. 2. The proposed ADU or carriage house is designed to be compatible with and subordinate in character to, the primary residence considering all dimensions, site configuration, landscaping, privacy and historical significance of the property. Staff Response: The ADU is subordinate to the primary residence in every way. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P352 VI.B. Exhibit D Summary of ADU Design Standards Page 1 of 2 Below is a summary of requirements from the mid-90’s, 1999, and current code: Mid-1990’s code (the original ADU was approved under this code): - Unit Size = 300-700 square feet of net livable - Deed restricted, limited to rental periods of no less than 6 months - One parking space - For attached units (different requirements for detached units) o Subject to dimensional requirements of the zone district 1999 code: - Unit size, between 300-700 square feet - Must be able to function as a separate dwelling unit o Must be separately accessible from the exterior, interior entrance must be approved by P&Z via special review. o Must have separately accessible utilities. o Must contain a kitchen containing at a minimum an over, a two-burner stove, a sink, a refrigerator with a minimum of 6 cu. ft. of capacity and a freezer. o A bathroom containing a minimum sink, toilet, and shower. - One parking space - Must comply with requirements of the zone district - Roof should prevent snow shed on the entrance, and if the entrance is accessed via stairs, a measure to reduce snow accumulation should be provided. - Shall be deed restricted and comply with the other requirements of the code, including building code requirements. Current Code (2015): - Unit size between 300-700 sq. ft., and 10% must be a closet or storage area. - Must function as a separate dwelling unit o Must be separately accessible from the exterior, interior connections must be approved by P&Z via special review. o Must have separate utility systems, does not preclude shared services. o Shall contain a full-sized kitchen including: § 30” over with four-burner stove § Sink, dishwasher, a minimum 20 cu. ft. refrigerator with freezer. § 24 Sq. ft. of counter space and 15 cu. ft. of cabinet space § Kitchens can’t be in closets o Must contain a ¾ or larger bathroom with at least a sink, toilet, and shower o Washer/dryer hookups with dryer vent rough-in to accommodate a minimum 27” wide washer/dryer unit. - One parking space - Must be 50% above grade - Must be detached from primary residence. Can be above a detached garage that’s connected to the primary residence by breezeway counts. No interior connections are allowed. - Must comply with the dimensional requirements of the zone district. P353 VI.B. Exhibit D Summary of ADU Design Standards Page 2 of 2 - Roof should prevent snow and ice shedding on the entrance of the ADU. If accessed via stairs snow and ice accumulation must be reduced. - Must comply with building code requirements. - Must be deed restricted and registered with APCHA. It is important to note, that today the code does not allow new ADUs to be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Existing ADUs are able to stay, and ADUs that have had alterations without a permit are able to request Special Review from P&Z to be restored. Additionally, owners who are interested in full removal of their ADUs are able to pay a cash-in-lieu and/or land a housing certificate to buy out of it. When considering the alternatives, it’s important to understand the cash in lieu option and why it’s provide in the code. The total mitigation required for a development is determined by first calculating the number of full time equivalent employees (FTE’s), or the number of employees housed or generated by the development. For new residential development the number of employees housed in a unit is used as a basis to establish the FTE for that development. For the removal of an ADU, the code requires mitigation for .38 FTE’s. This figure is based on the following methodology: the average ADU is a studio or one- bedroom unit that houses 1.5 FTE’s. ADU’s have an occupancy rate of approximately 25%, so 1.5 (FTEs)x.25=.375, which is rounded up to .38 FTE’s. Once you establish the number of FTE’s generated by a development activity, you multiply the FTE number by the cash-in-lieu rate. The cash-in-lieu rate is based on affordable housing category designation. The cash-in-lieu rate was established by City Council with help from city staff and consultants and is updated every 5 years. The most recent cash-in-lieu rate was updated via Ordinance 5, Series of 2018. The cash- in-lieu rate is established by subtracting the unit sales revenue per FTE from the total cost of development per FTE. The cost of development looked at “hard” and “soft” costs associated with the construction of units in Aspen. The development cost was an average of current construction costs and anticipated future costs of construction. The category designation required for each type of development is established by the land use code. The mitigation for the removal of an ADU requires .38 FTE’s at a Category 2 designation. The category 2 cash in lieu rate is $342,599.02, therefore, the total cash-in-lieu fee for the removal of the ADU is $130,187.63. - P354 VI.B. 