Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20110308 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING TUESDAY, March 8, 2011 4:30 Council Chambers CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL II. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public III. MINUTES IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC HEARINGS — A. 131 Midland Ave., Residential Design Standard Variance (continued from 3/1) B. 625 E. Main Street (Stage 3), Planned Unit Development VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. BOARD REPORTS VIII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 6 a MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Claude Salter, Zoning Officer (_ RE: 131 Midland Ave - Residential Design Standards Variances, - Public Hearing MEETING DATE: March 8, 2011 (Continued from March 1, 2011) SPECIAL NOTE: This staff report is new since the March 1st hearing and addresses changes to the proposal since the last hearing. It contains the following: • A summary of the issues raised from the last meeting with additional information provided by Staff and the Applicant; • Staff recommendation & motion. Also attached is the original staff report of March 1, 2011. This memo provides the Commission with the variance request, and background associated with the RDS (Residential Design Standards) so the information is at hand. March 1, 2001 Meeting Summary: At the last meeting the Commission considered two Residential Design Standard Variance requests. Although the Commission liked the design of the residence they felt the applicant could make an effort to meet the required standards. The Applicant was given direction from the Commission to attempt to meet the Parking, Garage and Carport Standard and the First Story Element Standard. The Commission continued the meeting in order to give the applicant time to submit revised designs. The Commission requested Staff find date of construction of 18 residences used as examples by the applicant to illustrate neighborhood context. Commission requested the dates to better judge whether the RDS did not exist at the time of construction or if the RDS were enforced. Adoption of Residential Design Standards: Per recommendation from the adopted AACP (Aspen Area Community Plan) and a design symposium held during the same year goals were established to preserve neighborhood character. Ordinance No. 30 (Series of 1995) adopted initial design standards, the first story element and garage set back were adopted as follows: 2. Building Elements a. All residential buildings must have a one -story street facing element the width of which comprises at least 20% of the building's overall width. 3. All portions of a garage, carport of storage area parallel to the street shall be recessed behind the front facade a minimum of ten (10) feet. Subsequent changes to the design standards have occurred over time including changes to the first story element standard. Of the eighteen examples provided by the applicant to demonstrate the inconsistencies in the application of the RDS throughout the neighborhood: • Nine (9) were built prior to the adoption of the standards • One (1) was built after the adoption and received a RDS variance • Seven (7) were built after the adoption of the RDS. Of the seven which were built after the adoption of the RDS and used as examples; several met the first story element standard. The Applicant has amended the design of the project and a summary of the changes are provided below. Comments from Staff follow in a separate, italicized paragraph when applicable. The Applicant's representative has provided the changes in the attached Exhibit " • Redesigned Garage Entry. The garage entry has been relocated further back, to the minimum side yard setback. The reconfiguration provides for a two (2) foot setback from the main level and three (3) foot setback from the second level. • Redesigned Entry. The first story element is an entry canopy extending four (4) feet beyond the upper level facade. Technically, A minimum depth of six (6) feet is required. Staff Comment: The Applicant has attempted to meet the intent of the RDS garage setback as suggested by Staff and staff recommends approval of the revised garage. With regard to the first story element, Staff finds the proposed first story element does not meet the intent or the requirement of the Standard. Also the project would be new construction on the lot which does not have unusual site - specific constraints. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the garage setback and require a minimum of three (3) feet be maintained from the front most facade (upper level) of the house. Staff recommends denial of the first story element variance request. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2011, approving two variance requests from the Residential Design Standards to construct a single - family residence located at 131 Midland Ave." ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A — Application (provided 3/1/11) Exhibit B - Updated site plan and elevations BODY OF MARCH 1ST MEMO BODY OF MARCH 1ST MEMO Applicant: MHRJ3, LLC (Jennifer and Brian Hermelin) Representative: Joseph Spears, Studio B Architects Zoning: R -6 (Medium- Density Residential) Lot Size: 5,322 Square Feet Land Use: Single- Family Residence Request Summary: The Applicant is requesting two Variances from certain Residential Design Standards 131 Midland Ave., Existing Front in order to demolish the existing single - family residence and Facade attached garage at 131 Midland Ave and replace it with a new single - family residence and attached garage. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission require the applicant to achieve some setback if not the full ten feet as required by the standard with regard to the garage setback and to deny the first story element variance request. LAND USE REQUESTS: The Applicant is proposing to demolish the existing residential structures located at 131 Midland Avenue and is requesting the following land use approvals to redevelop the site with a single - family residence and attached garage: • Variance approval from the Residential Design Standards pursuant to L.U.C. Section 26.410.020 D., Variances. The applicant is requesting variances from L.U.C. Section 26.410.040 C.2., Parking, garages and carports (requiring the front facade of the garage or the front -most supporting column of a carport to be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front -most wall of the house) and L.U.C. Section 26.410.040 D.2., First story element (requiring all residential building to have a first story street- facing element). Fi:ure 1: Vicinit ma. w e t s , arm t P a . so 3 ' R an . 131 Midland Ave. Z x IM ^c t: ` n REVIEW PROCEDURE: A variance from t Residential Design Standards shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied after review and consideration during a duly noticed public hearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission under L.U.C. Sections: 26.410.020 D. Variances. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant is propos to demolish the existing single - family residence and attached garage located at 131 Midland Avenue and replace them with a new single - family residence and attached garage. STAFF ANALYSIS: RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES: All new structures in the City of Aspen are required to meet the residential design standards or obtain . a variance from the standards pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards. The purpose of the standards "is to preserve established neighborhood scale and character....ensure that neighborhoods are public places....that each home...contribute to the streetscape." The proposal has been designed to meet the majority of the design standards. The two (2) design standards that are not met by the proposal are 1.) Parking, garages and carports, requiring "the front fapade of the garage or the front -most supporting column of a carport to be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front -most wall of the house" and 2.) First story element, "all residential buildings shall have a first story street - facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty percent (20 %) of the building's overall width and the depth of which is at least six (6) feet from the wall the first story element is projecting from. Assuming that the first story element includes interior living space, the height of the first story element shall not exceed ten (10) feet, as measured to the plate height. A first story element may be a porch or living space. Accessible space (whether it is a deck, porch or enclosed area) shall not be allowed over the first story element; however, accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front facade shall not be precluded." Parking, garages and carports The parking, garages and carport standard requires that all residential uses that only have access from a public street provide a garage that is set back from the front facade of the house by at least ten (10) feet as represented in the example below which is in the Land Use Code. Figure 2: Garage setback The intent of the requirement is to: minimize the presence of I I garages and carports as a lifeless part of the streetscape where alleys do not exist." As proposed (Figure 3), the new residence's garage is flush with the front -most wall of the house. . 1011 Figure 3: Proposed gaze setback „o Y s>s,, : 4, 1 / f , r ∎ ,r t i ; w . �� �.� ,. , �,, 7 1 11 1,% I i et �� � :e l i y e y � , V I c / aegis �� p ?I e, :s ; ki r k*. y ' 4, 4 ' 1i O Ms. oego <� , a _ y�, w �t 9 � . ..1 x .g 1B -a _ There are two review standards that the applicant is required to meet if the Commission is to grant a variance from the standard, Section 26.410.020 (D) (2): a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site - specific constraints. Staff Finding: As shown in neighborhood photos within the application (Exhibit A), Staff feels that the Applicant 's request to vary the set back requirements of the garage is consistent with the context in which the development is proposed as the neighborhood in which the development is proposed is inconsistent at best with regard to garage location and provides examples of garages that are flush with the facade of the building; however, by locating the garage as proposed greater prominence to the garage is created that does not reflect the intent of the design standard. The lot has the space to meet the intent of the standard and is not unduly burdened with an unusual site specific constraint. There exists an opportunity to meet the intent by either moving the location of the garage, moving the garage element closer to the side yard setback and/or moving the front -most wall of the house closer to the front yard setback. Staff is recommending that the applicant amend the plan and provide some attempt at meeting the standard. Staff find only one of the two criterion met. First story element. The first story element standard requires that "all residential buildings shall have a first story street - facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty percent (20 %) of the building's overall width and the depth of which is at least six (6) feet from the wall the first story element is projecting from. Assuming that the first story element includes interior living space, the height of the first story element shall not exceed ten (10) feet, as measured to the plate height. A first story element may be a porch or living space. Accessible space (whether it is a deck, porch or enclosed area) shall not be allowed over the first story element; however, accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front facade shall not be precluded." Figure 4: First story element The project as proposed has a porch element e which meets the depth and width requirements of the first story element standard; however, it is recessed below the !����11���96f'��l1 second story and does not meet the first story element standard that there "shall not be iI • • I' accessible space allowed over the first story l element..." Again, there are two review standards that the applicant is required to meet if the Commission is to grant a variance from the standard, Section 26.410.020 (D)(2): a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site - specific constraints. Staff Finding: The residential design standards require certain building elements to be provided "to ensure that each residential building has street facing architectural details and elements, which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions." Staff feels the design of the entry could be amended to provide the required first story element without removing significant portions of the second level. A one story element such as an entryway "provides an appropriate domestic scale for a private residence." The proposed project is not situated on a lot with unusual site - specific constraints. Staff does not find the criterion met. Resolution No. _ (SERIES OF 2011) RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ATTACHED GARAGE AT 131 MIDLAND AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from MHRJ3, LLC (Jennifer and Brian Hermelin), requesting Variance approval from certain Residential Design Standards for the construction of a single - family residence and attached garage located at 131 Midland Avenue; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application for compliance with the Variance Review Standards; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended approval of the Variances from two Residential Design Standards — Parking, garages and carports (Land Use Code Section 26.410.040 C.2.) and First story element (Land Use Code Section 26.410.040 D.2.), finding that the review standards for the requests have been met; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approves with conditions, the noted Variance requests to construct a single - family residence at 131 Midland Avenue, by a vote of to ( — ), 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. