Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20110705 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, July 5, 2011 4:30 p.m. Sister Cities Room CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL II. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public III. MINUTES IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC HEARINGS — A. Lift One Lodge - PUD and Timeshare (continued from 6/21) B. 861 Ute Avenue — Residential Design Standards Variances C. Miscellaneous Code Amendments VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. BOARD REPORTS VIII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 12 IC A • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director Drew Alexander, Planner RE: Lift One Lodge Final PUD & Timeshare Review — Public Hearing DATE: July 5, 2011 (Continued from June 21 SITE VISIT: 4 P.M. ON TUESDAY THE 5 T11 Several P &Z member wanted to view the spruce tree proposed for removal as an official site visit. Please meet at the corner of South Aspen and Gilbert Streets at 4 p.m. if you are attending the site visit. City staff will be there to discuss the tree, answer questions, etc. Please provide your own transportation. If you are not attending the site visit, the regular meeting will begin at 4:30 in City Hall. SUMMARY: Tonight's hearing is the fourth in a series of meetings to review the final application for the Lift One Lodge. This project has been in the planning process since 2006 and has undergone several changes. The project was granted conceptual approval by City Council in late 2009. The last hearing provided a more detailed description of heights within the proposal, review of Commission questions, an overview of the standards of review and comments provided by referral agencies (DRC comments), and a staff recommendation of approval with conditions. Tonight's hearing will cover follow -up questions and review of a proposed Resolution. Staff has included approval conditions derived from the review standards, the DRC comments, and items raised by the Commission's discussion to date. On the 21 several requests for information and questions were asked of staff and the applicant. Following is a re -cap of those questions with staff answers. Questions from the meeting before are repeated as well. • How many locations of the building are 54' or taller? There are no locations on the west building. On the east building, the drawings attached as Exhibit I identify areas that touch 54 feet. There are two chimneys, the elevator and stair core in the center of the building and small portions of two roof sections. • What assurance is there that the surface lift will be built? The provisions necessary to return an active lift to Willoughby Park are being addressed in this application. Full implementation will require additional action by the Aspen Skiing Company, owner of the property to the south, outside the control of the applicant. Page 1 of 12 It's important to note that lift-served skiing could not return without the actions taken in this application: a. $600,000 funding commitment. b. Easements, dedicated to the public, through site, including private land for pedestrian, ski, and lift operations. c. State Tramway Board approval for the corridor and technology. d. Site plan accommodates approved corridor. e. Sighting of buildings in Willoughby Park to allow snowcat turn- around. f. Removal of a portion of Gilbert Street to allow unobstructed skiing through site. Some of these actions would improve skiing with or without a surface lift: a. The Applicant has agreed to take responsibility for grooming of the area. b. The removal of a portion of Gilbert Street will return a true ski corridor to the site. c. The lockers and apras ski opportunities will make this a more attractive spot or locals and visitors to gather. • Please provide a summary of what is being received by applicant. a. The proposed lodge's total floor area and area devoted to non -unit space exceed the maximum allowed when excluding vacated rights -of way from the project's lot area. (varied through PUD) b. The majority of the lodge's setbacks, which are adjacent to public lands or rights - of -way are less than the minimum required with the exception of areas adjacent to eastern neighbors where it is much greater than required by code. (varied through PUD) c. The project's height exceeds the maximum allowed for an Incentive Lodge in various places. (varied through PUD) d. The lodge's average unit size is also being varied slightly pursuant to Special Review as provided for in the zone district. e. Various street and alley rights -of -way are being vacated and incorporated into the project site in order to accommodate the proposed ski corridor. • Please provide a summary of community benefits a. Rejuvenation of a neglected part of town and needed lodging facilities in a location important for the resort. b. Easements and corridor necessary to return skiing and lift service to Willoughby Park. c. Street reconstruction of Deane Street as a (predominantly) pedestrian way. d. Renovation and donation of Skiers Chalet Lodge for use as Aspen Historical Society Museum. e. Historic designation of Skiers Chalet Lodge after relocation and renovation. f. Street reconstruction and safety improvements of South Aspen Street from Durant Street to the edge of Aspen Mountain. g. Pedestrian infrastructure along South Aspen Street. h. Expansion of landscaping through Willoughby Park. Page 2 of 12 i. 50 underground public parking spaces much safer that the existing street parking. j. 100% employee housing mitigation when only 30% required by code. k. Renovation of the Skiers Chalet Steakhouse building. 1. Stabilization/protection of public historic assets — Lift One, towers, outhouses. m. $600,000 funding for future surface lift from Willoughby Park to Lift 1A. n. Improvements to the general surroundings of the Winternational race course. o. Exceeding environmental standards for new development. p. Free public ski lockers. q. Improved emergency access. r. Utility system improvements. s. Better management of stormwater and drainage from Aspen Mountain. • How does LEED Gold compare to the minimum standards of the building code? Aspen's building code establishes minimum levels of energy efficiency in a prescriptive way. LEED provides an independent rating system that awards points for planning processes and development investments that lead to outcomes that are greater than these minimums. Since prescriptive systems ( building code) and point systems (LEED) are not intended to be compared in this manner, the following three key sustainability actions highlight the improvements over the building code: a. Ground Source Heat Pump System — There is lots of focus on renewable energy, which is a great thing, however, energy experts such as Amory Lovins suggest that reducing demand is the single greenest action that can be taken in designing buildings. The GSHP is not sexy, no one will see it, and it will not make headlines, however, it will be able to meet most or all of lodge cooling and a significant portion of heating needs 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. A comprehensive review of alternatives, including solar power, by experts in the field determined that a GSHP was the most effective approach to achieving green goals for the redevelopment. This is a major financial investment and the greatest action to reduce energy demand for the lodge. b. Green Roofs — Green roofs filter and absorb stormwater, reduce visual and noise impacts to neighbors, increase roof insulation, soften the texture and height of buildings, reduce the heat island effect, and create useful space for enjoyment and growing useful plants. The City of Aspen is encouraging the development of green roofs and the Lift One Lodge would be a model for green roofs in this environment. c. Commissioning — One of the great lessons in building energy efficiency is that ongoing operations and maintenance are critical to achieving actual energy savings. Commissioning requires the operator use the building in a way that actually saves energy, providing check and balance to the system. • How does this project reflect `height lessons' learned? During the neighborhood planning, heights for this project were discussed in absolute terms (as opposed to planner speak). This lesson has been translated into this project as staff encouraged the Applicant during conceptual review to identify all heights as measurements from existing grade to the top of whatever element was being discussed. The second Page 3 of 12 lesson learned and reflected in this plan is the recordation of an existing topography map. There has been, and will be, significant changes in the topography of this property, making measuring to a grade that no longer exists difficult. Recording a topography map will establish an `immovable' benchmark for determining compliance. • What were neighbors expecting to be built next door? This is inherently a difficult question for staff to answer. The adjacent properties and subject site are zoned for lodging according to the Lodge Zone District and were purchased at various points in time, with likely a vast range of expectations of the purchasers. • Please