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM September 14, 2018 Mr. Ben Anderson Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Sembler ADU – 222 So. Cleveland Avenue M r. Anderson: Please accept this application for Special Review to reinstall an Accessory Dwelling Unit at the 222 South Cleveland Street property. The property was originally developed in the mid-1990s with a single- family home and an Accessory Dwelling Unit. During the course of various owners and use over the following 20+ years, the kitchen of the ADU was removed. The absent kitchen was noted by the City during a recent building code inspection for unrelated remodeling work and the City requested the property owner either reinstall the ADU (by installing a kitchen) or provide a fee-in-lieu payment mandated when an ADU is removed. This application proposes to reinstall the ADU by installing a kitchen. The City’s ADU standards have changed over the years. The Land Use Code section applicable to ADUs in the mid 1990’s, attached as Exhibit 2, provided minimal guidance. ADUs were encouraged to be attached to the primary unit, accessed from an alley if one existed, subtle in their character, and subordinate to the primary residence. The code allowed for subgrade units and internal connections. The code also provided minimal guidance on the minimum kitchen facilities needed for an ADU. The ADU in question was approved and built under this mid-1990s code. Exhibit E- Application P355 VI.B. 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM The lack of specificity regarding a kitchen was addressed during a 2001 Code update. The revisions provided minimum sizing for kitchen elements among other changes to the ADU program. In discussing this issue with Community Development staff, it was decided to refer to the 2001 code amendment language for guidance regarding kitchen requirements. While the ADU is not subject to these standards, the update provided a much better description of a kitchen and an easier target to agree upon. Due to the ADU being developed under a previous code, the proposed re-installation does not comply with the current ADU standards. Without redeveloping the entire property, adherence to the current standards is physically impractical and an unreasonable request in light of a simple kitchen installation. For example, current standards require an ADU to be detached from the primary residence. Without a complete redevelopment of the property, compliance with this requirement is impractical. Recognizing the existing physical realities and retrofit aspect of re- installing the ADU necessitates a Special Review with the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Special Review criteria are addressed in Exhibit 1. Plans for the ADU are attached along with pictures of existing conditions. We look forward to working with you on this project. Please do not hesitate to contact me for a site visit or additional information that will aid your review. Kind Regards, Chris Bendon, AICP BendonAdams LLC Attachments: 1. Review Criteria 2. 1990s ADU Standards 2.1 2001 ADU Standards 3. Pre-Application Summary 4. Application form 5. Agreement to Pay form 6. HOA form 7. Authorization to represent 8. Proof of ownership 9. Vicinity Map 10. Photos of existing conditions 11. ADU Retrofit Plan P356 VI.B. Exhibit 1 Review Criteria 26.520.080.D. Special Review. An application requesting a variation of the ADU and carriage house design standards shall be processed as a Special Review in accordance with the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304. The Special Review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been posted, mailed, and published pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the property is an historic landmark, on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures or within a Historic Overlay District, the Historic Preservation Commission shall consider the Special Review. A Special Review for an ADU or Carriage House may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The proposed ADU or carriage house is designed in a manner which promotes the purpose of the ADU and carriage house program, promotes the purpose of the Zone District in which it is proposed and promotes the unit's general livability. Response – The unit continues the tradition of incorporating small-scale affordable housing opportunities into existing neighborhoods, allowing employees to live within the fabric