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves variances from the following two Residential Design Standards: • L.U.C. Section 26.410.040 C.2., Parking, garages and carports (requiring the front facade of the garage or the front -most supporting column of a carport to be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front -most wall of the house). The specific review standard language reads: "The front facade of the 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 most wall of the house." A variance to permit the garage to be setback three (3) feet from the upper facade is permitted. and • L.U.C. Section 26.410.040 D.2., First story element (requiring all residential buildings to have a first story street - facing element). The specific review standard language reads: "all residential buildings shall have a first story street - facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty percent (20 %) of the building's overall width and the depth of which is at least six (6) feet from the wall the first story element is projecting from. Assuming that the first story element includes interior living space, the height of the first story element shall not exceed ten (10) feet, as measured to the plate height. A first story element may be a porch or living space. Accessible space (whether it is a deck, porch or enclosed area) shall not be allowed over the first story element; however, accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front facade shall not be precluded." The Planning and Zoning Commission has determined the variance requests meet the review criteria outlined in L.U.C. Section 26.410.020 (D)(2). These approvals shall permit the Applicant to construct a single- family residence with an attached garage located at 131 Midland Avenue as represented at the public hearing held March 1, 2011. Section 2: The building permit application to develop the above - mentioned residence shall include a copy of the final P &Z Resolution. All other requirements to develop a single family residence shall be submitted as part of the building permit application including but not limited to: adopted building and fire codes, relevant standards within the Aspen Municipal Code such as engineering and water system standards, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations, etcetera. Section 3: 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 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5: 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. APPROVED by the Commission at its meeting on March 1, 2011. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Stan Gibbs, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk List of Exhibits Exhibit A: Site plan (representing approved variance from garage setback) Exhibit B: elevations (representing approved variance from first story element) / / o Z 1 / L I I r 1 o phill ik Cf3 I � r y,y c / men - 0, Eli 1 yi' CD 0 D ' / 1 d 1 O d I ` Fi D . -x / Z Allite /, z o kit- i f s i filt a a I - VIVI ilk C I l 41 -- --- / . � . -, 4t/41Zkkii.tk O S ` t•�4'"`� ��`�1�� Illt e * 4.0' o .o ircli aly p ° z oo 44 1 0 �� S' > ° ,� , a s o ot R� � q ye ' m a � 1 ao,o o rn vi O 47 A m D>D3 11 9X22 V O D \ m m m < 9 M m 111 a r r r 3 0 mm 2 t Ar Z A22ri! a C pOD ZM <O 00 2 r rmS�T 'IW O N m m On > 0 i � Hmm r m-n 0 7 D n O m m{ D O m O - z z W yna H m i com m mZHm 7C 0 D m y Z 2m = v TI O 2 • x Cf ( pr9 B D ` 3 oil ?§ s ® HERMELIN RESIDENCE u I F I g (Y if a ,,... 131 MIDLAND AVENUE u w. ASPEN, CO B1611 L I I I o I O � 1 trAki lk / on r ' m . 1 I o o / o N N) o / ' �� i a 1 ,' ^ ii 3'/ / F ., / r — V. 4 / r 1 \** A l k •' \� Is ''' mir = MID R w E ` : , . ,o., • h -CS AV ♦ , 4o - $ J x 0 v 0 m D r 4 D I z��. !3a I HERMELIN RESIDENCE N 1 1 r !.i 131 MIDLAND AVENUE ... . .... ............. ......_.. L� 5� .....'..'....“ ....• ASPEN, CO 81611 - .di - -AIMOIMMEMMEN. _ ••• . ., , , ,. ,..._ _ _. ..... ..._. LL9LBO0'N3dSV ��� �� '!I 3f1N3AV ONV1OIW I-£1. .•te � �•�.• - .� ..... •,.•� ` 1 i 1 M 3ON34IS32H NI13WH3H lid Q s : .. , 1 w,• f; e 777 i, 4 yy M1' N A ,,A -:,. ;1 - 2. ., ,,,,,,.. li 4.;: . ;., ., ''' 4 / -.. A i ' J k LL 0 . i I U ., ,.. L ., .. ji . W c, ,_ >_ .... . ., ....,..,,.„.. .. , ........ z 1 0 , . ,_.__. ____ ,_. , . O ,_ . . .. ...... ,ILLI-----.'• . Q Q ...... ., \ 3 U` .si • , ..„„..., .... ,, .....,..,.., ,,...„. , ...,„. ‘.! a ti,... t , r. w � `�o cc ®' -:. - 4.. r Q /(' A; : /' ji ,i. 1 1 I li 1 4, . 1 1 " 5 " P1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Plannerc)V RE: Stage III Building Redevelopment (625 E. Main St) — Amendment of Growth Management Development Order, Amendment of Subdivision Development Order, Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing, and Expansion/New Commercial, Lodge, or Mixed -Use Development, Planned Unit Development, and Rezoning — Resolution No. _ , Series 2011 (Parcel 2737- 073 -32 -002) DATE OF MEMO: March 3, 2011 MEETING DATE: March, 8, 2011 APPLICANT /OWNER: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 625 Main Aspen LLC, Jeff Cardot Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the project, with conditions. REPRESENTATIVE: Adam Roy, David Johnston Architects SUMMARY: The Applicant requests of the Planning and Zoning LOCATION: Commission approval to amend a growth Lots E, F, G, easterly 10 feet of Lot D, Block 98, management development order to reduce the City and Townsite of Aspen, CO, commonly known amount of free - market residential from 5 units to 3 as 625 E. Main St. units, reduce the affordable housing units from 5 to 2, and approve a growth management review for CURRENT ZONING & USE 2,865 sf of additional commercial space. Commercial (C -1) zone district with approvals for a Additionally, the Applicant is requesting from the three -story mixed -use building consisting of twenty- Planning and Zoning Commission a six (26) stacked sub -grade parking spaces, three (3) recommendation of approval to the City Council exterior surface parking spaces, two (2) commercial for an amendment to a subdivision development spaces, one (1) office space, five (5) affordable order, a PUD to increase the net livable space in the housing units, five (5) free - market housing units, free - market units, and a rezoning. and a common roof deck PROPOSED LAND USE: ', ■ The Applicant is requesting to develop a three story mixed -use building containing thirteen (13) sub- -- grade parking spaces, three (3) exterior surface _ - parking spaces, time (3) commercial spaces, one (1).. -- office space, two (2) affordable housing units, and - three (3) free - market housing units. -- - -- Page 1 of 11 mi • P2 SPECIAL NOTE: Because the project was originally approved under the 2006 Land Use Code (pre- moratorium), and the applicant requests amending those approvals that remain vested, this application is being reviewed under the 2006 Land Use Code. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission to redevelop the site: • Amendment to a Growth Management Development Order pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.090.B. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the fmal review authority, who may approve, approve with conditions, or ddny the proposal). • • Growth Management Review for Expansion/New Commercial, Lodge, or Mixed -Use Development for the development of a new mixed -use building pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040 C.2.(The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal). • Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing for the development of affordable housing pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040 C.7. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal). Additionally, the following land use requests will be reviewed and acted upon by the City Council: • Amendment of a Subdivision Development Order pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480 (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). • Planned Unit Development to exceed the net livable unit size cap of the free - market units pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445. (City Council is the fmal review authority • after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). • Rezoning to place a PUD designation on the property pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310. (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant has requested approvals necessary to amend the approved development at 625 E Main Street, located on the south side of E. Main St. between S. Hunter St. and S. Spring St. The subject site is a 10,000 square foot lot that is approved to be redeveloped with a new mixed - use building containing commercial, office, affordable housing, and free market residential uses. The property is located in the Commercial (C -1) zone district. The site is slightly sloped from Main St. up to the alley. Page 2 of 11 t. P3 The previously approved (Ordinance 41, Series of 2006) and vested project is for: • A completely sub -grade parking garage with access provided by an internal automobile lift. Twenty -three (23) parking spaces were approved, with thirteen (13) on the basement floor and ten (10) of those spaces outfitted with a vertical lift. In addition the basement is approved to have resident and tenant storage units, mechanical areas, and stair and elevator access to the rest of the building. • A street level containing two (2) commercial spaces totaling 5,861 sf of net leasable space, common circulation areas/facilities, and the top end of the automobile lift. Three (3) 0 head -on parking spaces are provided in the alley, as is an exterior trash/service /delivery area. • A second level containing one (1) office space totaling 2,029 sf of net leasable space, one (1) free market residence with 1,555 sf of net livable space, five (4) one - bedroom affordable housing units totaling 3,534 sf of net livable space, and common circulation areas. Four (4) of the affordable housing units face the north, or Main Street side of the building. One (1) of the affordable housing units has a 51 sf deck on the west side of the building, but no other windows. • A third floor containing four (4) free - market residential units totaling 6,799 sf of net livable space. • A roof with a common deck, two access stairs, an access elevator, and a green roof. This Applicant proposes to amend the approval as follows: • A completely sub -grade parking garage with access provided by an internal automobile lift. The garage will provide thirteen (13) parking spaces, one (1) commercial space totaling 2,118 sf of net leasable area, and stair and elevator access to the rest of the building. • A street level containing two (2) commercial spaces totaling 5,973 sf of net leasable space, common circulation areas /facilities, and the top end of the automobile lift. Three (3) head -on parking spaces are provided in the alley, as is an exterior trash/service /delivery area. • A second level containing one (1) office space totaling 1,896 sf of net leasable space, one (1) free market residence totaling 2,527 sf of net leasable space, two (2) three - bedroom affordable housing units totaling 2,786 sf of net livable area, and common circulation areas. The affordable housing units face the north, or Main Street side of the building. • A third level containing two (2) free - market units totaling 5,495 sf of net livable space, and common circulation space. The Applicant has increased the size of the Page 3of11 , . • P4 deck areas dedicated to the free - market units, and decreased the size of the third floor by approximately 19 %. • The Applicant proposed eliminating the roof -top deck as well as the Green Roof. These changes mean that the full- height access stairs and elevator can be removed from the roof, Table 1: Comparison of Approved vs. Proposed vs. Required Dimensional Requirements (Changes are highlighted in Yellow) Dimensional Underlying Commercial Approved Dimensional Proposed Dimensional Requirement (C -1) Zone District Requirements Requirements Requirements (Ordinance 41, Series 2006) Minimum Lot 3,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. Size Minimum Lot Not applicable to mixed 100 Feet 100 Feet Width use development Minimum Lot Not applicable to a mixed N/A N/A Area/Dwelling use development Minimum Front Not applicable to a mixed 0 Feet 0 Feet Yard Setback use development Minimum Side Not applicable to a mixed 0 Feet 0 Feet Yard Setback use development Minimum Rear No requirement for mixed 0 Feet 0 Feet Yard Setback use development; but trash/utility service area must abut alley Maximum 42 Feet for flat roofs. Building: 42 Feet Building: 42 Feet Height Elevator Shaft extends 5 Feet above to 47 Feet Minimum Not applicable to a mixed N/A N/A Distance use development between Buildings Pedestrian Pursuant to Section Cash -in -Lieu fee of $50 Cash -in -Lieu fee of $50 Amenity Space 26.575.030, Pedestrian per 1000 square feet = per 1000 square feet Amenity $50,000 for this lot $5-0,000 for this lot Page 4of11 P 5 Dimensional Underlying Commercial Approved Dimensional Proposed Dimensional Requirement (C -1) Zone District Requirements Requirements Requirements Floor Area Cumulative Commercial: Cumulative 11,144 sq. Cumulative 9,947 sq. ft. Ratio (FAR) Maximum: 1.5:1 up to Maximum: ft. or Maximum: or 0.99:1 3:1 2:1 (with 25,427 sq. 1.11:1 23,606 sq. affordable ft. or ft. or housing 2.54:1 2.36:1 increase) Lodging, N/A N/A Arts, Cultural and Civic, Public, Recreational, Academic uses: 3:1 _ - Affordable 4,425 sq. 3,660 sq. ft. Housing: No ft. or or 0.37:1 limitation 0.44:1 Free - Market: 9,858 sq. 9,999 sq. ft. 1:1 ft. or or l:1 0.98:1 Duplex, N/A N/A detached residential, bed and Breakfast: 80% pg allowable floor area of same -sized lot in R6 zone district Maximum Maximum 2,000 sq. ft. for Free- Affordable Free- Affordable Residential Unit both free - market Market Units: Market Units: Size (Sq. Ft.) residential units and Units: A. 753 sf Units: affordable housing A. 1,964 sf B. 700 sf A. 2,658 sf A. 1,435 sf residential units. The free- B. 1,927 sf C. 700 sf B. 2,837 sf B. 1,351 sf market component must be C. 1,777 sf D. 681 sf C. 2,527 sf no more than the same D. 1,131 sf E. 709 sf (Total size: (Total size: percentage as the E. 1,570 sf 8,022 sf) 2,786 sf) commercial component Page 5 of 11 P6 Dimensional Underlying Commercial Approved Dimensional Proposed Dimensional Requirement (C -1) Zone District Requirements Requirements Requirements Free - Market The total free - market net Free Market Net Livable Free Market Net Livable Net Livable to livable space shall be no Area (NLA): 8,369 sf Area (NLA): 8,022 sf Commercial Net greater than the total Leasable Ratio above grade space Above -Grade Above -Grade Commercial associated with Commercial Net Net Leasable Area (NLA): (commercial net leasable Leasable Area (NLA): 7,869 sf space). 7,890 sf The ratio is not met by The ratio is not met by 153 sf (There is 153 sf 479 sf (There is 497 sf more Free - Market NLA more Free - Market NLA than Commercial NLA) than Commercial NLA) The discrepancy is being This discrepancy can be decreased. carried forward. STAFF COMMENTS: GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS: The Applicant is requesting three (3) separate growth management approvals to change the internal division of space — an Amendment to a Growth Management Development Order, a review for new commercial space, and affordable housing (required because of the request for new commercial space). It should be noted that when affordable housing units are provided on- site, the individual mitigation requirements are not added together for a combined sum. As long as the largest amount of required mitigation of any one growth management request is met, the on -site affordable housing satisfies both requirements. For this application, the largest requirement is generated by the free - market residential development. The requests and the project's compliance with the applicable review standards are discussed below: 1) Amendment to a Growth Management Development Order. The Applicant has requested to amend the use allocation of the project as outlined in the table below: Approved Project Proposed Project Net Change Affordable Housing 5 1- bedroom units 2 3- bedroom units Decrease of 3 units AH net livable 3,543 sf NLA 2,786 sf NLA Decrease of 757 sf NLA Number of FTEs housed 8.75 FTEs 6 FTEs Decrease of 2.75 FTEs housed Free - Market Housing 5 units 3 units Decrease of 2 units FM net livable 8,369 sf NLA 8,022 sf NLA Decrease of 347 sf NLA Commercial Space 7,890 sf NLA 9,988 sf NLA Increase of 2,098 sf NLA Above Grade 7,890 sf NLA 7,869 sf NLA Decrease of 21 sf NLA Below Grade 0 sf NLA 2,118 sf NLA Increase of 2,118 sf NLA Page 6of11 P7 The Land Use Code requires that any time a substantial amendment to a Growth Management Development Order is request it be reviewed under the original code language. Thus, the request is subject to a review for New Commercial Space in a Mixed -Use Building, New Free - Market Units, and Affordable Housing. A summary of the Growth Management Calculations are below.' Commercial Space Mitigation: To determine the mitigation amount, the original number of employees and the proposed number of employees generated must be calculated. All calculations are made pursuant to Land Use Section 26.470.050. For each 1,000 square feet of first floor net leasable area (NLA), 4.1 employees are generated in the C1 district. For each 1,000 square feet of upper or basement level NLA, 3.075 employees are generated. The original development (the Stage III Theatre) generated 28.2 FTEs. This proposal generates 36.83 FTEs, or an increase of 8.63 FTEs. Category 4 housing must be created for 60% of the employees generated. Based on the above calculations, (36.83 — 28.2), the project generates 8.63 FTEs. Based on the 60% rate, then, Category 4 housing must be provided for 5.18 FTEs (8.63 x 60 %). This proposal generates housing for six (6) FTEs, exceeding the 60% requirement. Free - Market Residential Generation: The original Stage 3 Theatre building did not include free - market residences . The proposed development includes three free - market units with 8,022 sf of net livable space. 