provide a sidewalk drawing. Please refer to the PUD Supplemental Information, Exhibit A2. • The Applicant was encouraged to contact the Car Share staff. The Applicant did discuss car sharing with Transportation staff as part of developing the TDM plan. Based on the comment, an additional outreach was made to Jeff at Cars to Go. The Lift One Lodge has represented they will pay the Cars to Go application and monthly corporate membership fees for the on -site affordable housing residents. • What is local fractional occupancy? Staff is still collecting information and will provide that at the hearing. • Please provide a diagram displaying where height exceeds code. This has been provided in the attached Exhibit I. • What could be built if this was a residential proposal? A building or multiple buildings of up to 28 feet, measured to various points along the slope and with higher ridges, and an overall Floor Area of 1:1 or slightly more than 19,000 square feet above grade. Staff does highlight that this location, and the Lodge District in general, is not a preferable location for residential (as a single use of a property) and the zoning has been reduced significantly to discourage pure residential development. Questions and answers from previous meetings: • Is 50 spaces the right number of parking spaces? During the creation of the COWOP Plan and Council review of the Conceptual PUD there was considerable discussion of "right- sizing" the parking for the project and public parking. Council provided direction that led to cutting the lodge parking almost in half and instructed the applicant to provide 50 public parking spaces. Those spaces will be managed in accordance with a parking operations plan that will be approved by the City of Aspen Parking Director. • Is the 80 - 85% percent occupancy figure a year - round number or just during the high seasons? The Applicant clarified that this is a year -round number. Page 4 of 12 • Request for clarification on locker location and access. The public lockers are located adjacent to the ski corridor for ski -in access. There is convenient connection to the lockers from both the public parking and pedestrian access from S. Aspen St. This location accentuates the idea that the lodge is accessible and builds connections between locals and guests. The applicant has committed to allow free lockers for locals with the hope that locals will spend the money on beer and food in the restaurant. • What about the idea of snowmelting only the bottom portion of South Aspen Street? It is expected that the alternative pavement treatment, alternate sanding material, turn around at the top of the street and elimination of on- street parking will allow effective snow removal and safer driving. Snowmelting a portion of the street is possible but comes with its own issues. Ice dams tend to exist at the break point between the snowmelt and non - snowmelt surfaces that creates safety issues, street maintenance issues, and road wear issues. The referral agencies support (or at least accept) this option, which has been difficult to achieve. • Has the museum size changed? The applicant stated "no, same as COWOP and Council Conceptual approval." • How will lodge guests access Lift IA? Lodge guests will either walk through the lobby to South Aspen or through the restaurant to the turn- around at the top of the street. That turn around is proposed to utilize pavers or stamped concrete in order to provide the texture and look of a pedestrian- friendly environment. Guests will simply walk to the stairway that accesses the 1A loading area, like they do today. • What about the skiing pinch point at the east end of red building? While the ski corridor is improved, this location will remain a pinch point until changes are made to the Skico property. • What is included in 59 square feet per unit for mechanical /structure? The 59 s.f. referenced in the presentation is space dedicated to building structure, walls, duct runs, and fireplace spaces. • Which design for drop off is proposed? Project Engineer Jay Hammond and City Engineer Trish Aragon agree that Option Two of Exhibits 2 and 4 is the preferred drop off design. • The Applicant was asked if owners will really use 6 weeks during the year. The Applicant reports back that they expect high usage. Owners must confirm usage 30 days prior to arrival and any unused nights will be available for public access via Stay Aspen Snowmass. • Are the residential units limited to 2,000 square feet in the 2005 code? No, that provision came later and does not apply to this project. What's the mitigation for these units? The units are being mitigated with on -site housing for 2.1 employees. This is a portion of the overall housing requirement for the project. Page 5 of 12 • Are height exemptions requested? Yes. Can the applicant also show heights along the north elevation? The applicant will be providing additional information. • Council talked about trucking snow to the area during Conceptual review, is that the plan? No, snow will be pushed down from uphill. • Is Car -to -Go part of the plan? Yes. The applicant has committed to pay the application fee and monthly corporate membership for on -site employee housing residents for at least five years. • Are you planning to shuttle guests to gondola? The applicant responded, no. • Staff was asked about lessons learned from Conceptual approval and from the Silver Circle project. Staff reported a major learning from the Silver Circle project is the inherent difficulty of a `public' facility being operated by a private property owner. This does not allow the City to respond to changing needs and expectations of the community like could be possible if the site were publicly owned. • Will mud flow into the AHS museum and archives? It's not expected to. A mudflow study was prepared for the application and submitted to the City. No concerns about mudflow to this area were identified. Upper portions of the site do have minor mudflow issues that affect some design decisions. • Who is expected to pay to clean the traps for sand in street? The applicant is proposing to rebuild Aspen and Deane Sts., install sidewalks and other pedestrian improvements, install curbs and gutters, install the vaults, provide a truck for use by the City for sanding purposes, and the sanding material. The City would apply the sand, plow the streets and clean the vaults. • Does the P &Z get to decide whether a project is fractional or not or whether the project is a lodge use? No. The definition of a lodge does not dictate how the project or units are owned. Fractional ownership is essentially a type or form of ownership, which the City's cannot prohibit. The City's regulatory requirements ensure that this form of ownership does not represent a de -facto change from lodging to residential use. Hence the requirements for a minimum number of fractions, rental of non -used time spans, etc. • Do we review sales tax generation or does Council? Neither. The City's sales tax collection is established City -wide, not on a case -by -case basis. All nightly rentals will pay sales and lodging taxes. All sales of fractional interests will pay Real Estate Transfer Taxes. • How can we exchange public lands without a vote? A vote is required to transfer publicly owned land in public use. There was a 1991 vote authorizing a long -term lease to the Aspen Historical Society for construction and operation of a ski museum on Willoughby Park. The City's rights -of -way are held in trust by the City but not owned Page 6 of 12 by the City. The reversion or assignment of former rights -of -way to landowners upon vacation is established by State Statute. • Requested more information about Floor Area and vacated rights -of -way. This will be provided at the meeting. • Requested clarification about `requiring' versus 'recommending' an easement. Staff will cover this in the meeting. Essentially, the requirements of the standard can be met without an easement. But, the standard was not written with skiing in mind and logistics of skiing obviously dictate having continuous legal access through the property. Because the standard can be met without a requirement, staff is making a recommendation that an easement be provided. The applicant has no qualms over providing this easement as it aligns with their intention. Additional language was added to the staff comments of that criterion. • Requested clarification about treating this as a new project versus a conversion project. Staff is not considering this a conversion for three reasons: Essentially, the former uses were defunct with very little actual tax service. The standard talks about conversion of structures and the present structures aren't being re -used. And, there's a 5 -year look - back window for analyzing conversion tax implications, rendering the conversion requirements moot. These three things combined to lead staff to treat this as a new project and not a conversion. • Is it possible to extend the Galena Street Shuttle to the site? There was discussion of this with Transportation staff and the project's transportation consultant. Due to the proximity to Rubey Park, the investments in pedestrian improvements, concerns over schedule and