of the existing community. The unit allows complete independent living for a resident having no caretaker relationship with the property owner. The unit also has the ability to house a caretaker or caregiver with a more direct relationship with the property owner. This flexibility increases the likelihood the unit will house a local working resident. The unit has high (9-foot) ceilings and all interior spaces are finished in a comparable manner as the main house. (the photo to the right shows the bathroom finishes.) The unit is provided with its own dedicated parking space and downtown is a 5-minute walk. The unit’s general livability is very high. The ADU is consistent with the purposes of the zone district. This property is zoned Residential Multi-Family. The purpose of the district is as follows: The purpose of the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Zone District is to provide for the use of land for intensive long-term residential purposes, short term vacation rentals, and customary accessory uses. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Zone District are typically those found in the Aspen infill area, within walking distance of the center of the City or lands on transit routes and other lands with existing concentrations of attached residential dwellings and mixed attached and detached residential dwellings. P357 VI.B. Exhibit 1 Review Criteria This property is developed with a single-family home (a permitted use) providing housing for long-term residential purposes and an Accessory Dwelling Unit (a permitted use accessory to a primary dwelling) also providing housing for long-term residential purposes. The property and this ADU are reflective of and supported by the purpose of the zone district. 2. The proposed ADU or carriage house is designed to be compatible with and subordinate in character to, the primary residence considering all dimensions, site configuration, landscaping, privacy and historical significance of the property. Response – The Accessory Dwelling Unit is subordinate to the primary residence in every respect. The unit is smaller and is accessed from the alley-side of the property. The ADU has only one of the three parking spaces. The ADU enables either complete independent living or a living situation where internal access to the primary unit is desirable or necessary. This enables the unit to serve an employee with no operational or employment relationship to the primary unit or a caretaker or caregiver with direct access needs to the primary unit. While ADUs are not required to be rented or occupied, this flexibility provides a higher likelihood the unit will be used to house a local working resident. The unit’s access is located along the alley side of the property. The access is simple, providing a code compliant and appropriate front door to the unit while remaining compatible with the architecture and subordinate to the primary house. The primary entrance to the house continues to read as a single-family home. The property is landscaped with mature vegetation and the ADU is treated with the same level of landscape treatment. The property has no historical significance. P358 VI.B. Exhibit 21990s ADU RegsP359VI.B. P360VI.B. P361VI.B. P362VI.B. Exhibit 2.1P363VI.B. P364VI.B. P365VI.B. P366VI.B. P367VI.B. P368VI.B. P369VI.B. P370VI.B. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY DATE: August 28, 2018 PLANNER: Ben Anderson, 429.2765 PROJECT NAME AND ADDRESS: 222. S. Cleveland PARCEL ID# 273718204004 REPRESENTATIVE: Chris Bendon, BendonAdams DESCRIPTION: (Existing and Proposed Conditions) The home at 222 S. Cleveland contains a deed restricted, “voluntary” Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). When approved with the original development of the property, the ADU was located in the basement. At some point, the kitchen facilities required of the ADU were removed. During a recent zoning inspection for a remodel of the home, the absence of the ADU kitchen was noted and a progressive enforcement process was initiated by Claude Salter, Zoning Enforcement Officer. While the Land Use Code provides a process for the removal of ADUs, the City can find no evidence that such a process has ever been initiated at 222 S. Cleveland. The owner of 222 S. Cleveland has two options to remedy this situation. The first path would pursue administrative approval of the removal of the ADU and associated deed restriction. To remove the deed restriction pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.520.090.C, the applicant shall provide mitigation for 0.38 Category 2 Full-time Equivalent employees in the form of Affordable Housing Certificates or fee-in-lieu. The current fee-in-lieu rate for Category 2 is $342,599.02, per FTE so mitigation by that method would be 0.38 x $342,599.02 = $130,187.62. An inspection to confirm that the space no