30% of this, or 2,406 square feet, of affordable housing space is required. The proposed development includes two 3- bedroom affordable housing units with a total of 2,786 square feet housing 6 FTEs, exceeding the 30% requirement by approximately 16 %. Affordable Housing Review: The Code allows housing provided on -site to simultaneously satisfy both the commercial and free - market FTE housing requirements. The proposal meets this code requirement. Commercial FTE requirements: 5.18 FTE Free Market FTE requirements: 2,406 sf AH net livable (or 6.0 FTEs) FTE housing provided: 2,786 square feet housing 6 FTEs 2) Growth Management Approval for Commercial Space in a New Mixed —Use Building. Because the proposal increases the amount of approved Net Leasable space, a review for the increase is required. The calculations in number 1 above include those for the new basement net leasable space. The Applicant is meeting the requirement of providing housing for six (6) FTEs. ' Please see Exhibit A for the complete Calculations. 2 The approved development generated 30.27 FTEs, or an increase of 2.07 FTEs. 3 The approved building included 8,354 sf of free - market residential net livable area, and was required to provide housing for 6.27 FTEs (2,506/400). However, it exceeded the requirement by providing 3,543 sf of affordable housing for 8.86 FTEs (3,543/400). 4 When converted to FTEs, the free - market portion of the development is required to provide housing for 6.02 FTEs (2,406/400). Page 7 of 11 P8 3) Growth Management Approval for the Development of Affordable Housing. This review is required because of the increase in Net Leasble Space. The calculations in number 1 above show that the amount of housing provided meets the code requirement. The Applicant is proposing to provide two 3- bedroom affordable housing units with a total of 2,786 sf. The Housing Board has reviewed the units and has recommended approval of the units, with conditions. In reviewing the Growth Management portion of the application, Staff believes that the proposal meets the applicable standards established in Land Use Code Sections 26.470.040 C. 2, 6, and 7. Staff and the Housing Board recommend that the owner be able to choose the owners for the initial sale and that all subsequent sales be done through the lottery system. The initial buyer must qualify under the APCHA Guidelines. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: The Applicant is requesting a PUD in order to increase the size of the free - market units beyond 2,000 sf net livable. Staff believes increasing the units beyond 2,000 sq NLA to 2,500 sf NLA with the use of TDRs is acceptable and is consistent with city policies and the current code. However, staff does not believe increasing the unit size beyond this is appropriate. Staff believes this could negatively impact the TDR Program. While it may be worthwhile to explore changes to the TDR Program, staff believes that this should occur at a policy level, not at a project level. Free - Market Unit Size: As noted in the dimensional table, the request to exceed the unit size cap is the only dimensional requirement that is inconsistent with the 2006 Land Use Code. At the time, residential units were not permitted to exceed 2,000 sq ft. of net livable space. This requirement was established in 2006 for two reasons: 1. To encourage density in the downtown and the potential to have more lights on in the city core. Part of the Philosophy under the Economic Sustainability Chapter of the AACP outlines this desire: "Essential to long -term viability is the unique, varied, high quality, and welcoming experience Aspen offers to both residents and a diverse visitor population. They demand a lively, small -scale downtown with diverse and unique shops and varied choices of accommodations, including small lodges." 2. To encourage multiple ownership of buildings in the downtown and maximize multiple uses of a property. At the time there was a concern that people could purchase a downtown building and convert the entire thing to one very large residence. As part of the 2006 — 2007 moratorium, the ability to increase unit sizes from 2,000 sf to 2,500 sf by landing one TDR was added to many zone districts, including the C -1 zone district. This was added to the Land Use Code to help bolster the City's Historic TDR Program. Because this ability was not in the 2006 Land Use Code, a PUD is needed to amend enable the landing of TDRs to increase unit sizes to 2,500 sf. The Applicant is requesting approval of units that are larger than 2,500 sf. Under the 2006 Land Use Code, three free - market units could total 6,000 sf. A PUD could be approved to allow the three units to be 2,500 sf each, for a total of 7,500 sf (this would be consistent with the Code in effect today). The applicant is requesting the three (3) free - market Page 8 of 11 P9 units be increased in size to a total of 8,022 sf (the second floor unit would be 2,527 sf, the third floor units would be 2,658 sf and 2,837 sf). A PUD could be approved to allow the request increase in net livable space — with or without the landing of TDRs (this would not be consistent with the Code in effect today). The Applicant is requesting the larger unit size without the landing of TDRs. Commercial.: Free - Market Ratio: The 2006 Code includes a requirement that "The total free- market net livable space shall be no greater than the total above grade space associated with (commercial net leasable space)." Through the Council review process, the application was approved with 479 sf more free - market net livable space than commercial net leasable space. This discrepancy can be carried forward, but staff recommends memorializing this in the approval. The Applicant is decreasing the discrepancy to 153 s£ In reviewing the PUD portion of the application, Staff believes that the proposal as requested does not meet the applicable standards established in Land Use Code. Staff recommends that a PUD be used to enable each free- market unit to increase in size from 2,000 sf to 2,500 sf through the use of a TDR. In addition, staff recommends that the overall dimensional requirements of the project be consistent with the C -1 zone district in effect in 2006, including the requirement that free- market net livable space be less than the amount of commercial net leasable space. REZONING: The Applicant is required to request a Rezoning because of the PUD request. The Rezoning will enable the PUD designation to be added to the Zoning Map. Staff believes increasing the units beyond 2,000 sq NLA to 2,500 sf NLA with the use of TDRs is acceptable and is consistent with city policies and the current code. However, staff does not believe increasing the unit size beyond this is appropriate. Staff believes this could negatively impact the TDR Program. While it may be worthwhile to explore changes to the TDR Program, staff believes that this should occur at a policy level, not at a project level. In reviewing the Rezoning portion of the application, Staff believes that the proposal as requested does not meet the applicable standards established in Land Use Code. SUBDIVISION: The Applicant is requesting an amendment to an approved subdivision development order because of the changes to the intemal division of space. The units will need to be condominiumized in order to demarcate ownership. Once construction is completed, the developer must file a condominium plat and documents approvable by the Community Development Director. • 5 The approved Free - Market Net Livable space was 8,369 sf, and the approved Commercial Net Leasable space was 7,890 sf. (8,369 — 7,890 = 479 sf over) 6 The proposed above -grade net leasable space is 7,869 sf. 8,022 sf net livable — 7,869 sf net leasable = 153 sf of discrepancy. Approved discrepancy is 479 sf. Page 9of11 P10 The Applicant has proposed changes to the parking configuration. The proposal provides sixteen (16) spaces, ten (10) more spaces than are required by code. These spaces are both sub -grade in a garage and at grade off the alley. The mitigation numbers are found below. The Applicant is able to retain a deficit of parking if the existing building provides less parking than is required by the code (26.515.O10B). On the existing Stage 3 property, there is a deficit of four (4) spaces. Total Parking Provided in New Development: 13 subgrade /garage spaces + 3 surfaces spaces = 16 spaces 16 spaces provided, only 6 required. Provided parking = 10 more than required The Applicant has chosen not to assign spaces to any particular uses. The Housing Board did not make a recommendation on parking. The Parking Department has recommended that more of the off - street parking be designated to the residences than to commercial, but this is not required by the Land Use Code. In reviewing the subdivision portion of the application, Staff believes that the proposal does not meet the applicable subdivision review standards established in Land Use Code because of the requested increase in the amount of net livable space in the free- market residential units. Staff believes the remaining aspects of the application (reducing parking, additional commercial space, elimination of roof deck, etc) meets the requirements of Subdivision. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: The City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Water Department, Aspen Sanitation District, Housing Department, and the Parks Department have all reviewed the proposed application and their requirements have been included as conditions of approval when appropriate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the request for additional commercial space is consistent with the neighborhood and the land use code. However, staff does not believe the request to exceed the unit size cap for residential units is consistent with the neighborhood or the land use code. Staff recommends that the project be approved with the ability to achieve unit sizes of 2,500 sf of net livable space through the use of three (3) TDRs. While the 2006 code limits unit sizes to 2,000 sf of net livable space, a size of 2,500 sf through the use of TDRs is consistent with the code in effect today. In addition, staff recommends that the requirements that the free - market residential net livable ratio be memorialized through this application. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMITIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2011, approving with conditions, the Amendment of a Growth Management Development Order, Commercial and Affordable ' The approved project included 10 vertically stacked parking spaces. While the vertical stacked parking spaces do not count under the code, this would have created a total of 26 spaces. The proposed project eliminates the vertical stacking of cars. Page 10 of 11 P11• Housing Growth Management Review, and recommending that City Council approve with conditions, the Amendment to a Subdivision Development Order, a PUD to allow three (3) free - market units of 2,500 sf though the use of TDRs, and rezoning on the property located at 625 East Main St." ALTERNATIVE MOTIONS: "I move to approve Resolution No. _, Series of 2011, approving with conditions, the ability to construct three (3) free - market units of 2,000 sf, and associated reviews." "I move to approve Resolution No. Series of 2011, approving with conditions, the ability to construct three (3) free - market units totaling 8,022 sf through the use of six (6) TDRs, and associated reviews." "I move to approve Resolution No. _, Series of 2011, approving with conditions, the ability to construct three (3) free - market units totaling 8,022 sf without the use of TDRs, and associated reviews." (Staff Note: This is the Applicant's request) ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A — Review Criteria EXHIBIT B — Development Review Committee Comments EXHIBIT C — Application dated December 30, 2010 EXHIBIT D - Supplemental Material dated March 1, 2011 EXHIBIT E — Previously Approved Floor Plans (Dated February 12, 2007) Exhibit F — Supplemental Renderings (inserted in Application) • Page 11 of 11 P12 Resolution # - 11 • RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS AN AMENDMENT TO A GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT ORDER, TWO GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS, AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS AN AMENDMENT TO A SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT ORDER, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND REZONING FOR 625 E. MAIN STREET, LOTS E, F, G, EASTERLY 10 FEET OF LOT D, BLOCK 98, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL NO. 2737-182-02204 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen Main Street Properties LP, represented by David Johnston Architects, requesting approval of an amendment to a growth management development order, two Growth Management Reviews, an amendment to a subdivision development order, Planned Unit Development, and rezoning to construct a mixed -use building consisting of 9,988 sf of net leasable space, two affordable housing residential units, and three free - market residential units; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned C -1 (Commercial); and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval with conditions, of the proposed subdivision and associated land use requests; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 8, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. , Series of 2011, by a to L - D vote, approving an amendment to a growth management development order, two Growth Management Reviews for the development of a mixed -use building that includes commercial space, office space, free - market housing, and affordable housing, and recommending that City Council approve with conditions an amendment to a subdivision development order, Planned Unit Development, and rezoning for the property located at 625 E. Main Street, Lots E, F, G, easterly 10 feet of Lot D, Block 98, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Approval Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves with conditions an Amendment of Reso , Series 2011 Page 1 of 6 P13 a Growth Management Development Order; a Commercial Growth Management Review; and a Growth Management Review for the development of affordable housing to construct a mixed - use building consisting of two (3) commercial units, one (1) office unit, three (3) free - market residential units, and two (2) deed - restricted affordable housing units on the property located at 625 E. Main Street, Lots E, F, G, easterly 10 feet of Lot D, Block 98, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO. Section 2: Dimensional Requirements The project shall be subject to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.575, Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations and with the Commercial (C -1) zone district, in place at the time of land use application submittal in April 2006. Changes subsequent to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy shall be subject to the Code in place at the time of proposed changes, with the exception of the size of the Free - Market units, and Free - Market Net Livable to Commercial Net Leasable Ratio as outlined in the table below. The free - market residential units are permitted to increase to 2,500 sq. ft. of net livable area each with the landing of a TDR (per unit). Compliance with these requirements will be verified by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer at the time of building permit submittal. Dimensional Requirement Proposed Dimensional Requirements Free Market Net Livable Area (NLA): 8,022 sf Above -Grade Commercial Net Leasable Area Free - Market Net Livable to (NLA): 7,869 sf Commercial Net Leasable Ratio The ratio is not met by 153 sf (There is 153 sf more Free - Market NLA than Commercial NLA). 