ridership implications to Galena St. Shuttle by extending route, Transportation staff and applicant agreed that investments in pedestrians, TDM, surface lift, drop off island, and lodge shuttle were most effective option. The project will pay 2.1% Use Tax that will support City transit service. City staff cannot commit to ongoing operations as the communities needs and capabilities change over time. • Is the Lift IA Lift moving? No. This property is no longer within the application and there's no proposal to move the lift. • Is the Lift IA Parcel a future "phase two" of this project? The applicant stated no. The applicant has no authority over the SkiCo parcel and cannot represent their future intensions. • Is this Lift IA parcel then sterilized? No, it just not part of the application. It's a neighboring parcel. • If the Lift IA Parcel were redeveloped what review would be required? An 8040 greeline review and a Wheeler view plane review would be required at a minimum. Depending on the proposal, other review may be required. Page 7 of 12 • Are SkiCo ticketing and other SkiCo facilities proposed here? No. Because the SkiCo property is no longer part of the application, there are no SkiCo operations requested or proposed. The applicant is not aware of any desire from the SkiCo to change ticketing operations. • Are public lockers still part of the plan? Applicant stated yes. • Requested detail on the Timeshare review standards. Staff will provide this with the review standards. • Requested detail on Floor Area verses total heated space versus "seeable" square footage to grasp the size of the project. This will be provided in the presentation. • Will the surface lift be "vested" as part of the approval or could it require a follow -up review? The surface lift potential is there and certainly part of the planning for the project. Staff may suggest a condition that the lift be provided long -term vesting and require future purchasers in this project accept the potential for this later improvement. • Can the applicant explore solar panels on the roof? A response will be provided during the presentation. • Explain how LEED Gold surpasses the City's standard requirements. This will be covered in the presentation. • Why is this project being reviewed under the 2005 code? Why not today's code? The application was submitted in 2006 (under the hen applicable 2005 code) and the applicant has the right to rely on the code in effect at the time of submission. Yes, there have been changes to the project, but those have been in response to issues brought -up during the review. The applicant could choose to go under the new code, but is not required to do so. Applicants cannot choose specific sections of new code (no a la carte); its one code or the other. • What is Aspen's experience with fractional unit occupancy? Any data? Do they actually rent to the 'public?' The City has not done an official study of fractional project occupancy. Various compliance checks have been made via `secret shoppers' and some anecdotal data on occupancy has been received. Staff will work on a more - thorough answer for the meeting on the 21s • Could eliminating lock -offs reduce the massing demand on the east building? The applicant will address this in the presentation. • Is the apres deck open to the public or just members? The applicant stated that this deck is open to patrons of the restaurant/bar and not limited to just members /owners. • Request for more detail on rooftop deck and pool railing or fence expectations. This will be covered in the presentation. Page 8 of 12 • Request for more information on transit connections, on- demand service and the TDM plan. This information will be provided in the presentation. • Request for more information on the size of the dormitory units. This information will be provided in the presentation. • Request for more information on snowmelt scope and efficiency. This will be covered in the presentation. • Will the ski - back corridor be groomed and is the applicant committing to provide that service? The applicant stated yes, likely through a contract with the SkiCo. Staff will be recommending an operations plan be developed and recorded for the two public parcels covering the ongoing responsibilities and expectations of the applicant, the Historic Society, and the City. BACKGROUND: (No changes from previous memo) This neighborhood has had multiple development applications proceeding through development review in the past few years. The owners of the Lodge at Aspen Mountain project, the Lift One Lodge project, the Aspen Skiing Company, and the City of Aspen jointly initiated a master planning process in early 2008 — the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan COWOP. That process incorporated a citizen task force and developed a master plan for the entire neighborhood. The master plan was not adopted and that process was eventually terminated. Prior to entering into the neighborhood master planning process, the Lift One Lodge project received positive recommendations for the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Historic Preservation Commission for their Conceptual PUD application. The Conceptual application was not forwarded to City Council, but rather tolled for the term of the master planning effort. After the neighborhood master planning effort was terminated, the Lift One Lodge PUD application was re- activated and forwarded to City Council. Obviously, the 2006 PUD application did not incorporate the newer ideas of the master planning exercise as it was prepared prior to that effort. Some of the new ideas were off - property items and could not be accommodated on the smaller land area. Some of the ideas were still valid and were integrated into the PUD application. The Conceptual application for the Lift One Lodge was approved by City Council through the adoption of Resolution No. 52, Series of 2009. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: (No changes from previous memo) This application is subject to the Land Use Code in effect at the date of initial submission — November, 2006. The P &Z reviews have been combined with City Council review. The Code provides this option to ensure clarity of entitlements and minimize conflicting Page 9 of 12 approvals. The project remains subject to all review criteria and public noticing requirements. This project requires the following reviews: Final Planned Unit Development: An application for Final PUD, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.030 (B)2, requires the City Council, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions or disapprove of the PUD after receiving a recommendation by the Planning Zoning Commission. The City Council is the final decision - making body. Timeshare: An application for Final PUD, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.590.040, requires the City Council, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions or disapprove of the Timeshare use plan after receiving a recommendation by the Planning Zoning Commission. The City Council is the final decision - making body. Subdivision: An application for Subdivision, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480.040(C)1, requires the City Council, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions or disapprove of the Subdivision after receiving a recommendation by the Planning Zoning Commission. The City Council is the final decision - making body. Amendment to the Zone District Map [Rezoning: An application for Amendment to the Zone District Map, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310.020, requires the City Council, at a public hearing, to determine if the application meets the standards for an amendment to the Zone District Map after receiving a recommendation by the Planning Zoning Commission. The City Council is the final decision - making body. Growth Management Review — Incentive Lodge Development: An application for the development of new lodge units, commercial space, and associated free - market residential pursuant to Land Use Code Section Sec. 26.470.040.C.3. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal. This review has been combined pursuant to Section 26.304.060.B.1. City Council is the final review authority after a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Growth Management Review — Essential Public Facility: An application for the development of an essential public facility (the museum) pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040.D.3. The City Council is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal. Growth Management Review — Affordable Housing: An application for the development of new affordable residences 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. This review has been combined pursuant to Section 26.304.060.B.1. City Council is the final review authority after a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Special Review for Average Lodge Unit Size: An application for Special Review to consider the average lodge unit size, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.710.190.E. The Planning Page 10 of 12 and Zoning Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal. This review has been combined pursuant to Section 26.304.060.B.1. City Council is the final review authority after a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Conditional Use for Restaurant and Bar: A conditional use application to consider the restaurant and bar (within the lodge) pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.425.050. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal. This review has been combined pursuant to Section 26.304.060.B.1. City Council is the final review authority after a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Conditional Use for Dormitory Units: A conditional use application to consider dormitory style housing units pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.425.050. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal. This review has been combined pursuant to Section 26.304.060.B.1. City Council is the final review authority after a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mountain View Plane Review: An application to the effects of the project on the Wheeler Opera House designated view plane Land Use Code Section 26.435.050. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal. This review has been combined pursuant to Section 26.304.060.B.1. City Council is the final review authority after a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Condominiumization: An application for condominiumization, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480.090, requires the Community Development Director approve a plat for recordation to affect a condominium form of ownership. This review has been combined pursuant to Section 26.304.060.B.1. City Council is the final review authority. The plat will be presented for administrative approval and recordation upon substantial completion of the improvements. Right -of -Way Vacations: Pursuant to C.R.S. 43 -2 -303 the City Council may vacate a public right -of -way upon adoption of an Ordinance. City Council is the final review authority. Extended Vested Rights: Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.308.010, City Council may grant a period of statutory vested rights in excess of the minimum three -year period. City Council is the final review authority. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission pass a recommendation of approval on to City Council by adoption of the proposed Resolution with detailed conditions of approval. Page 11 of 12 RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series 2011, recommending City Council approve the Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PUD Final Application." PREVIOUS ATTACHMENTS: A — Lift One Lodge Application (provided in the April 5 packet) A2 — Application Supplement — June 7, 2011 — Revised traffic study, revised street plans and profiles. B — Lift One Lodge Application Appendix — by reference only. The City Clerk has a copy and there's a copy in ComDev. A table of contents for the appendix is in the main application. C — Project Summary — June 7 D — Conceptual and Final Review Comparison Chart — June 7 E — Neighbor letters — June 7 H — P &Z and Council minutes from Conceptual Review. CURRENT ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Resolution No. , Series 2011 F — Development Review Committee (DRC) comments G — Review standards and staff findings (amended for June 21 I — Additional height representations Page 12 of 12 RESOLUTION NO. _ (SERIES OF 2011) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL GRANT FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL, SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, REZONING APPROVAL, FINAL TIMESHARE APPROVAL, GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPROVAL, APPROVAL OF ASSOCIATED LAND USE REVIEWS, AND ISSUE A DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE LIFT ONE LODGE SUBDIVISION/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 233 GILBERT STREET, 710 SOUTH ASPEN STREET, 720 SOUTH ASPEN STREET, WILLOUGHBY PARK AND LIFT ONE PARK, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2735- 131 - 168 -51, 2735 - 131 - 210 -01, 2735 -131- 210 -02, 2735- 131 - 198 -51, 2735 - 131 - 190 -01 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application for the Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PUD (the Application) from Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge — Aspen, LLC (Applicant), represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, and with consent from the City of Aspen and the Historical Society of Aspen, for the following land use review approvals: • Final Planned Unit Development, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445. • Final Timeshare, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.590. • Subdivision, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.480. • Amendment to the Zone District Map, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.310. • Growth Management Review — Replacement of Existing Commercial and Lodge Development, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. • Growth Management Review — Replacement of Demolished Multi- Family Units, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. • Growth Management Review — Incentive Lodge Development, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. • Growth Management Review — Essential Public Facility, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. • Growth Management Review — Affordable Housing, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. • Special Review for Average Lodge Unit Size: An application for Special Review to consider the average lodge unit size, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.430. • Conditional Use for Restaurant and Bar, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.425. • Conditional Use for Dormitory Units, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.425. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. ,Series 2011. Page 1 of 33 • Mountain View Plane Review, pursuant to Section 26.435.050. • Condominiumization, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480.090. • Commercial Design Review, pusuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412. • Right -of -Way Vacations, pursuant to C.R.S. 43 -2 -303 for certain streets and alleyways within the project site. • Extended Vested Rights, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.308, for a 10 -year period. ; and, WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in effect on the day of initial application — November 24, 2006, as applicable to this Project; and, WHEREAS, the subject Properties are commonly known as Willoughby Park, Lift One Park, 233 Gilbert Street, 710 South Aspen Street, and 720 South Aspen Street, City of Aspen, Colorado, and as more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto; and, WHEREAS, the Application for the Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PUD proposes: On Lot 1— Lift One Lodge: • A multi -story structure consisting of 22 timeshare lodging units divided into one - eighth (1/8) interests with a total of 176 owner interests. With "lock -off" capability, the 22 units represent a total of 84 keys. • 5 free - market residential units. • A sub -grade parking garage with no more than 155 parking spaces, 50 of which dedicated for public use as replacement of lost parking on South Aspen Street and the current Willoughby Park surface parking. 105 spaces are for lodge, commercial, residential, dormitory, and other uses associated with the lodge. • Subgrade utility infrastructure including a ground- source heat system. • A public restaurant and apres ski area. • Fitness facilities. • Lodge guest facilities. • Public access and ski easements. • Ski area operations On Lot 2 — Skiers Chalet Steakhouse: • A relocated and rehabilitated Skier Chalet Steakhouse building containing housing for 16 employees in 8 dormitory -style units. • Subgrade utility infrastructure including a ground- source heat system. On Lot 3 — Lift One Park: • A public park. • One lift tower of the historic Lift One apparatus. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. ,Series 2011. Page 2 of 33 • Underground parking (part of the subsurface parking garage on Lot 1) • Subgrade foundations and structural support systems, and utility infrastructure including a ground - source heat system. On Lot 4 — Willoughby Park: • A public park. • A relocated and rehabilitated Skier Chalet Lodge and pool house buildings containing Historical Society Museum. • The historic Lift One terminal and wheelhouse. • A skier drop off area. ; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445, Planned Unit Development, and Section 26.590, Timeshare Development, a Conceptual approval must be granted by the Aspen City Council Prior to Final Review and was granted by the Aspen City Council via Resolution No. 52, Series of 2009; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.415.070.D., Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development, of the Land Use Code, Final approval may be granted by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) at a duly noticed public hearing and was granted for the review of Willoughby Park, Lift 1 Park, and Skier's Chalet Steakhouse by the HPC on November 10, 2006, via Resolution No 14, Series of 2010, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire Protection District, Environmental Health Department, Parks Department, Parking Department , Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Public Works Department, and the Transportation Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing, of the Land Use Code, a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority is required and a recommendation for approval by the board was provided at their March 2, 2011, regular meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Final PUD and Final Timeshare and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.445 of the Land Use Code, Final PUD approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.480 of the Land Use Code, Subdivision approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. ,Series 2011. Page 3 of 33 WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.310 of the Land Use Code, an amendment to the Official Zone District Map (Rezoning) may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.590 of the Land Use Code, Final Timeshare approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, and Section 26.304.060.B.4, Modification of Review Procedures, all other necessary land use reviews, as identified herein, have been combined to be considered by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, such combination of review procedures was done to ensure clarity of review, was accomplished with all required public noticing provided as evidenced by an affidavit of public noticing submitted to the record, and the public was provided a thorough and full review of the proposed development; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Application during multiple public hearings in which the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were requested and heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission ; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on June 7, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing, considered the Application, received presentation from the Applicant including information in Power Point and physical model forms, considered the comments and recommendations of the Community Development Director, considered comments and recommendations of other members of City staff, considered comments and suggestions offered by members of the public, considered questions and responses by staff or the Applicant, considered comments and discussion by Commission members, and continued the public hearing to June 14, 2011, June 21, 2011, and July 5, 2011, at which hearings additional presentations, recommendations, information, questions and answers, public comments and suggestions, and Commission discussion occurred; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on July 5 2011, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Application, found the Project meeting or exceeding all applicable development review standards, and recommended City Council approve the Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PUD Application and all necessary land use reviews, as identified herein, by a to ( - ) vote, with the recommended conditions of approval listed hereinafter. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council grant the Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PUD Final Planned Unit Development approval, Subdivision approval, Rezoning approval, Final Timeshare approval, Growth Management approval, approval of all associated land use review cited herein, and issue a Development Order for a Site Specific Development Plan for the Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PUD, subject to the recommended conditions of approval as listed herein. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. ,Series 2011. Page 4 of 33 Section 1: Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PUD Plat, Street Vacation Plat, & Final PUD Plans Within one year following the date of final approval by the City Council, the record owners of the underlying lands shall prepare and submit a Subdivision Plat, Street Vacation Plat, and Final PUD Plans for the Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PUD. 1.1 A Subdivision Plat that subdivides the land into the following parcels, as depicted on the Proposed Subdivision Map, attached as Exhibit B. Lift One Subdivision/PUD Lot 1: Lift One Lodge Lift One Subdivision/PUD Lot 2: Skiers Chalet Steak House Lift One Subdivision/PUD Lot 3: Lift One Park Lift One Subdivision/PUD Lot 4: Willoughby Park & Ski Museum The Subdivision Plat shall grant certain perpetual easements as follows: a. A easement to the Aspen Skiing Company, the City of Aspen, and the Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge — Aspen, LLC, or successors and assigns, through Lots 1, 3, and 4 for purposes of constructing, operating, and maintaining a surface lift and other associated improvements necessary for uploading skiers from Willoughby Park to a point south of Lot 1 such that a skier could access Lift lA or a relocated Lift 1A. b. An easement granted to the Aspen Skiing Company, the City of Aspen, and the Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge — Aspen, LLC, or successors and assigns, through Lots 1, 3, and 4 for purposes of constructing, operating, and maintaining a skiing corridor and associated improvements and operations necessary for skiing, including creating and maintaining acceptable snow surface conditions for skiing. c. A perpetual public pedestrian access easement through the center portion of Lot 1 proximate to the auto court and through the southerly portion of Lot 2 allowing access to and from South Aspen Street, Lift One Park, and Willoughby Park. d. A perpetual public recreation, access, and maintenance easement through Lots 1, 3, and 4, including those sections of former Gilbert and Hill Street public rights -of -way directly north and south of Lift One Park, allowing continuous access from Willoughby Park through Lift One Park and through the portion of Lot 1 directly south of Lift One Park. e. A perpetual subsurface easement beneath Lot 3, Lift One Park, for the use and benefit of the Lift One Lodge Project for purposes of constructing, accessing, operating, using, and maintaining a below grade parking garage and other lodge facilities, foundations and structural support systems, and utility infrastructure including a ground source heat system. f. A perpetual subsurface easement beneath Lots 1 and 3 for the use and benefit of the general public for purposes of accessing and using portions of the parking garage allocated for public use and subject to reasonable restrictions, limitations, and usage fees as outlined in the Lift One Lodge Parking Garage Operations Plan, as may be amended from time to time. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. ,Series 2011. Page 5 of 33 g. A six -foot wide "no- build" and maintenance easement along the east and west property boundaries of Lot #3 and along the western property boundary of Lot #4 for the purposes of accommodating sufficient fire protection and fire code compliance for the proposed improvements on Lot #1 and Lot #2 and to accommodate the periodic maintenance of same. 1.2 A Street Vacation/Dedication Plat that accomplishes the following changes to public rights - of -way as depicted on the Proposed Street Vacation/Dedication Map, attached as Exhibit C: a. Vacation of the eastern 37.5 feet of South Aspen Street from the centerline of Hill Street north to the southern edge of Deane Street and excluding portions of said area associated with the proposed turn- around and drop -off area at the corner of South Aspen and Deane Street. b. Dedication to public right -of -way an area within the northwest portion of Lot #4, Willoughby Park, associated with the proposed turn- around and drop -off area at the corner of South Aspen and Deane Street. The final design and exact dimensions of this dedication shall be as depicted and described in the Subdivision Plat. c. Vacation of the northern 25 feet of Hill Street east of the centerline of South Aspen Street to the eastern boundary of the Eames Addition. d. Vacation of the remaining dedicated portions of the alleyway of Block 9, Eames Addition. e. Vacation of a Utility and Alleyway Easement encumbering the eastern 10 feet of Lot 2 Block 9, Eames Addition, recorded at Book 203, Page 375. f. Vacation of Gilbert Street from the centerline of South Aspen Street east to a line extending south from the boundary between Lots 11 and 12 of Block 8 and connecting to the boundary between Lots 3 and 4 of Block 9, Eames Addition. g. Vacation of Juan Street east of the South Aspen Street right -of -way to the eastern boundary of the Eames Addition. h. Vacation of the alleyway of Block 8, Eames Addition. i. Vacation of the alleyway of Block 7, Eames Addition. 1.3 A Final PUD Development Plan Set that includes: a. An illustrative site plan showing the layout of planned improvements as depicted in attached Exhibit D. b. An architectural character plan showing the massing, fenestration, and materials of each building as generally depicted in attached Exhibit E. c. Dimensioned drawings of all buildings proposed within the project showing dimensions for all zoning parameters in graphic and tabular format. Project dimensions approved for the project are as described in Exhibit F. Heights of building shall be in substantial conformance with those depicted in attached Exhibit G. d. An exterior lighting plan meeting the City's outdoor lighting limitations. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. ,Series 2011. Page 6 of 33 e. A Deane Street Plan for that section of Deane Street right -of -way between the South Aspen Street and South Monarch Street. The Plan shall be coordinated with the City of Aspen Community Development, Parks, and Engineering Departments. All, or a portion, of the $250,000 allocated to Deane Street improvements by Ordinance No. 32, Series of 2005 (the Chart House contribution) shall be allocated by the City for the design and implementation of these improvements. f. A Master Utility Plan including profiles and sections. g. A Drainage Plan and report that complies with the City's Urban Runoff Management Plan. Pursuant to review by the City Engineer, the initial drainage concept appears to comply. In addition to site drainage, the project will have to address street drainage. The project proposes to change the hydraulics and capacity of Aspen Street's drainage system. Therefore, the project will be required to install curb, gutter and other drainage control features (such as inlets and piping) on both sides of the street. (Also see infrastructure investment recapture provisions of sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3.) Because the enhanced sanding method for maintaining Aspen street in winter months will have negative impacts on street runoff water quality, the City Engineer recommends additional water quality mitigation efforts. The project will need to provide plans for water quality treatment of Aspen Street runoff. The proposed island off of Deane Street and the bulb outs on South Aspen Street may be potential locations for water quality improvements as determined acceptable by the City Engineer and City of Aspen Parks Department. h. An Interpolated Natural Grade Plan. i. A Tree Removal and Mitigation Plan. j. A Landscape Plan for each of the four lots. The landscape plans should be reviewed and approved by The Parks Department with a required signature on the Landscape sheets. To the extent practical, planting strips within the right -of -way should provide 5 feet or more in width between the back of curb and the edge of the sidewalk. Planting strips should be designed with 4 feet of good quality topsoil and growing media. The Applicant will be required to use structural soils where a non - compacted continuous root zone cannot be provided. These soils will be required within the City Rights of Way and/or as may be required on the private property. Structural Soils are applicable in situations where tree rooting potential is insufficient in designated planter areas adjacent to sidewalks. Spacing and type of tree must be coordinated with the Parks Department. Sidewalks shall be designed and built in a manner that reduces the impact to existing trees and roots systems. All sidewalks located within the drip line of trees to be saved shall be built on grade in a manner that allows for the sub -grade prep and sidewalk to float over the roots preventing any excavation into the soil. All work in protection zones is to be accomplished by handwork only, without machines. Plantings with the City right -of -way must be approved by the City Parks Department. All plantings along the edge of private property and the City ROW should be of size and species which will not require major maintenance, pruning, or trimming due to over growth. Tree lighting electrical conduits must comply with City of Aspen standards; Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. ,Series 2011. Page 7 of 33 The landscape plans shall include provision of irrigation connections that provide adequate pressure and coverage, for landscaped areas of the right -of -way and the two public parks. The City shall be provided adequate access to maintain and control irrigation of the two public parks. The Development Agreement shall address maintenance, control, and responsibilities for the irrigation for these two parks to the satisfaction of the Parks Department. Section 2: Rezoning Contemporaneously with and effective upon the recording of the Subdivision and Street Vacation Plats the Lots within this Subdivision, as described above and reflected in the Subdivision Plat, shall be zoned as follows: Lot 1: Lodge, Planned Unit Development (L -PUD) Lot 2: Lodge, Planned Unit Development (L -PUD) Lot 3: Public, Planned Unit Development, Historic (P- PUD -H) Lot 4: Public, Planned Unit Development, Historic (P- PUD -H) Section 3: Development Agreement Contemporaneously with the recording of the Subdivision and Street Vacation Plats, the record owners of the lands within the Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PUD shall prepare, execute and record a Development Agreement meeting the requirements of Section 26.445.070.0 setting forth a description of the proposed improvements and obligations of the parties, including the following: 3.1 The reconstruction of South Aspen Street, Deane Street, and associated sidewalks, curbing and drainage improvements as depicted in the Final PUD Plans. The Development Agreement shall include a provision that the City shall require that in the event property owners adjacent to improved portions of South Aspen Street seek improvements to their property such property owners shall be responsible for their prorata share of the cost of the improvements associated with this section and such costs shall be reimbursed to the Applicant prior to the adjacent property owner receiving their building permit. The prorata share shall be further defined in the Development Agreement but generally will be based upon linear feet of frontage along South Aspen Street as compared to the total amount of property frontage along South Aspen Street. The City of Aspen as owner of property along South Aspen Street shall not be subject to this reimbursement as their prorata share shall be borne by the Applicant. 3.2 The installation and /or relocation of all utilities depicted and described in the Master Utility Plan of the Final PUD Plans. The Development Agreement shall include a provision that the City shall require that in the event property owners adjacent to improved portions of South Aspen Street seek improvements to their property such property owners shall be responsible for their prorata share of the cost of the improvements associated with this section and such costs shall be reimbursed to the Applicant prior to the adjacent property owner receiving their building permit. The prorata share shall be further defined in the Development Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. ,Series 2011. Page 8 of 33 Agreement but generally will be based upon linear feet of frontage along South Aspen Street as compared to the total amount of property frontage along South Aspen Street. The City of Aspen as owner of property along South Aspen Street shall not be subject to this reimbursement as their prorata share shall be borne by the Applicant. 3.3 The installation of all drainage facilities depicted and described on the Drainage Plan of the Final PUD Plans. The Development Agreement shall include a provision that the City shall require that in the event property owners adjacent to improved portions of South Aspen Street seek improvements to their property such property owners shall be responsible for their prorata share of the cost of the improvements associated with this section and such costs shall be reimbursed to the Applicant prior to the adjacent property owner receiving their building permit. The prorata share shall be further defined in the Development Agreement but generally will be based upon linear feet of frontage along South Aspen Street as compared to the total amount of property frontage along South Aspen Street. The City of Aspen as owner of property along South Aspen Street shall not be subject to this reimbursement as their prorata share shall be borne by the Applicant. 3.4 Identification of all public improvements to be subject to Section 3.15 Financial Assurance and Performance Bond. 3.5 An agreement to provide a public locker facility with 80 lockers. The lockers shall be made available to the general public free of charge in a transparent, non - discriminatory manner, and on a seasonal basis via a valley -wide lottery. Locker rental agreements shall prohibit assignment and subrental. 3.6 An agreement to provide a dedicated maintenance /storage facility of up to _ square feet (Note: Applicant needs to confirm this with Parks) within the parking garage for the use by the City of Aspen Parks Department for the storage of maintenance vehicles used for maintenance of parks facilities located within the central area of Aspen. 