longer qualifies as a dwelling unit shall be issued prior to the release of the deed restriction. The release shall be accepted by the City Attorney and filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. The second path would re-establish the physical requirements of the ADU in its previous location. This requires special review of the Planning and Zoning Commission; subject to 26.520.080.D. The requirement for the Board review stems from the fact that the current Land Use Code standards do not allow for subgrade units, and currently require kitchen features that are significantly different than those that were originally installed in this ADU. Staff would be supportive of this outcome with P&Z, but it is an outcome that is not able to be approved administratively. If this outcome were approved by P&Z, the deed restriction for the ADU remains in place. RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS: Section Number Section Title 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.520 Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below: Land Use Application Land Use Code Exhibit 3 P371 VI.B. REVIEW BY: • Staff for Complete Application Option 1 Community Development Director Option 2 • Planning and Zoning Commission REQUIRED LAND USE REVIEW(S): • Option 1 – Amendment of an ADU or Carriage House Development Order • Option 2 – Special Review – for a variation of an ADU design standard PUBLIC HEARING: • Option 1 – No • Option 2 - Yes. It is the responsibility of applicant to coordinate with Planning staff to meet the notice requirements for the public hearing. PLANNING FEES: Option 1 $975 deposit for 3 hours of staff time (Admin Review) Option 2 $3,250 deposit for 10 hours of staff time (P&Z Review) APPLICATION CHECKLIST – These items should first be submitted in a paper copy.  Completed Land Use Application and signed Fee Agreement.  Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).  Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, 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.  Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.  HOA Compliance form (Attached to Application)  A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application and relevant land use approvals associated with the property. Essential to this case is a floor plan and description of the lower level depicting the past, existing, and proposed conditions for the ADU.  Written responses to applicable review criteria. P372 VI.B. Depending on further review of the case, additional items may be requested of the application. Once the application is deemed complete by staff, the applicant/applicant’s representative will receive an e-mail requesting submission of an electronic copy of the complete application and the deposit. Once the deposit is received, the case will be assigned to a planner and the land use review will begin. Once the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted:  1 digital PDF copy of the complete application.  Total deposit for review of the application. 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. P373 VI.B. Sembler ADU - 222 So. Cleveland Street 2737-182-04-004 Brent and Debbie Sembler 5858 Central Avenue; St Petersburg, FL 33707 727.384.6000 Brent.Sembler@Sembler.com BendonAdams 300 So. Spring St #202 970.925.2855 Chris@BendonAdams.com Re-Installation of an Accessory Dwelling Unit within an existing home. Home previously had an ADU in the proposed location. Replacement ADU is proposed to meet Land Use Code requirements applicable upon its previous installation. Special Review - Variation of ADU design standards n/a n/a 1 (existing) n/a n/a 3,250 Exhibit 4 P374 VI.B. CITY OF ASPEN CoMMuNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENJI Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”)and Please type or print in all capsAddressofProperty:222 So.Cleveland St.;Aspen Property Owner Name:Brent &Debbie Sembler Representative Name (if different from Property Owner)__BendonAdams Billing Name and Address -Send Bills to: Brent Semblec;5858 Central Avenue;St Petersburg,FL 33707 Contact info for billing:e-mail:Brent.Sembler@sembler.com Phone:727.384.6000 I understand that the City has adopted,via Ordinance No.30,Series of 2017,review fees for Land Use applications andpaymentofthesefeesisaconditionprecedenttodeterminingapplicationcompleteness.I understand that as the propertyownerthatIamresponsibleforpayingallfeesforthisdevelopmentapplication. For flat fees and referral fees:I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated.I understand that these flat fees arenon-refundable. $.flat fee for __________________. $.