2,000 sf with the ability to increase to 2,500 Maximum Residential Unit Size (Sq. through the landing of a TDR. (Each TDR is Ft.) equivalent to 500 sf of net livable area.) Section 3: Plat and Agreement Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City Council grant an Amendment to a Subdivision Development Order, a PUD, and a rezoning and that, should City Council grant said approvals approval, the Applicant shall record a Subdivision/PUD agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of such approval. A final Condominium Plat may be approved and signed by the Community Development Director upon substantial completion of construction. Section 4: Building Permit Application The building permit application shall include the foil owir. a. A copy of the final Ordinance and P &Z Resolution. Reso , Series 2011 Page 2 of 6 P14 b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department. d. An excavation - stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), and drainage and spoils report pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The CMP shall include an identification of construction hauling routes, construction phasing, and a construction traffic and parking plan for review and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. The construction management plan shall also identify that the adjacent sidewalks will be kept open and maintained throughout construction, that landscapings, plantings and amenities on adjacent property will be protected, and that construction parking will not encroach on private property. e. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall meet adopted building code requirements. f. An approved Landscape Plan Section 5: Trash/Utility Service Area The trash containers shall be wildlife proof and meet the regulations pertaining to size and security. Section 6: Sidewalks, Curb, and Gutter The finished floor of the building is approximately 1.3 feet above the top back of curb, it proposes challenges in meeting the department's standards for accessibility and door swing clearance along Main Street. Plans that meet the Engineering Department's standards regarding accessibility must be submitted prior to council approval. Additionally structural soils will be required for the sidewalk to improve the growth area for the planting strip. Due to the condition of the curb and gutter that fronts the building, it will need to be replaced prior to CO of the building. All improvements shall be made prior to a Certificate of Occupancy on any of the units within the development. Section 7: Affordable Housing 1. The mitigation with the two three - bedroom units has been satisfied. The owner shall convey an undivided 1 /10 of 1% ownership interest in the lot on which the units are situated to APCHA. The APCHA ownership interest shall be in perpetuity or until such time as the units are converted to ownership units, or the statutory restriction on rent control units is eliminated. The units are to be ownership units sold through the lottery system after the initial sale, subject to the following conditions: a. The developer shall have the right to sell to a fully qualified household of its choice for the initial sale only. The units shall be specified in the deed restriction at a Category 4 but sold for $305,000 ($15,000 under the maximum Category 4 sales price stated in the Guidelines). The qualified household must meet the minimum occupancy requirement for the unit. (a household of three with at least one dependent as defined in the Guidelines), no higher than a Category 4 as specified in the Guidelines, and a minimum work history in Pitkin County of four years prior to application. All other conditions for a qualified employee must be adhered to as well. Reso _ , Series 2011 Page 3 of 6 P15 b. Since the project is a mixed commercial/free - market/deed- restricted project, the assessments shall be determined as stated in #2 below and approved by APCHA. This language shall be required in the approval and in the Covenants associated with the project. No changes to this restriction would be allowed without APCHA's approval. 2. The units shall be completed with a Certificate of Occupancy and be listed for sale at the initial price given above prior to the closing of any sale of a free - market unit. 3. The deed - restriction shall be recorded at the time of recordation of the Condominium Plat and prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Section 8: Water Department Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Each of the units within the building shall have individual water meters. Section 9: Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the • sanitary sewer system. On -site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Oil and Grease interceptors (NOT traps) are required for all food processing establishment. Locations of food processing shall be identified prior to building permit. Even though the commercial space is tenet finish, interceptors will be required at this time if food processing establishments are anticipated for this project. Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. Elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Reso , Series 2011 Page 4 of 6 P16 The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines. Section 10: Exterior Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. Section 11: Landscaping • Planting in the Public Right of way will be subject to Landscaping in the ROW requirements. Improvements to the ROW should include new grass, irrigation and the applicant shall work with the Parks Department in order to design an appropriate trench box for the new tree plantings. Plans for the tree plantings should be completed and conceptually approved prior to City Council approval. The trench box or infrastructure for the sidewalk may require the use of new technologies which allow for structural support of a sidewalk and contribute to the growth and health of the tree roots. Tree plantings boxes are not approved for the landscaping in the right of way. Final layout and numbers of trees will be approved by the Parks and Engineering Departments prior to issuance of building permit. The walkway located on the western property line, and approved in Ordinance 41, Series of 2006, remains a requirement. Section 12: Park Development Impact Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee, the Applicant shall pay a park development impact fee prior to building permit issuance. The fee shall be calculated according to the fee schedule in Land Use Code Section 26.610.030, Fee Schedule. Section 13: Pedestrian Amenity Cash - in - Lieu Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.030, Pedestrian Amenity, the Applicant shall pay a cash -in -lieu fee for pedestrian amenity in the amount equal to ten percent of the lot area prior to building permit issuance. The fee is assessed based on the following calculation: Lot area = 10,000 square feet 10% of Lot Area = 1,000 square feet Payment = $50 x 1000 square feet Pedestrian Amenity Cash -in -Lieu = $50,000, Section 14: School Lands Dedication Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, the Applicant shall pay a fee -in -lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen Community Development Department shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in affect at the time of building permit submittal. The Applicant shall provide the market value of the land including site improvements, but excluding the value of structures on the site. Reso , Series 2011 Page 5 of 6 P17 Section 15: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are 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 16: • 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 17: 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 8th day of March, 2010. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Stan Gibbs, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Reso _ , Series 2011 Page 6 of 6 P18 Exhibit A CHAPTER 26.445, PLANNED UNTT DEVELOPMENT Sec. 26.445.050. Review Criteria conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD. A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. Staff note: A PUD is being requested to allow for an increase in the size of the free- market units beyond what is allowed under the code. All other dimensional requirements comply with the underlying zoning and are not reviewed through the PUD process. A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: The AACP addresses how development should look and feel, but does not address individual unit sizes. The AACP talks about "foster(ing) a well - balanced community through integrated design that promotes economic diversity, transit and pedestrian friendly life- styles, and the mixing of people from different backgrounds." (Managing Growth Goal E, page 19) The Design Quality chapter states, "We wish to encourage creativity that results in design solutions that are fresh and innovative, yet are net additions to the build environment by being contextually appropriate and harmonious without being copies of that which already exists." (Page 43) Stafffinds that the AACP does not directly address unit size. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: Multi family units are consistent in this area. Across the street is the Concept 600 building, which is a multi family building. Residential units are also located directly to the east of the building and across the alley. The residential units at 631 E Main (directly to the east) are approximately 1,200 sq. ft in size. A single family home across the alley is approximately 4,000 sq. ft., and the recently approved redevelopment at 632 East Hopkins (across the street) includes a free- market unit of 1,999 sf. The units in Concept 600 are approximately 950 sic to 1,200 sf. While multi family residential units are typical in the immediate vicinity and in the neighborhood, units of this size are not typical. Staff finds that this criterion is not met. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Exhibit A, Stage 3 Review Criteria Page 1 of 24 Exhibit A P 1 9 Staff Finding: The development of additional multi family units in this area is consistent with existing zoning. However, the size of the units proposed (the second floor unit would be 2,527 sf, the third floor units would be 2,658 sf and 2,837 sfl is inconsistent with the code in effect at the time of original approval as well as the code in effect today. The area includes multi family units, but none are larger than 2,000 sf. Staff believes that the free- market units should be allowed to be 2,000 sf with the option of increasing to 2,500 sf through the landing of TDRs. Staff this criterion is not met by the Applicant's proposal. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff The proposed development has received GMQS allotments for 5 free- market residential units. This proposal is to reduce the number of free- market residential units to 3, and includes a request to amend the GMQS Development Order accordingly. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a. The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b. Natural or man-made hazards. c. Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and Iandforms. d. Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Exhibit A, Stage 3 Review Criteria Page 2 of 24 P20 Exhibit A Staff Finding: All the dimensional standards, with the exception of the requested size of the 3 free- market residential units, are consistent with the land use code in effect at the time of original approval. The above referenced influences do not impact the proposal. Staff finds this standard not applicable. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. StaffFindinz The PUD request affects the internal division of space and does not affect open space and site coverage. Staff finds this standard not applicable. 3. The appropriate number of off - street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non - residential land uses. b. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. Staff Finding: The PUD request is only to vary the allowable size of the free- market residential units and is not requested to vary the parking requirements. The proposed amount of parking is consistent with the underlying zoning requirements. Stafffinds this standard not applicable. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a. There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other utilities to service the proposed development. b. There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance to the proposed development. Staff Finding: Sufficient infrastructure exists to service the development with its approved density of 5 free - market units and five affordable units. Staff f nds that this standard is not applicable. Exhibit A, Stage 3 Review Criteria Page 3 of 24 Exhibit A P 2 1 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a. The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution. c. The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d. The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Staff Finding Natural hazards are not present that would provide a basis for a reduction in the approved density. Stafffinds that this standard is not applicable. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site' s physical constraints. a. The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b. The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those characteristics mitigated. c. The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development • pattern, land uses and characteristics. Notes: a. Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher or lower rate than specified in the underlying Zone District as long as, on average, the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density provisions of the respective Zone District or as otherwise established as the maximum allowable density pursuant to a final PUD Development Plan. b. The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are required to be reflected in the final PUD development plans. Staff Finding: The applicant is proposing reduce the approved density on the site. Staff finds this standard not applicable. Exhibit A, Stage 3 Review Criteria Page 4 of 24 P22 Exhibit A C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. 7. For non - residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Finding: As noted earlier, the application request interior changes to a building and does not affect public spaces, manmade and natural features, etc. Staff finds this standard not applicable. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of omamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Exhibit A, Stage 3 Review Criteria Page 5 of 24 • Exhibit A P 2 3 Staff Finding: This standard is not applicable as landscaping is not affected by this request. E. Architectural Character. 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of' nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less- intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. StaffFindinz: This standard is not applicable as the existing architectural character is not affected by this application. F. Lighting. 1. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor Lighting standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up- lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Finding: This standard is not applicable as the proposed lighting is not affected by this application. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. Exhibit A, Stage 3 Review Criteria Page 6 of 24 P24 Exhibit A 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Staff Finding: This standard is not applicable as the existing undeveloped land is not affected by this application. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Finding The Applicant is proposing to enlarge the approved 5 units by reducing the number of units to 3. Utilities are available to service the approved 5 units or the requested 3 units. Staff finds this criterion to be met. I. Access and Circulation. (Only standards 1 &2 apply to Minor PUD applications) The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. Exhibit A, Stage 3 Review Criteria Page7of Exhibit A P 2 5 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. Staff Finding As a proposal to merge the approved units, circulation and access are not affected. J. Phasing of Development Plan. (does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. Staff Finding: This standard is not applicable to the review of the request. Exhibit A, Stage 3 Review Criteria Page 8 of 24 P26 Exhibit A CHAPTER 26.470.080. SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO A GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT ORDER Sec. 26.470.080.Amendment of a growth management development order. 13. Substantial amendment. All other amendments to an approved growth management development order shall be reviewed pursuant to the terms and procedures of this Chapter. Allotments granted shall remain valid and applied to the amended application, provided that the amendment application is submitted prior to the expiration of vested rights. Amendment applications requiring additional allotments or allotments for different uses shall obtain those allotments pursuant to the procedures of this Chapter. GROWTH MANAGEMENT FOR EXPANSION /NEW COMMERCIAL, LODGE, OR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS Section 26.470.040 C.2., of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for Growth Management approval must comply with the following standards and requirements. a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the expansion, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.D, Annual Development Allotments. StaffFinding The applicant is seeking to amend their approval from five (5) free - market residential allotments to three (3) free - market residential allotments. The applicant is also seeking an additional allotment of 2,098 square feet of new net leasable commercial space. At the time of the original application, 28,000 square feet of such new commercial space was available. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding The project provides affordable housing within the city limits which meets one of the AACP's housing goals. It also contains new development within the Urban Growth Boundary which is a goal of the managing growth section of the AACP. The project promotes the AACP's goals with regards to transportation by developing a building that supports the opportunity for choice in travel modes - transit, walking, and bicycling — and that will help create a more friendly pedestrian experience by providing interest at the street level and improved sidewalk and streetscape amenities. The project is consistent with the Economic Sustainability goals of the AACP by providing needed office space which will provide opportunities for Aspen's professional community. The project is consistent with the Parks and Open Space section of the AACP as it will include improvements along sidewalks on East Main and will pay a Park Development Impact Fee. Staff finds that the overall project is consistent with the AACP, but that the AACP is silent with regard to unit size. c) Sixty (60) percent of the employees generated by the additional commercial/lodge development, according Section 26.470.050.A, Employee Generation Rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash -in -lieu thereof Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Exhibit A, Stage 3 Review Criteria Page 9 of' 24 ExhibitA P2 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. Mitigation for Free - Market residential units within a mixed -use project shall be pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.6 — Free - Market Residential Units within a Mixed -Use Project. Staff Finding Commercial Space Mitigation: To determine the mitigation amount, the original number of employees and the proposed number of employees generated must be calculated. All calculations are made pursuant to Land Use Section 26.470.050. For each 1,000 square feet of first floor net leasable area (NLA), 4.1 employees are generated in the Cl district. For each 1,000 square feet of upper or basement level NLA, 3.075 employees are generated. The original development contained 6,150 square feet of first floor NLA and 3,775 square feet of upper floor NLA, of which only 973 is counted (the remainder is open to the movie theater below). Therefore, the current development generated the following employees: ([6,150/1,000] x 4.1) + ([973/1,000] x 3.075) = (25.215 + 2.992) = 28.2 FTE generated The approved development contained 5,861 square feet of commercial space on the first floor and 2,029 square feet of commercial space on the upper floor. Therefore, the approved development generated the following employees: ([5,861 /1,000] x 4.1) + ([2,029/1,000] x 3.075) = (24.03 + 6.24) = 30.27 FTE generated This proposal amends the location of the approved commercial space and adds additional commercial space, including 2,118 sf in the basement, 5,973 sf on the first floor, and 1,896 sf on the second floor. Therefore, the proposed development generates the following employees: ([5,973 /1,000] x 4.1) + ([2,118 /1,000] x 3.075) + ([1,896/1,000] x 3.075) = (24.49 + 12.34) = 36.83 FTE generated Category 4 housing must be created for 60% of the employees generated. Based on the above calculations, (36.83 — 28.2), the project generates 8.63 FTEs. Based on the 60% rate, then, Category 4 housing must be provided for 5.18 FTEs (8.63 x 60 %). This proposal generates housing for six (6) FTEs, exceeding the 60% requirement. Staff finds this criterion to be met. d 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 Exhibit A, Stage 3 Review Criteria Page 10 of 24 P28 Exhibit A and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services. Staff Finding The project represents minimal additional demand on the public infrastructure. Through the design of the project, drainage, utilities and public infrastructure will be properly improved or installed. Staff finds this criterion to be met. GROWTH MANAGEMENT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING Section 26.470.040 C.6., of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for Growth Management approval must comply with the following standards and requirements. a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the new units, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.C, Development Ceiling Levels. Staff Finding As noted previously, adequate development allotments are available for this proposal. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding As noted above, Staff finds that the overall project is consistent with the AACP, but that the AACP is silent with regard to unit size. c) The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. Staff Finding The Housing Board has recommended approval of the proposed two 3- bedroom units with conditions. Thus, staff finds this standard to be met. d) Affordable Housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy -down units. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty (50) percent or more of the unit's net livable square footage is at or above Natural or Finished Grade, whichever is higher. Off -site units shall be provided within the City of Aspen city limits. Units outside the city limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to 26.470.040.D.2. Provision of affordable housing through a cash -in -lieu payment shall be at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. Stag Finding Total Housing Provided: Land Use Section 26.470.050 A5 states: Exhibit A, Stage 3 Review Criteria Page 11 of 24 Exhibit A P 2 9 "Whenever affordable housing is provided on -site (with actual units) in order to satisfy one requirement, the same on -site affordable housing may also be used to satisfr any other affordable housing requirement concurrently. For example: A mixed -use project may require two affordable housing units to mitigate an increase in commercial employee generation, and two affordable housing units to mitigate free- market residential development. In this case, providing two on -site affordable housing units shall satisfr both requirements concurrently." Therefore, the housing provided on -site in this application shall satisfy both the commercial and free - market FTE housing requirements. Commercial FTE requirements: 5.18 FTE Free Market FTE requirements: 2,406 sf AH net livable (or 6.0 FTEs) FTE housing provided: 2,786 square feet housing 6 FTEs Staff fmds the on -site affordable housing units meet the required number for the Commercial and Free - Market housing requirements, pursuant to Land Use Section 26.470.050 A5. The Housing Board examined the proposal and also found the proposed affordable housing units to meet the amount required for the project. As designed, one hundred (100 %) percent of the finished floor level of all of the units is at, or above, finished floor level. Staff finds this criterion to be met. e) The proposed units shall be deed restricted as `for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. 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 of Aspen to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, or its Board of Directors, at its sole discretion, may authorize affordable housing • units owned and associated with a lodging or commercial operations to be rental units if a legal instrument, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, ensures permanent affordability of the units. 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 Finding The Applicant has requested that the deed restricted units be "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers, in accordance with the APCHA Guidelines. The Housing Board has recommended the units be "for sale" and that the owner be able to pick he first purchasers (who must meet APCHA guidelines). All subsequent sales shall be done in accordance with APCHA Guidelines through the lottery system. Staff finds this criterion is met. GROWTH MANAGEMENT FOR FREE - MARKET RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHIN A MIXED -USE PROJECT Section 26.470.040 C.6., of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for Growth Management approval must 'comply with the following standards and requirements. Exhibit A, Stage 3 Review Criteria Page 12 of 24 P30 Exhibit A e. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the expansion, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.D, Annual Development Allotments. Staff Finding As noted previously, adequate development allotments area available for this proposal. Staff finds this criterion to be met. f The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding As noted above, Staff finds that the overall project is consistent with the AACP, but that the AACP is silent with regard to unit size. g. Affordable housing net livable space, 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 thirty (30) percent of the additional free- market residential net livable space, for which the finished floor level is at or above Natural or Finished Grade, whichever is higher. Additional net livable affordable housing space beyond this requirement may be developed below Natural or Finished Grade but shall not count towards this criterion. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. Staff Finding The original building does not include free - market residences. The approved building included 8,354 sf of net livable area. 30% of this, or 2,506 square feet, of affordable housing space is required. According to Section 8 of the 2006 Housing Guidelines, every 400 square feet of affordable housing is equal to housing for one (1) FTE. The approved development was required to provide housing for 6.27 FTEs (2,506/400), however it provided 3,543 sf of affordable housing for 8.86 FTEs (3,543/400). The proposed development is for three free - market units with 8,022 sf of net livable space. 30% of this, or 2,406 square feet, of affordable housing space is required. The proposed development includes two 3- bedroom affordable housing units with a total of 2,786 square feet housing 6 FTEs, exceeding the 30% requirement by approximately 16 %. The proposed development includes two (2) three - bedroom affordable housing units with a total of 2,786 square feet housing 6 FTEs, meeting the 30% requirement. According to Land Use Section 26.470.050 A2, each three - bedroom unit houses 3 FTE. Using this figure, this proposal generates housing for seven (6) FTEs. As noted below in the review criteria for affordable housing, the affordable housing units meet the criteria of 26.470.040. C.7, Affordable Housing. Staff finds this criterion met. h. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of Exhibit A, Stage 3 Review Criteria Page 13 of 24 Exhibit A P 31 the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services. Staff Finding The project represents minimal additional demand on the public infrastructure. Through the design of the project, drainage, utilities and public infrastructure will be properly improved or installed. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Exhibit A, Stage 3 Review Criteria Page 14 of 24 P32 Exhibit A CHAPTER 26.310, AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE AND OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP Sec. 26.310.040. Standards of review. In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Staff Finding The proposed development is in compliance with all the C -1 zone district requirements, with the exception of the size of the free - market residential units. The units exceed the individual unit size cap, and there is more free - market residential net livable than there is commercial net leasable, which is inconsistent with the C -1 zone district. The proposal meets all other land use regulations. Staff finds this criterion is not met. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding The project provides affordable housing within the city limits which meets one of the AACP's housing goals. It also contains new development within the Urban Growth Boundary which is a goal of the managing growth section of the AACP. The project promotes the AACP's goals with regards to transportation by developing a building that supports the opportunity for choice in travel modes - transit, walking, and bicycling — and that will help create a more friendly pedestrian experience by providing interest at the street level and improved sidewalk and streetscape amenities. The project is consistent with the Economic Sustainability goals of the AACP by providing needed office space which will provide opportunities for Aspen' s professional community. The project is consistent with the Parks and Open Space section of the AACP as it will include improvements along sidewalks on East Main and will pay a Park Development Impact Fee. Staff finds that the overall project is consistent with the AACP, but that the AACP is silent with regard to unit size. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: Multi - family units are consistent in this area. Across the street is the Concept 600 building, which is a multi - family building. Residential units are also located directly to the east of the building and across the alley. The residential units at 631 E Main (directly to the east) are approximately 1,200 sq. ft. in size. A single family home across the alley is approximately 4,000 sq. ft., and the recently approved redevelopment at 632 East Hopkins (across the street) includes a free - market unit of 1,999 sf. The units in Concept 600 are approximately 950 sf. to 1,200 sf. While multi - family residential units are typical in the immediate vicinity and in the neighborhood, units of this size are not typical. Staff finds that this criterion is not met. Exhibit A, Stage 3 Review Criteria Page 15 of 24 Exhibit A P 3 3 D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff FindingL The proposal is to decrease the number of units in the building, which is likely to reduce traffic generation. Staff finds this criterion is met. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding_ There are sufficient public facilities to serve the development. Staff finds this criterion is met. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment Staff Findin,P: The application is for a previously developed parcel in the downtown. There are no environmental constraints on the property that would prohibit development or be exacerbated by development. Staff finds this criterion is met. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City. Staff Finding_ While multi - family residential units are typical in the immediate vicinity and in the neighborhood, units of this size are not typical. In addition, if TDRs are used to achieve the requested unit size staff believes it could undermine the viability of the TDR Program. (Staff is in favor of allowing TDRs to increase the size of the units to 2,500 sf, as it is consistent with the City's TDR policy). Staff finds that this criterion is not met. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: There have been no changes in the neighborhood since the original approval. While the project itself has stalled, and it would be a benefit to have it started again, staff does not believe this warrants the request to exceed the unit size caps. Staff finds this criterion is not met. L Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in hart- nrry with the purpose and intent of this Title. Staff Finding' Staff believes it would be a conflict of public interest to enable the increase of unit sizes beyond 2,000 sf (or 2,500 sf with a TDR). The units exceed the individual unit size cap, and there is Exhibit A, Stage 3 Review Criteria Page 16 of 24 P34 Exhibit A more free - market residential net livable than there is commercial net leasable, which is inconsistent with the C -1 zone district. Staff finds this criterion is not met. Exhibit A, Stage 3 Review Criteria Page 17 of 24 Exhibit A P 3 5 CHAPTER 26.480, SUBDIVISION REVIEW Section 26.480.050 of' the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements. A. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding The project provides affordable housing within the city limits which meets one of the AACP's housing goals. It also contains new development within the Urban Growth Boundary which is a goal of the managing growth section of the AACP. The project promotes the AACP's goals with regards to transportation by developing a building that supports the opportunity for choice in travel modes - transit, walking, and bicycling — and that will help create a more friendly pedestrian experience by providing interest at the street level and improved sidewalk and streetscape amenities. The project is consistent with the Economic Sustainability goals of the AACP by providing needed office space which will provide opportunities for Aspen's professional community. The project is consistent with the Parks and Open Space section of the AACP as it will include improvements along sidewalks on East Main and will pay a Park Development Impact Fee. Staff finds that the overall project is consistent with the AACP, but that the AACP is silent with regard to unit size. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Staff Finding Multi - family units are consistent in this area. Across the street is the Concept 600 building, which is a multi - family building. Residential units are also located directly to the east of the building and across the alley. The residential units at 631 E Main (directly to the east) are approximately 1,200 sq. ft. in size. A single family home across the alley is approximately 4,000 sq. ft., and the recently approved redevelopment at 632 East Hopkins (across the street) includes a free - market unit of 1,999 sf. The units in Concept 600 are approximately 950 sf. to 1,200 sf. While multi - family residential units are typical in the immediate vicinity and in the neighborhood, units of this size are not typical. Staff finds that this criterion is not met. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Staff Finding The surrounding properties are close to fully developed. Additionally, the development meets all the requirements of the C -1 zone district with the exception of the unit size. Staff believes increasing the unit sizes beyond 2,500 sf (with the use of a TDR) could negatively impact the City's TDR program and could set a precedent that any time a development claims they need larger units it will be granted. While changes to the TDR program may be warranted, those should be discussed at a policy level, not based on an individual project. Staff finds this criterion is not met. Exhibit A, Stage 3 Review Criteria Page 18 of 24 P36 Exhibit A d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. Staff Finding The proposed development is in compliance with all the C -1 zone district requirements, with the exception of the size of the free - market residential units. The units exceed the individual unit size cap, and there is more free - market residential net livable than there is commercial net leasable, which is inconsistent with the C -1 zone district. The proposal meets all other land use regulations. Staff finds this criterion in not met. 13. Suitability of land for subdivision. a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. Staff Finding Staff finds that the property is suitable for subdivision. The site has an approved development and is partially developed. The site contains no overly steep topography and no known geologic hazards that may harm the health of any of the inhabitants of the proposed development. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion to be met. b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. Staff Finding Staff finds that the property is suitable for subdivision. Staff believes that there will not be a duplication or premature extension of public facilities because the property to be subdivided is already served by adequate public facilities. Therefore, 'Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community. 2. The applicant shall sped each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. Exhibit A, Stage 3 Review Criteria Page 19 of 24 Exhibit A P 37 Staff Finding The Applicant has consented in the application to meet the applicable improvements pursuant to Section 26.580. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. Staff Finding The Applicant is providing affordable housing units as required by the Land Use Code and meets the affordable housing review standards of the GMQS system. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Staff Finding The proposed subdivision is required to meet the School Land Dedication Standards pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630. The Applicant has proposed to pay cash -in -lieu of providing land, which will be paid prior to building permit issuance. Thus, staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH -PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44 -2001, § 2) Staff Finding: The proposed development has received GMQS allotments for 5 free - market residential units. This proposal is to reduce the number of free - market residential units to 3, and includes a request to amend the GMQS Development Order accordingly. The proposed development has been granted 7,890 sf of commercial allotments, and is requesting an additional 2,097 sf. The allotments are available from the 2006 growth management year. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Exhibit A, Stage 3 Review Criteria Page 20 of 24 P38 Exhibit A CHAPTER 26.470.040.C.2: GROWTH MANAGEMENT FOR EXPANSION /NEW COMMERCIAL LODGE, OR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS Section 26.470.040 C.2, of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for Growth Management approval must comply with the following standards and requirements. a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the expansion, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.D, Annual Development Allotments. Staff Finding The applicant is seeking to amend their approval from five (5) free - market residential allotments to three (3) free - market residential allotments. The applicant is also seeking an additional allotment of 2,098 square feet of new net leasable commercial space. At the time of the original application, 28,000 square feet of such new commercial space was available. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding The project provides affordable housing within the city limits which meets one of the AACP's housing goals. It also contains new development within the Urban Growth Boundary which is a goal of the managing growth section of the AACP. The project promotes the AACP's goals with regards to transportation by developing a building that supports the opportunity for choice in travel modes - transit, walking, and bicycling — and that will help create a more friendly pedestrian experience by providing interest at the street level and improved sidewalk and streetscape amenities. The project is consistent with the Economic Sustainability goals of the AACP by providing needed office space which will provide opportunities for Aspen's professional community. The project is consistent with the Parks and Open Space section of the AACP as it will include improvements along sidewalks on East Main and will pay a Park Development Impact Fee. Staff finds that the overall project is consistent with the AACP, but that the AACP is silent with regard to unit size. c) Sixty (60) percent of the employees generated by the additional commercial/lodge development, according Section 26.470.050.A, Employee Generation Rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash -in -lieu thereof Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. Mitigation for Free - Market residential units within a mixed -use project shall be pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.6 — Free - Market Residential Units within a Mixed -Use Project. Staff Finding Commercial Space Mitigation: To determine the mitigation amount, the original number of employees and the proposed number of employees generated must be calculated. All calculations are made pursuant to Land Use Section 26.470.050. For each 1,000 square feet of first floor net leasable area (NLA), 4.1 Exhibit A, Stage 3 Review Criteria Page 21 of 24 Exhibit A P 3 9 employees are generated in the Cl district. For each 1,000 square feet of upper or basement level NLA, 3.075 employees are generated. The original development contained 6,150 square feet of first floor NLA and 3,775 square feet of upper floor NLA, of which only 973 is counted (the remainder is open to the movie theater below). Therefore, the current development generated the following employees: ([6,150/1,000] x 4.1) + ([973/1,000] x 3.075) _ (25.215 + 2.992) = 28.2 FTE generated The approved development contained 5,861 square feet of commercial space on the first floor and 2,029 square feet of commercial space on the upper floor. Therefore, the approved development generated the following employees: ([5,861 /1,000] x 4.1) + ([2,029/1,000] x 3.075) = (24.03 + 6.24) _ 30.27 FTE generated This proposal amends the location of the approved commercial space and adds additional commercial space, including 2,118 sf in the basement, 5,973 sf on the first floor, and 1,896 sf on the second floor. Therefore, the proposed development generates the following employees: ([5,973 /1,000] x 4.1) + ([2,118/1,000] x 3.075) + ([1,896/1,000] x 3.075) = (24.49 + 12.34) _ 36.83 FTE generated Category 4 housing must be created for 60% of the employees generated. Based on the above calculations, (36.83 — 28.2), the project generates 8.63 FTEs. Based on the 60% rate, then, Category 4 housing must be provided for 5.18 FTEs (8.63 x 60 %). This proposal generates housing for six (6) FTEs, exceeding the 60% requirement. Staff finds this criterion to be met. d) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services. Staff Finding The project represents minimal additional demand on the public infrastructure. Through the design of the project, drainage, utilities and public infrastructure will be properly improved or installed. Staff finds this criterion to be met. GROWTH MANAGEMENT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING Section 26.470.040 C.6., of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for Growth Managetnent appra l : -rust comply with the following standards and requirements. Exhibit A, Stage 3 Review Criteria Page 22 of 24 P40 Exhibit A a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the new units, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.C, Development Ceiling Levels. Staff Finding As noted previously, adequate development allotments are available for this proposal. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding As noted above, Staff finds that the overall project is consistent with the AACP, but that the AACP is silent with regard to unit size. c) The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. Staff Finding The Housing Board has recommended approval of the proposed two 3- bedroom units with conditions. Thus, staff finds this standard to be met. d) Affordable Housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy -down units. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty (50) percent or more of the unit's net livable square footage is at or above Natural or Finished Grade, whichever is higher. Off -site units shall be provided within the City of Aspen city limits. Units outside the city limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to 26.470.040.D.2. Provision of affordable housing through a cash -in -lieu payment shall be at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. Staff Finding Total Housing Provided: Land Use Section 26.470.050 A5 states: "Whenever affordable housing is provided on -site (with actual units) in order to satisfy one requirement, the same on -site affordable housing may also be used to satisfy any other affordable housing requirement concurrently. For example: A mixed -use project may require two affordable housing units to mitigate an increase in commercial employee generation, and two affordable housing units to mitigate free- market residential development. In this case, providing two on -site affordable housing units shall satisfy both requirements concurrently." Therefore, the housing provided on -site in this application shall satisfy both the commercial and free - market FTE housing requirements. Commercial FTE requirements: 5.18 FTE Exhibit A, Stage 3 Review Criteria Page 23 of 24 Exhibit A P41 Free Market FTE requirements: 6.02 FTE FTE housing provided: 6 FTE Staff finds the on -site affordable housing units meet the required number for the Commercial and Free - Market housing requirements, pursuant to Land Use Section 26.470.050 A5. The Housing Board examined the proposal and also found the proposed affordable housing units to meet the amount required for the project. As designed, one hundred (100 %) percent of the fmished floor level of all of the units is at, or above, finished floor level. Staff finds this criterion to be met. e) The proposed units shall be deed restricted as `for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. 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 of Aspen to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, or its Board of Directors, at its sole discretion, may authorize affordable housing units owned and associated with a lodging or commercial operations to be rental units if a legal instrument, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, ensures permanent affordability of the units. 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 Finding The Applicant has requested that the deed restricted units be "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers, in accordance with the APCHA Guidelines. The Housing Board has recommended the units be "for sale" and that the owner be able to pick the first purchasers (who must meet APCHA guidelines). All subsequent sales shall be done in accordance with APCHA Guidelines through the lottery system. Staff fmds this criterion is met. Exhibit A, Stage 3 Review Criteria Page 24 of 24 P42 Exhibit B Development Review Committee (DRC) Comments 625 E Main Street (Stage 3) redevelopment Engineering Department Comments These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project packet submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting. Drainage: The original approvals for Stage 3 included a green roof. The current proposal removes the green roof from the plan. The removal of this roof affects the not only the quality of the stormwater leaving the site but the quantity. To mitigate these impacts, the applicant must complete a drainage plan and report in accordance with the City's Urban Runoff Management Plan. The Engineering Dept, recommends that the Drainage Plan that meet the above requirements be approved prior to final plat or building permit submittal whichever comes first. Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter: Since the finished floor of the building is approximately 1.3 feet above the top back of curb, it proposes challenges in meeting the department's standards for accessibility and door swing clearance along Main Street. Plans that meet the dept standards must be submitted prior to council approval. Additionally structural soils will be required for the sidewalk to improve the growth area for the planting strip. Due to the condition of the curb and gutter that fronts the building, it will need to be replaced prior to CO of the building. Miscellaneous Construction Management — A construction management plan must be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. The plan must include a planned sequence of construction that minimizes construction impacts to the public. The plan shall describe mitigation for: parking, staging /encroachments, truck traffic, noise, dust, and erosion/sediment pollution. Because this building is located in the commercial core, the encroachments that will be allowed will be limited to the off season, the dept recommends that the site use a tower crane to minimize the amount of encroachments. System Development Fee —The system development fee is $2.88 per square foot of impervious area. The fee is assessed against the total impervious area of the development, not simply the increased impervious area. Exhibit B, DRC Comments Page 1 of 4 Exhibits P43 Fire Department Comments • 1. The building will be required to have an NFPA 13 sprinkler system designed for the occupancy as well as a monitored fire alarm system meeting NFPA 72 requirements and our local amendments. We will be applying the 2009 edition of both of those codes to this project. 2. Further information regarding the parking structure is required. We would ask to meet with the developer to discuss access, ventilation, storage, sprinkler requirements, carbon monoxide detection/mitigation, etc. on that part of the project. Parks Department Comments 1. Planting in the Public Right of way will be subject to Landscaping in the ROW requirements. Improvements to the ROW should include new grass, irrigation and the applicant shall work with the Parks Department in order to design an appropriate trench box for the new tree plantings. Plans for the tree plantings should be completed and conceptually approved prior to City Council approval. The trench box or infrastructure for the sidewalk may require the use of new technologies which allow for structural support of a sidewalk and contribute to the growth and health of the tree roots. Tree plantings boxes are not approved for the landscaping in the right of way. Final layout and numbers of trees will be approved by the Parks and Engineering Departments. Parking Department Comments We would recommend that more of the off -street parking be designated to the residences than to commercial. Currently the residences have only half of available off -street parking spaces. No units in this development qualify for residential parking permits. Housing Comments The Housing Board reviewed the application at their regular meeting held February 16, 2011 and recommended approval of the application with the following conditions: 1. The mitigation with the two three - bedroom units has been satisfied. The units are to be ownership units sold through the lottery system after the initial sale. The additional conditions stated below shall apply: a. The developer shall have the right to sell to a fully qualified household of its choice for the initial sale only. The units shall be specified in the deed restriction at a Category 4 but sold for $305,000 ($15,000 under the maximum Category 4 sales price stated in the Guidelines). The qualified household must meet the minimum occupancy requirement Exhibit B, DRC Comments Page 2 of 4 P44 Exhibit B for the unit (a household of three with at least one dependent as defined in the Guidelines), no higher than a Category 4 as specified in the Guidelines, and a minimum work history in Pitkin County of four years prior to application. All other conditions for a qualified employee must be adhered to as well. b. Since the project is a mixed commercial/ free - market/deed- restricted project, the assessments shall be determined as stated in #2 below and approved by APCHA. This language shall be required in the approval and in the Covenants associated with the project. No changes to this restriction would be allowed without APCHA's approval. 2. Research shall be done with lending institutions as to how the homeowners' association should be established such that the association documents do not prevent buyers of the deed - restricted units from qualifying for conventional financing, though APCHA acknowledges that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac eligibility requirements may make conventional financing unavailable for reasons beyond the developer' s control. The HOA shall be established based on lending practices and/or the governing documents will reflect the project as a mixed commercial /free- market/deed- restricted project. The assessments shall be based on the differential between the price values of the free - market component compared to the deed - restricted component. This language shall be required in the approval and in the Covenants associated with the project. No changes to this restriction would be allowed without APCHA's approval. Voting rights shall be based on one vote per unit. 3. A capital reserve study shall be completed by the developer. 4. The units shall be completed with a Certificate of Occupancy and be listed for sale at the initial price given above prior to the closing of any sale of a free - market unit. 5. The deed - restriction shall be recorded at the time of recordation of the Condo Plat and prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (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, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. On -site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Oil and Grease interceptors (NOT traps) are required for all food processing establishment. Locations of food processing shall be identified prior to building permit. Even though the commercial space is tenet finish, interceptors will be required at this time if food processing establishments are anticipated for this project. Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. Elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor Exhibit B, DRC Comments Page 3 of 4 Exhibit B P 4 5 Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines. Exhibit B, DRC Comments Page 4 of 4 E P46 01� DJA PLANNING + DEVELOPMENT e : ,.: i nuper A rn;:r `,:r!,e !lib Astir^ C :? a?f.11 ace 6 10..9 " 3444 Fa% 4 - 93G 212f MEMORANDUM NO. 01 DATE March 1, 2011 BY Adam Roy TO Jessica Garrow, City of Aspen Community Development CC Jeff Cardot PROJECT 625 East Main Street SUBJECT Amendment to the GMQS portion of the Land Use Application dated 12/30/2010 Dear Jessica: This memorandum is intended to serve as an amendment to the GMQS portion of the Land Use Application dated and submitted on December 30, 2010, for the project at 625 East Main Street. The application states that "[t]his proposal qualifies as a minor expansion of a mixed -use development because it involves an increase in commercial space of less than two hundred fifty (250) square feet and does not involve any new residential units (See Section 26.470.060(5) of the Code)." This qualification was based on a calculation in which the newly proposed net leasable commercial area of 9,988 sq. ft is less than two hundred fifty (250) sq. ft. more than the stated approved amount of 9,766 sq. ft, or a difference of 222 sq. ft. It has since been determined that the actual amount of net leasable commercial floor area currently entitled to the property is 7,890 sq. ft. Therefore, the additional net leasable area being requested through this Land Use Application is 2,098 sq. ft., the result of which requires the proposed changes to the commercial portion of the project to meet the standards of Section 26.470.040.C.2, Expansion /New Commercial, Lodge, or Mixed Use Development of the 2006 City of Aspen Land Use Code (the "Code "). The following section addresses each of the requirements of this area of the Code. Section 26.470.040.C.2. Expansion /New Commercial, Lodge, or Mixed Use Development. The expansion of an existing commercial, lodge, or mixed -use building or the development ofa new commercial, lodge, or mixed -use development shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the expansion, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.D, Annual Development Allotments. In 2006, 30,000 square feet of commercial net leasable space was available in the GMQS allotment pool. The approved project extinguished 767 sq. ft. of these allotments, which is the difference between the total approved net leasable area of 7,890 square feet and the credit for the existing 7,123 sq. ft. of net leasable area. With the current proposal containing a total net leasable P47 CO DIA PLANNING + DEVELOPMENT 4 R }'.:M t OOP; 'r Aver to S a4u )CH, As, ^n (U RI(t NO. 01 TEL 97(3 93'- 3444 , ex 94( 'e3 )i na PROJECT 625 East Main St SUBJECT GMQS Amendment area of 9,988 square feet, the net increase of allotments and the amount being requested from the 2006 pool is 2,098 sq. ft. (9,988 - 7,890 = 2,098). The increased commercial space is a result of the conversion of approved subgrade storage space into leasable commercial space. The free - market residential allotments already extinguished through the 2006 approvals are more than sufficient since residential allotments are based upon the number of units and not the floor area of the units. The number of residential units approved is five (5), while the new proposal only requests three (3), resulting in two (2) unit - allotments to be reabsorbed into the 2006 free - market residential allotment pool. b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. The current application demonstrates that the project proposal is consistent with the AACP. c) Sixty (60) percent of the employees generated by the additional commercial /lodge development according to Section 26.470.050.A, Employee Generation Rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash -in -lieu thereof. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. Mitigation for Free - Market units within a mixed -use project shall be pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.6 - Free - Market Residential Units within a Mixed -Use Project The current application demonstrates that this requirement of the Code has been satisfied by the proposed changes to the approved project. This amendment does request additional net leasable area to be approved beyond what is currently entitled, however the total amount represented in the current application is accurate and the calculations for Employee Generation Rates are not affected by this amendment. In summary, 5.18 FTEs are generated from the commercial portion of the proposed project, while 6.0 FTEs are generated from the residential component. Because mitigation is being accommodated through the provision of on -site affordable housing units, "the same on -site affordable housing may also be used to satisfy any other affordable housing requirement concurrently" (Section 26.470.050.A.5 of the 2006 Code). With a proposed affordable- housing floor area of 2,786 sq. ft between two (2) three - bedroom units, the required 2,406 sq. ft. of floor area is exceeded by s'. -aer (?5) percent, which is equal to thirty -five (35) percent of the proposed free - market floor area. Table 1 below identifies the project's free - market and commercial employee generation rates. Page I2 P48 er Li i NA PLAN + D aR P;_q LAN dtv_ ur Sic .r?it6 9.ucC6Rt611 NO. 01 i R 9TU Id 11 3A9 InY „, n;L ) IN, PROJECT 625 East Main St • SUBJECT GMQS Amendment Table 1: Employee Generation Rates for Comm and Free Mark Residenti Uses Sang a rmendalarea 7. - .. e aUon ercial s K 14b al s EJCrsling Basement Le 'eI N e t ' L sjble Gom'fiiercia A re a ` ; ° - et - ' 0 Existing Mai Le N e t Leasable C o mme r cial A rea 6, 150 E xisting Sec©n'd Label Net Leasable' ommercial Area 973 1 xi iing'thjr[`i ti el Net easable Commercial Area `i0 "F tiBasabl� Ater d ` �' ,g r , .- , „; 7,123 Proposed Net Leasable Commerical Area Calculations Area x 138 Proposed Basem Net Leasable Area 2;118 Proposed Main Leeei Net Leasable Area - 5,973 rc Propo Second Level Net Leasable Area ;: , 1,896 Propos Third Leal Not L Area 0 Propo Netteasable Commercial Area 9,988 Adt e �m r i ct re aCat cul a ti J T � ` - `' Area s.f A' " x � L' `able Aiea ."�� -P ,t r H .S 4 4 s �` „ 1 8 I{' w c :am . ,,sa r=` a i i m `, IS 4 + - - ' "t B aca e r'.F. 3.. -. " fi `S _',. t' x. -��t l i' kF i1'' .:' pJ�'..�,` .„ ,e• : `'� 47 q`„ + ce , �[,� 7 a ^n A lc ltrgnai ' 5-0 a a . w . rt -- . k;.', . w i . ` . 155- ,� rcp Y t .. sa. - va. jj . i ; r an^ '- . . P.r ,,,,, _ d ito: lNNB ea�aK �, "-.S -i �. 5.. .w., 1 a k E ar Free Market Residential Floor Area A re a Exls Free Residential Floor Area 0 Proposed Free Market Residential' Gross Floor Area 8,022 Total Additoee Net Li eble free Market Floor Area 8,022 k � cula�b � b , A eiDlrerB ns 4 " �# � Area e.33 fn, u ,i� - Ltk .: 1 I 'at esid+ $ '="640401-'51-2L ` ' � t2 ' '.i h i .. � � " f , .: ; -' � 'r «a ax e fi g, 0 d * .. �, t'0 ' o i a ; e-r$1 a 61 , M a i {a 4,., , X 8 , 6 :'k F .l w:: it : _ i .. °to .e:e:aj; .,- ' ` , 2 2 _ ei ail , . 1 'M s' 0...+fc SS rr� s� 'F ]raL fl „, :a..c"q l ” ! ; °` ° tt 4 1 - .&t bt � f g La - ,� ,�"` t. Aka. Page 1 3 P49 CP DJA PLANNING + DEVELOPMENT 413 Fas, moor: Avenue S,iile 206 Asi.rn NI RINI NO. 01 TEL E 70 , 2 , 11 ■.1 FAO § T6 -92c -2 ftt,, PROJECT 625 East Main St SUBJECT GMQS Amendment d) 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 As stated in the current land use application, the proposed changes to the approved project and the entitlements provided through the development order reduce the density of the project and therefore, will reduce demand on public infrastructure. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any clarifications. Sincerely, Adam C. Roy Page 1 4 - xt'li bit e 1 ke W \ i V. A O ��\ \ \ \ \\ `- �� -- - -4, I I L 11 12 _J' 13 1► _i -_ - a a_ >v. L _ 1 II I ! _ _ �_; \� _ _ € ,Y J J L / N J 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 S q 10 BASEMENT LEVEL 2 - 12 - 01 1/16" STORAGE STORAGE =2,512 s.f. TOTAL FAR =0 s.f. each TOTAL NET LEASABLE =0 s.f. each TOTAL NET LIVABLE =0 s.f. each 625 EAST MAIN REDEVELOPMENT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITELIS C ■ www.cunniffe.com ■ /A_ 625 EAST MAIN STREET ma MST HOM4 AVE • APB{ OD MP • IRE 970623-5590 • FAL snl$6ISSI V A ASPEN. COLORADO ism ma port m. w • 'Roam 5 CO IOW • res:+m•rsmsn • FAX nwri rea r _414.2-4.4_, ��N R► �.•D , , \N\ tff 4 Ct.. e: 4 441e I :". : , N \ - > \ \ H \ .11 4. it a 0 ‘41:1 1 1;1 1 �♦4�♦f ♦�i:♦u ♦�a� ♦I� I ' � . I ra• . 7 \ \ \ .4. .. rt... r 4 : ..p-k. 4, .dik \ \ \ \ kt ` ate ♦ ♦! , is �yT• \ . a•r. 1 uv f `. i t `, 4 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ # to N _ \.\ . \\ wa, a m.r ♦f 9A.. ra. - ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦► I ♦♦ h • ' re, /*V 1 4 :‘,. \ *. ♦ ♦ 46 ♦ ♦ ♦ as l .A/14 V 74:9• 3 a § `I► 1� s f. T� _re - - - - - - E. I /I6" STREET LEVEL 2 - 12 - o� COMMERCIAL FAR NET (INTERIOR) NET LEASABLE COMMERCIAL A = 3,1 (11 s.f. = 5,040 s.f. x ( * = 2,136 s.f COMMERCIAL 5 = 3,631 s.f. = 3,412 s.f. x (' %) = 3,125 s.f. CIRCULATION = 1,566 s.f. COMMERCIAL TOTALS = 5,3(14 s.f. = 6,512 s.f. = 5,861 s.f. (*c10% COMMERCIAL EFFICIENCY FACTOR) 625 EAST MAIN REDEVELOPMENT CHARLES CUNNIFffE � ■ i ______ I M FAA HAWS AVE • ,Sgjm SI6T • ME 9]M2&-5190 • MK 970S20-4S57 C 625 EAST AWN STREET 9n -PS ov.9 m.9rt 9m • =mutt 9rae m 5.3 • TEE nu=5 -0310 • FM910=9.n ASPEN. COLORADO P 5 2 11 11 / _ 1 � � , / // / \,'‘,* \ \ \ \ \ I I � I � I � 11 717'[ ' :1 I lip• -- .....\.\\;„\ v NAN \ \ � V� \�A ��� \V [Mil WIN.'" A .A. . ,\\\\ � A� A . A A�.: �A � H i telt 41 4 ran 4 M 1 • L•ng. •r �\ \ \\ \ \ I II f it 1 / ' al, ' 4r0.# X.►♦. ' . a... ►•iii ♦ r iii♦• ♦ ♦ .�♦ ♦ • ety, r♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ l: ►♦ arm • �♦� ♦ :act F ♦ � "4-4-, ♦ ;2 4 : E • � �; ***AI— 41 'IC • • • . ��1 • N. 1 4 . ... *.!••!• •.. ♦ s!w �? s i p� i i J iC�N Ji i .. s � • i ! � Oi •• • i ii ° , IIIS - 1 .k ' ��z••j•♦• �'n {.� sera MASMIMMa rrrr.9?�J �a.r s �� t l.rl� d 11Wa mil= I— rrrr.rrrT al rrr.lrrrr r'�itrs Sae rrrlwrrrl,.∎nilimili �r rr` wlr�rrr. a rt- rw 4•r {{ . if IN rlw la r o alr.n �•r�l s..�r rrrr.§ l�Ir� — �r1�a—s br nerd r I na �e `_ .\ �11 �J• 3_'Arr•�Irrrr. — r ■rrrl� Lrrrar— =1 Grp \!. g ��� -- at r■\.L S = - .., C.4x, _ rrrr∎r. rrr ■ - SECOND LEVEL 2 - 12 - o'i 1/16" FREE MARKET FAR NET LIVABLE DECKS ( *10% OFFICE EFFICIENCY FACTOR) UNIT E = 1,645 s.f. = 1,570 53. = 304 s.f. CIRCULATION = 252 s.f. F.M. TOTAL = 1,811 s.f. = 1,570 53. = 304 s.f. A.H.U. FAR NET LIVABLE UNIT 1 = 753 s.f. UNIT 2 4 3,081 s.f. = 100 s3. CIRCULATION = 1,200 s.f. PRO -RATED FAR UNIT 3 = 100 s.f. UNIT 4 = 631 53. FREE MARKET = 1510 s.f. 21% = 252 s.f. UNIT 5 = 762 s.f. = 101 53. A.H.U. = 3,543 s.f. 46% = 516 s.f. CIRCULATION = 516 s.f. OFFICE = 2,254 s.f. 31% = 312 s.f. A.H.U. TOTALS = 4,425 s.f. = 3,543 s.f. TOTAL = 7,361 s.f. = 1,200 s.f. OFFICE FAR NET (INTERIOR) NET LEASABLE DECKS ^ ■ OFFICE = 2,373 s.f. = 2,254 s.f x ( *10 %) = 2,021 s.f = 31 s.f (`/' CIRCULATION = 312 s.f. ^ A OFFICE TOTAL = 2,750 s.f. = 2,254 s.f. = 2,021 s.f. = 31 s.f. ■\./_ -'- - I j! I II II I I C. I 1II I P53 _ ` � �` \\ I 1 35 T is �1' � \\ \ ;'VIII A l i i : k �,� i 4 , n �i//l� - 4 1 /4 s sc , s a, qg\ S." \ ri 1 1 I s/. __, 2Ic1111�11�1b w I j „y.� ; I -- N / ' / / / / . .+. r ❖ �op.�. '�? I • r' ���J I111 , 1111 e 11.•_4 .11 G1 CI 1� ( G ra tz-4 L X 1 1 0c \ \ 11 1�1 x i S , v i �� 1' ► ' 17 1 . 11 � 1 �f.M a .A 1O a�.. 1 u.1 ♦1♦ 11 �11 ra�n 11 nr�a�a 1 1 111 } p v } t rr , ._.... s n , u 1 1 u`. 1 1111 `: .. r � : 0 r % 11f.'a�s� .l ip +$ r' *111j 1 sa► 1 �._. 1 ♦� 1 1` \ � ./ 1 ? ♦pO1� �t 4,1€ rm n 1 +`1 :le ,.,....ex 1 i1 1 i rt • •,: 1/tats1. . . 1 + »°.:. vcCY.1 �� /J / / ai�� ♦ T. Q1��� o rs 11 .. ► � r �7 /om ►� �I / C: • • /1 , 11 cos ► 11 r i �p1 \ 1- _ i p` i '1J1a1�; . -1 - t'• �� � }I�/ E C •1 F`p 1. »i 1 -��' % FA l . A r • 11 NSti 1'� �,1 1%11 xae t-.._•� -'�-'.r' I rJt1�t1, �' 21.%1",^ �: — -4N _ .____ p I S .ate: - Tore r � II LL ki a ante r *- C i %\ :110 %IA / /7 iii I • .4 . � � go nad • _ – – _ jIl lisle 1 i THIRD LEVEL 2 - 12 - 01 11611 FREE MARKET FAR NET LIVABLE DECK AREA UNIT A = 2,055 s.f. = 1,164 s.f. = 55°15.f . UNIT 5 = 2,011 s.f. = 1,827 s.f. = 35 s.f. UNIT G = 1,866 s.f. = 1,1 s.f. = 331 s.f. UNIT D = 1,215 s.f. = 1,131 s.f• = 244 s.f. CIRCULATION = 806 s.f. F.M. TOTALS = 1,161 s.f. = 6,711 s.f. = 1,211 s.f. 625 EAST MAIN REDEVELOPMENT CHARLES CUNNIFE � ■ { sro Fns' mx+n WE • ..sew, m nen • m'. 9,09234590 Fa 17052D-557 C A • 62S EAST MAIN STREET ne =NE m.sre>m • nsweorr • C. CO w • mtrmma+o • rug 470575-0,71 - ASPFN. COLORADO P54 r -------- --aiman•BIMMI11111111111111110111111111••111M...G.,- n. L. nnnY. nln .I.mu1m11m.l.mn , �. IB. .In1•In•II1.1•418.Ifl.Jl�111 .mNI.nlnn n.IX...lp..1n l u In 0 I lirn SI n.. �l1 .nIIn.I...I...11l.nl.n.mn.n.l h. .nunr I II I III. nn. 4..IM1MIIII..Nnr.nNn1II n.1n mnpl .In.n nnllBnCnm.I t nl..nunnlm.mmm;unlnfNf.1 nnlunu•I. nu0�1A��nuNuolmm11111111noumimlunr MMluIIn .I.-lam -mot v - 1 fir t t tt . i r : linill.nl. . s.o l r memu .Ar r R t 1... r ll Jl m Immou�.nn[fl .. fnn.in ismonsmoaflhIIUna n d. .. . f fltlI ..n w n l e 1 .� 1101..1 . n. �l. nlu0 .mll..nl.nl.nln� r ®nml� inl l... lo o ..^I.nA nlI m .In.w n n7 nn nnlIm m n n.n. nai in 111..nounAn.Rl.nl.n...111..ILn u• n.I�..Iri n in.l...I.m�l ... Ri. pr...r n. nl.. 8 •Oi�ii .l�o•.�•da ,. n- lnmuunin.In.IUnlll.mm� •m I rf.n.nn111.nln.nnn•11411 .11...31.1 liri1111��i�.il li r— i.nli..II I 91 ... l...I.... C r� � umumre E�. t r �� 4 1 4 -4. W v MEN a ' I ► 4 . 4eha : NUTS o � `•It A = Mtg. = 4 w�. nn x4.44 • ■ Ladl1ts i! • 4N1ir•444 ■ 14' `4Iifr r 4 A t 4 444 4 f l i P 1 44 ►} /4.r 4f I NI i , t A A. 4 • 4 1 ► 4 r: • 1 4 : 1 r� S>be".F: mU s$:Ue « .y r :°,� re ix<: em e fr: ... "? E Sf:�jce3 O. ..>"`:x Met MV `a ` n:,i?Y �%: o'> 0: - . ; : >' _ ? --: -- fiM> ' ,=:xo S."• .E).2k� , , :e : ���$; �'�'3' :. roiCro -, b I 1 x'.3 j . ' Via;: ab:r 3.' g � . ':•. :.'.�.," 2o- x ' .:,p. -. -: r ,; >.�>::,o d .><".':o 's o a ..R-u. ",i`::. •}i'F%:'S'' a,. e.'s :u a >; «•'.. > n "" ' : ...1•::••••...:;.• roau ` ' ET's, ' e w:':.x5.'.i u „ s j � : : �� ; > ;, „ ' ",.. s« :.,z, ,...: . ..ax :. -.‘...C".;7 .....: xs rs* ::L "3S < � A,',`- ta* a t e,0 PM ° � , yu >�sa ,MYa :.,» . ��,. L e i . eS'. 19: `ex . - � ' i is *eel I a. 4 •s' # la ro ."9:;„' "':b. >4'n'>:b� b, �' �: 00-62,W4 -, rFW.'": '.r'G`a: w a r —} , _: ' r> < 2�ieag :'C.viia� .y 11:x„ 'ue?S:;> :'a ` y :ask+.. r "" ro tw . '. . . b . ' o'b' > x,'a A ....I a ^ � ______pl J I r o 11 ROOF PLAN 2 - 12 - 01 1/16° FREE MARKET ROOF DECK AREAS COMMON ROOF DECK = 1,244 s.f. CIRCULATION = 511 s.f. SECOND LEVEL DECKS = 444 s.f. THIRD LEVEL DECKS = 1,29 s.f. BUILDING DECK TOTAL = 3,338 s.f. *4,500 TOTAL ALLOWED DECK AREA 625 EAST MAIN REDEVELOPMENT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS ^ ■ www.cunnife.com l 625 EAST MAIN STREET 610 MST HYMAN AVE • I5Rym 81611 • TELE 070921S90 • FAX: 970920-155/ CA ASPEN. COLORADO n. Am mm mart m • SIDA4OT ..m CO IOW • THE WOWS-.. • .AC ,70er • Jessica Garrow MOYCh / L I From: Junee Kirk <junee.kirk @comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 1:44 PM To: Jessica Garrow Subject: support for stage 3 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Jessica: I have been in contact with Lindsey Smith on the Stage 3 redevelopment with the new owner. She explained what the improvements were, less density, height, etc and I am thrilled that all the neighbors support this. I certainly support this application since those most affected support it. To that end you may include my name in support, before any P &Z meeting takes place. Thanks, Junee Email secured by Check Point 1 Mar 03 2011 3:54PM HP LASERJET FAX p PHILIP ROTHBLUM 14 EAST 60 STREET SUITE 1200 NEW YORK, N Y 10022 TEL (212) 935 -5116 FAX (212) 759 -2525 To /./_GfGt a � C' P From 7) fi4 Pla Pages: FAX :I_ Date: 3.3. -7 d I Hi Adam — Jeff has been in touch and, based on our conversations and your letter of 3 - I welcome his changes for the better. Good luck at next weeks P & Z meeting. As to 632, I'd like an update as to the final height of your party wall including any parapet, if required, and the finishing material of that wall facing us. Hest egards. Jessica Garrow From: jurine2 @aol.com Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 10:10 AM To: Jessica Garrow Cc: taddune @compuserve.com Subject: RE: Packet for 625 East Main Street Hunter Square Building, LLC 605 E. Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 E -mail: Jurine2@aol.com Telephone: 707 933 -1696 March 7,2011 Ms.Jessica Garrow Members of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Aspen City Hall 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Stage 3 Redevelopment Project: Application by jeff Cardot of Amendment Dear Ms. Garrow and Members of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission: This letter is submitted on behalf of Hunter Square Building, LLC ( "Hunter Square "), the owner of the Hunter Square Building that is immediately adjacent to the stalled Stage 3 Theater Building project located at 625 East Main Street, Aspen now owned by Jeffrey Cardot's company, 625 Main Aspen, LLC. We understand that the Planning and Zoning Commission will consider an amendment of the Stage 3 Theater approval proposed by Mr. Cardot at its meeting on March 8, 2011. Hunter Square enthusiastically supports the amendment. While the sensitivities of the neighborhood and adjacent properties were largely ignored by the prior developer and disregarded during the reviews, it appears that the proposed amendment addresses the concerns of the neighborhood and will result in a significantly improved project. It is not in the best interest of the neighborhood or the City to have a unfinished project on Main Street that has degenerated into a nuisance and eyesore. Therefore, Hunter Square requests that the City expeditiously process and approve the revised plans and facilitate Mr. Cardot's efforts to finish the project. Hunter Square also wholeheartedly endorses Mr. Cardot's proposal for family apartments as drawn on the submitted project plans. Especially since Mr. Cardot intends to make this building his family home, his presence as a neighbor will greatly enhance our neighborhood and the project to have an on site owner /neighbor. Please feel free to call or e-mail me if you have any questions or need further information. I have asked my attorney, Paul J. Taddune, to appear at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on March 8, 2011 and express Hunter Square's full support for the project as modified. Very truly yours, Hunter Square Building, LLC Jurine Biers, Manager Original Message From: Jessica Garrow <Jessica.Garrow @ci.aspen.co.us> 1