3.7 A Modified Historical Society Ski Museum Lease Agreement between the Historical Society and the City of Aspen, with approval from the City Attorney's Office and the Parks Department. The lease agreement will be modified to include an operations plan clearly indentifying and describing the leased areas within Willoughby Park and general operating characteristics of the museum including typical operation, special events, outdoor uses, outdoor displays /exhibits, permitting responsibilities, and maintenance responsibilities of the grounds. The operations plan shall describe public access to the museum, and limits thereto, and provide flexibility for insignificant changes from time to time. The operations plan shall recognize and permit public access to all exterior areas of Willoughby Park, excluding exterior areas restricted for safety, security, or similar considerations, and shall permit pedestrian and skiing access in and through these exterior areas. The operations plan shall permit occasional changes to the operating characteristics of the property and the responsibilities of the parties by approval of the City Manager and the Historical Society Director. If the Manager and the Director cannot agree, the changes shall be forwarded to the Aspen City Council for resolution. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. ,Series 2011. Page 9 of 33 Failure to agree on an operations plan shall not unreasonably restrict the Applicant from proceeding with finalizing other required documents or proceeding with other aspects of the development plans. If necessary, this provision may be amended to be finalized prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on the museum building. 3.8 A Skiing & Snow Surface Conditioning and Maintenance Agreement between the Applicant and the City of Aspen to regularly groom and maintain the snow conditions in the surface lift corridor from Willoughby Park to the Lift IA terminal. The agreement shall allow a third party operator to provide this service. This agreement may include operational provisions and usage limitations for safety and functional reasons. This agreement shall not prohibit the making, moving, spreading, grooming and preparing of an artificial snow base in the surface lift corridor at the beginning of each ski season in accord with typical annual snowmaking and terrain opening logistics. 3.9 A final Transportation Management Plan, approved by the Transportation Director. The conceptual plan is acceptable, with some details to be worked on prior to finalization. Staff requests the following changes: a. More specifics on the courtesy on -demand shuttle, including minimum service levels, type of vehicle, routing, and marketing. b. Provision of a Lift One Lodge Garage Operations Plan for the 50 public parking spaces including pricing, entry /exit technology, residential permit distribution and monitoring, carpool parking distribution and monitoring, enforcement and special event usage. Staff requests the designated parking spaces for carshare and carpool uses be combined to a pool of 11 TDM- related parking spaces that can be utilized for either use as determined appropriate by the City from time to time. For example these spaces could become 3 carshare spaces and eight carpool spaces or whichever combination is deemed appropriate at that time. c. Staff requests a reporting requirement every two years for the first 10 years to include garage usage trends and TDM program participation. At each two -year cycle, elements of the Plan may be changed as needed and as acceptable to the parties. 3.10 Timeshare and Transfer Disclosure Documents. An agreement to incorporate the requirements and restrictions of the City's Timeshare Regulations into the final timeshare instruments, including State requirements, provisions for reserve funds for ongoing maintenance, prohibited practices and uses, limits on marketing techniques, and prohibitions on offering non -Aspen gifts within a marketing plan. Real estate transfer documents shall include disclosure of the future construction, operation, and maintenance of a surface lift uploading skiers from Willoughby Park to a point south of Lot 1 through the easement described in Section 1.1.a, above, and in the recorded Subdivision Plat. Real estate transfer documents shall include disclosure of the future construction, operation, and maintenance of a skiing corridor and associated improvements and operations necessary Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. ,Series 2011. Page 10 of 33 for skiing, including creating and maintaining acceptable snow surface conditions for skiing through the easement described in Section 1.1.b, above, and in the recorded Subdivision Plat. 3.11 An occupancy reporting requirement for reporting after the third and fifth years of lodge operation. The report shall include occupancy rates by season and annually and by type of occupant (i.e. owner or general public). 3.12 A public rental requirement assuring that unused lodge rooms will be available to the general public at market rates so as to encourage their rental. 3.13 A plan for dormitory operations, including the following: a. A statement by the Applicant that the deed restriction and subsequent rental rate restrictions are being provided voluntarily by the Applicant. b. The template lease for the on -site dormitory units must be reviewed by APCHA along with the initial rental amount as it is not stated in the Guidelines. Once the rental amount is set and stated in the recorded deed restriction, the rent may increase annually by the lesser of 3% or the Consumer Price Index, as such index is stated in the APCHA Guidelines. c. The dormitory units must be rented to qualified employees within Pitkin County and must be qualified through APCHA prior to occupancy. The owner must provide signed leases to APCHA within five days of both parties' signatures. If the owner is unable to fill the units with employees of the development, than the units shall be leased to other qualified employees. The leases shall be for at least a six -month period of time. d. The owner /operator of the dormitory units must provide and maintain the following amenities for use by the tenants: a common laundry facility in the basement area; eight reserved parking spaces within the Lift One Lodge parking garage; sixteen storage units (one for each resident) in the basement area; a fully functional kitchen and common area. e. The ongoing maintenance and upkeep of the dormitory units. 3.14 An Employee Generation Audit and Reconciliation. The Applicant shall agree to submit an employee generation audit two years after operations have commenced and reconcile any difference in actual additional employees and mitigated employees. The agreement shall require mitigation of additional employees be provided through the provision of housing units within the Urban Growth Boundary including "buy- downs ", the provision of cash -in- lieu at the rate applicable on the date of payment, the provision of employee mitigation credits for extinguishment, or a combination thereof'. The Applicant shall agree that the City may revoke the Certificate of Occupancy for Lift One Lodge as a remedy if after proper notice and remedy to cure the Applicant fails to provide required additional mitigation within a reasonable timeframe or other such remedies as identified in the Development Agreement. Credit for actual additional employees being less than mitigated shall be reconciled by City issuance of employee mitigation credits in the amount of overage. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. ,Series 2011. Page 11 of 33 3.15 Financial Assurances & Performance Bond. The Development Agreement shall include the Applicant's commitment and agreement that before a Building Permit is issued for the Lift One Lodge on Lot #1, the Applicant shall provide to the Community Development Director and the City Attorney for review and approval satisfactory evidence that the Applicant has in place sufficient financing to accomplish and complete the construction of the development, including all public improvements required under the Development Agreement and covered by the Building Permit. Such financing may include, without limitation, a construction loan from an institutional lender or lenders and equity capital investments from the Applicant and/or third party investors. Supporting cost estimates for all improvements covered by the requested Building Permit shall be prepared by the Applicant's General Contractor. The Applicant shall further commit and agree that before a Building Permit is issued for the Lift One Lodge on Lot #1, the Applicant shall provide to the Community Development Director and the City Attorney for review a copy of a Performance and Payment Bond issued or committed to be issued to the Applicant's General Contractor by an institutional surety company. The Performance and Payment Bond shall name the Applicant as the beneficiary or insured thereunder to grant them a direct right of action under the Performance and Payment Bond in order to construct or finish public improvements, and to complete the construction of the improvements covered by the Bond. Separately, the Applicant shall provide the City of Aspen with an assignment of its rights under the Performance and Payment Bond. 3.16 Site Protection Fund. The Development Agreement shall include the Applicant's commitment and agreement that before a Building Permit is issued for the Lift One Lodge on Lot #1, the Applicant will deposit with a