____________ __________________________________________________________ $._____________ _____________________________ For Deposit cases only:The City and I understand that because of the size,nature or scope of the proposed project,it is notpossibleatthistimetoknowthefullextentortotalcostsinvolvedinprocessingtheapplication.I understand that additionalcostsoverandabovethedepositmayaccrue.I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to completeprocessing,review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for projectconsideration,unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned totheCityshallbeconsideredbytheCityasbeingreceivedbyme.I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation ofaninvoicebytheCityforsuchservices. I have read,understood,and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no-payment.I agree to paythefollowinginitialdepositamountsforthespecifiedhoursofstafftime.I understand that payment of a deposit does notrenderandapplicationcompleteorcompliantwithapprovalcriteria.If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit,IagreetopayadditionalmonthlybillingstotheCitytoreimbursetheCityfortheprocessingofmyapplicationatthehourlyrateshereinafterstated. $__3,250 depositfor 10 hoursofCommunityDevelc above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. $_________________deposit for ______________ hours of Engineering deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. City of Aspen: November 2017 City of Aspen I 130 5.Galena St.1(970)920 5090 $.___________flat fee for flat fee for flat fee for Additional time Signature: Jessica Garrow,AICP PRINT Name:Brent SemblerCommunityDevelopmentDirector Owner;222 So.Cleveland St;AspenCityUse: Title: ______________________________________________ Fees Due:$Received $_______ Case #_________________________ Exhibit 5 P375 VI.B. Homeowner Association Compliance Policy All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed by the property owner or Attorney representing the property owner. Property Owner ("I"): Name: Brent Sembler Email: Brent.Sembler@sembler.com Address of 222 So. Cleveland; Aspen, CO 81611 Property: (subject of application) I certify as follows: (pick one) Phone No.: 727.384.6000 @ This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant. D This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. D This property is subject to a horn owners association rivate covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use ap Ii proved by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. I understand this policy an applicability, meaning or understand that this docu d the c· of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the 1 ate enants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I cument. Owner signature: Owner printed name: =B.;..re""'n"""t"""S:;..;e=m"""b"""l""'e.;...r _____ _ or, Attorney signature: ____________ date: ____ _ Attorney printed name: ___________ _ Exhibit 6 P376 VI.B. September 101 2018 Jessica Garrow,AICP Community Development Director City of Aspen 130 So.Galena St. Aspen,Colorado 81611 BendonAdams RE:222 So.Cleveland Street;Aspen,CO. Ms.Garrow: Please accept this letter authorizing and BendonAdams,LLC,to represent our ownership interests in 222 South Cleveland Street and act on our behalf on matters reasonably associated in securing land use approvals for the property. If there are any questions about the foregoing or if I contact me. can assist,please do not hesitate to Property —222 So.Cleveland Street;Aspen,CO 81611 300 SO SPRING ST I 202 I ASPEN,CO 81611 970.925.2855 1 BENDONADAMS.COM Legal Description —Lot 1,Fellman Lot Split Parcel ID —7 -182-04-004 Debbie Sembler Br 5858 St.Petersburg,FJ3707 727.384.6000 Brent.Sembler@sembler.com Exhibit 7 P377 VI.B. MEMORANDUM OF OWNERSHIP-ACCOMMODATION NO LIABILITY PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC., A DULY LICENSED TITLE INSURANCE AGENT IN THE STATE OF COLORADO. BY EXAMINATION OF THE RECORDS OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, DISCLOSES THE FOLLOWING: GRANTEE IN THE LAST INSTRUMENT OF CONVEYANCE BRENT SEMBLER and DEBBIE SEMBLER LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 1, FELLMAN LOT SPLIT, according to the Plat thereof recorded October 31, 1994 in Plat Book 35 at Page 67. DEED OF TRUST APPARENTLY UNRELEASED DEED OF TRUST FROM : BRENT W. SEMBLER and DEBBIE N. SEMBLER TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF THE COUNTY OF FOR THE USE OF : BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. TO SECURE : $3,500,000.00 DATED : DECEMBER 10, 2015 RECORDED : DECEMBER 23, 2015 RECEPTION NO. : 625823 LIENS AND JUDGMENTS (AGAINST LAST GRANTEE) APPARENTLY UNRELEASED NONE THIS INFORMATION IS FOR YOUR SOLE USE AND BENEFIT AND IS FURNISHED AS AN ACCOMMODATION. THE INFORMATION HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM THE PUBLIC RECORDS, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO, OR EXAMINATION OF, INSTRUMENTS WHICH PURPORTS TO AFFECT THE REAL PROPERTY. THE INFORMATION IS NEITHER GUARANTEED NOR CERTIFIED, AND IS NOT AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE, OPINION OF TITLE, NOR A GUARANTY OF TITLE, AND OUR LIABILITY IS LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT CHARGED FOR THIS REPORT. EFFECTIVE DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 2018 PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. BY: Authorized Officer JOB NO: ACCOM2840 Exhibit 8 P378 VI.B. P379 VI.B. P380 VI.B. P381 VI.B. Exhibit 9 222 South Cleveland Street – Vicinity Map P382 VI.B. 222 South Clevelandvisuals of home and exisƟ ng conditionsaspen | colorado123Exhibit 10Site photos from northwest property corner and from southwest corner looking along alleyExisting access to ADUfrom alley side of propertyInterior pictures showing entry, bathroom, interior connection, kitchen locationP383 VI.B. Exhibit 11 P384VI.B. 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM January 8, 2019 Mr. Garrett Larimer Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Sembler ADU – 222 So. Cleveland Avenue Mr. Larimer: Please accept this addendum to the 222 So. Cleveland application. We have made some changes to the ADU in response to P&Z Commissioner comments at the prior hearing. A revised plan is attached. The changes are summarized as follows: Storage – We have moved and expanded the closet/storage area to fit along the entire western wall of the ADU. We propose a normal depth for the closet and built-ins even though this is still below the 10% storage marker of today’s code. We explored a deeper closet and feel it takes too much away from the living space. The 25.5 square feet of closet/storage equates to 7.2% of the ADU. Four-Burner Range – We propose a 4-burner range with oven and a vent hood. Counter and Cabinet Space – We don't have an opportunity to expand counter space. But we do propose cabinets above the kitchen. The area above the stove will need to accommodate a range vent. A minimum of 12 cubic feet of cabinet area can be accommodated. Refrigerator – We are proposing an apartment-size refrigerator. This is larger than the under-counter versions with a typical height of roughly 5.5 feet. A final specification is not set but will be a minimum of 9.5 cubic feet in size, including the freezer. Washer/Dryer – We have space for these in the mechanical room and will provide the hook-ups and a stacked washer/dryer system for use by the ADU tenant. Natural light – We will replace the entry door, currently a solid panel, with either a half- or full-light door. This will enhance the natural light condition of the interior of the ADU. Kind Regards, Chris Bendon, AICP BendonAdams LLC Attachments: 1. Updated Plan P385 VI.B. 0----0----- 0---- �---- 0----- I I --t I ----�--- I ,( � EXISTING EGRESS I I 7'-7" WINDOW I 2'-0' ,( -- EXISTING BA-,_----1 c·-,1rJ•, ''>;--d,·:c_:� ---=-1 ==--==--0�] I .- NEW T.S. COLUMN 1, REF, STRUCTURAL I 11 __ !\I_�. EXISTING BATH. EXISTING ,-----EXISTING EGRESS WINDOW EXISTINCl BEDROOM EX[STING BATH 11-11 I I I I ,_c ·'\I_-�, ,---'/'\ \---. <'--7_ \ ' .. BASEMENT ' STACKED W/D I I ----LIGHTING ANDVENTltl\TION REQUIREMENTS ARE MET THROUGH EXISTING\WIN,DOWS FOR THE FAMILY ROO,M ___ i EXISTt� MECH. ___ _ 8'-1" I I I r-1--REF./ FREEZER MIN. ' EXISTING WINDOW RANGE HOOD JI -0 en -0 ----© / FULL HEIGHT BUILT-IN STORAGE CABINETS ABOVE jFOUR BURNER RANGE SINK-/; UPPER -----LIGHTING AND VENTILATION � REQUIREMENTS AR�ET BY 4 DOOR AND WINDOW!l;fOR TH A202 ADU. ...... CLOSET 2'-4 1/2' \__ 5 1/211 CABINETS LAMINATE-�' \ COU NTERTOP1------------;;;F--/ ---------__ ,-,- . 11 ,- -11•�1 1/�1 , __ 1, __\ 21'-2 1/2" 33'-o· EXISTING ADU 355 SQJFT. 12'-2 1/2"1 ,( ,( ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 'NEW GLASS EGRESS DOOR EXISTING STAIRWAY 1 Al04 LEGEND II NOT IN SCOPE c::::J EXISTING WALLS GENERAL NOTES, 1.EXISTING CONDITIONSMUST BE FIELD VERIFIED FOREXACT DIMENSIONS 2.DIMENSIONS ARE FROMGRID, FACE OF STUD, ORCONCRETE WALL3.DOORS AND WINDOWS AREDIMENSIONED TO CENTERLINE4.COLUMNS ARE DIMENSIONEDTO CENTERLINE LOWER LEVEL PROPOSED PLAN 1/4"=1'-0' I :l 605 EAST MAIN ST REET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (T) 970 / 925 4755 {Fl 970 I 920 2950 Consultant Issue: 01-07-2019 Final Set SEMBLER RESIDENCE ADU RESTORATION 222 S. CLEVEIAND ST. ASPEN, COLCRADO C) NORTH PROJECT NO, 21546.0 DWG Fil[ 21541.00A104ADU.dwg SHEET TITLE LOWER LEVEL PROPOSED PLAN A104 Ce) 2019 �M��fl1llW��Jroo, P.C TilE INFORMATION AND DESI� INTENT CONTAINED ON 11-ISOOCI.NENTISTilE PROPERTY OF Bill POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTIJRE NII PLANNING, P,C, NO PART [JflHIS ltfilRMAllON MAY BE USEDWITtO./TlfE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF Bill POSSAtll ASS{ICIATES, NlCHITICTUREAND PLANNNG, PC BILL POSSANOASS{ICIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNlt«:, P,C. SHALlRETAIN All COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGITS, IM::t.lOltl. COPYRIGKT lHERETO, Exhibit 1 P386VI.B.