title company ( "Escrow Agent ") the sum of $100,000 in the form of cash or wired funds (the "Escrow Funds ") and will execute an Escrow Agreement and Instructions with the Escrow Agent which recites and agrees as follows: In the event construction work on Lift One Lodge on Lot #1 shall cease for sixty (60) days or longer (`work stoppage') without a cure of such work stoppage after fifteen days (15) days notice by the City and such work stoppage not being a result of any event of force majeure, prior to a final inspection by the City of the work authorized by the Foundation/Structural Frame Permit on the Project, then the City in its discretion may draw upon the Escrow Funds from time to time as needed for purposes of protecting and securing the Project site and improvements from damage by the elements and/or from trespass by unauthorized persons, and for purposes of improving the Project site to a safe condition such that it does not become an attractive nuisance or otherwise pose a threat to neighbors or other persons. The Escrow Funds or any remaining balance thereof shall be returned to the Applicant upon completion by the City of a final inspection of the work authorized by the Foundation/Structural Frame Permit on the Project. The City shall be a named third party beneficiary of the Escrow Agreement with the express right and authority to enforce the same from time to time. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. ,Series 2011. Page 12 of 33 3.17 Cross - References. The Development Agreement shall include cross- references to recorded plats, easements, agreements, and PUD plan sets as described herein. Section 4: Growth Management and Affordable Housing Obligations 4.1 Reconstruction Credits. City Council Resolution No. 52, Series 2009 confirmed the following reconstruction credits have been verified by the City of Aspen and shall be credited towards the Growth Management Quota System allotment and affordable housing requirements of the Lift One Lodge Project. a. A total of 38 lodging reconstruction credits consisting of 20 lodge units in the former Holland House Lodge; 10 lodge units in the former Skiers Chalet Lodge; and 8 lodge units in the former Skiers Chalet Steak House are credited towards the Lift One Lodge Project's lodging GMQS allotment request. The 38 reconstruction credits equate to 76 lodging pillows for allotment purposes. b. One free market residential reconstruction credit from the former Holland House Lodge is credited towards the Lift One Lodge Project's free market residential GMQS allotment request. c. A commercial reconstruction credit of 2,429 square feet of net leasable area from the Skiers Chalet Steak House is credited towards the Lift One Lodge Project's commercial GMQS allotment request. 4.2 Growth Management Allotments. The following growth management allotments are granted to the Lift One Lodge Project: a. 46 lodging bedrooms = 92 lodging pillows. Added to the reconstruction credits, the project represents 84 lodging bedrooms or 168 pillows. b. 4 free market residential allotments. Together with the reconstruction credits, the project contains 5 free - market residences. c. 3,560 square feet of net leasable commercial space. Added to the reconstruction credit of 2,429 square feet, the project contains 5,989 square feet of commercial net leasable space. The gross commercial space is planned to be 7,047 and minor adjustments to the final net leasable figure may occur. d. 8 units of affordable housing situated in a dormitory -style building on Lot #2 and housing 16 employees. The building is approximately 3,184 square feet of floor area plus additional basement space. e. An essential public facility - the ski museum owned and operated by the Aspen Historical Society, a not - for - profit organization. The building and former pool house is approximately 4,320 square feet of floor area with additional basement space. 4.3 Lift One Lodge Employee Generation. The Applicant has committed to provide affordable housing mitigation for 100 percent of the net additional employees generated by the lodging project. This exceeds the 60% requirement. The Project's employee generation is as follows: Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. ,Series 2011. Page 13 of 33 Employee Mitigation Generation Requirement (FTEs) (FTEs) The Lift One Lodge Project contains 84 lodge bedrooms and has a reconstruction credit of 38 bedrooms. The 23.0 6.9 Project's 46 net new lodge bedrooms are expected to generate 23 employees. The Project will contain 5,989 square feet of commercial space of which 2,429 is a reconstruction credit from the Skiers Chalet Steakhouse. The Project's additional net 11.27 3.38 leasable commercial space of 3,560 square feet is expected to generate 11.27 employees. The Project will contain 5 free - market residences, one of which is a reconstruction credit from the former Holland House. The City does not have `employee generation' 3.35 3.35 requirements for residences, but does have inclusionary requirements and replacement requirements. The Project's four new free market residences require housing for 2.1 employees. The replacement unit requires housing for 1.25 employees. Additional employees generated 37.62 Minimum mitigation required 13.63 Mitigation required at 100% 37.62 4.4 Lift One Lodge Employee Housing Requirement. A total of 37.62 additional employees are expected to be generated by the Lift One Lodge project and the applicant has represented a commitment to mitigate 100% of this impact. The applicant is providing on -site dormitory units for 16 employees. The additional mitigation of 21.62 FTE's must be provided through the provision of housing units within the Urban Growth Boundary including "buy- downs ", the provision of cash -in -lieu at the rate applicable on the date of payment, the provision of employee mitigation credits for extinguishment, or a combination thereof, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Lift One Lodge. Off -site for -sale units shall be transferred according to the APCHA Guidelines. Off -site rental units shall be available to all qualified employees in Pitkin County, although the applicant shall maintain the right to place qualified employees of the Lift One Lodge. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. ,Series 2011. Page 14 of 33 4.5 Ski Museum Employee Housing Requirement. The City finds the Museum meeting the definition of an Essential Public Facility (a facility which serves an essential public purpose is available for use or benefit of the general public and serves the needs of the community). The Aspen Historical Society is a not- for - profit organization with a mission of enriching the community through preserving and communicating Aspen's remarkable history. They are supported through donations, limited fee services, and the Aspen Historic Park and Recreation District property tax. The facility is proposed to serve educational needs of the community and will be for the use and benefit of the general public. The employee needs for the museum are expected to be handled through existing staffing with minimal additional demand. In light of the project's overall commitment to affordable housing and the significance of preserving and enhancing the Aspen's skiing legacy, the employee housing requirements of the Museum are waived. Section 5: Building Permit Submission Requirements In addition to the standard submission requirements for a building permit, the Applicant shall submit the following: a. A signed copy of the Final HPC Resolution, the final City Council Ordinance and the Development Agreement granting land use approvals. b. A letter from the primary contractor stating that the Final HPC Resolution, the final City Council Ordinance, and the Development Agreement have been read and understood. c. A tree removal plan and a tree protection plan. (See Section 10) d. Detail civil plans for the reconstruction of South Aspen Street, Deane Street, and associated sidewalks, curbing and drainage improvements as depicted in the Final PUD Plans. e. Detail civil plans for the installation and /or relocation of all utilities depicted and described in the Master Utility Plan of the Final PUD Plans £ Detail civil plans for the installation of all drainage facilities depicted and described on the Drainage Plan of the Final PUD Plans; g. A signage plan for approval by the parking and Engineering Departments signing both sides of Aspen Street as No Parking Fire Lane; signing the public parking spaces within the turn-around as Emergency and Official Vehicles Only; and specifying sign receivers to be placed during construction. Section 6: Building Permit Issuance Requirements In addition to the standard requirements for issuance of a building permit, the following conditions must be met prior to issuance of a building permit: Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. ,Series 2011. Page 15 of 33 a. The Applicant shall pay all impact fees and school lands dedication fees applicable at the time of building permit submission, payable upon issuance of the full building permit. b. The Applicant shall provide sufficient evidence of financing and a performance bond, as required in Section 3.15. c. The Applicant shall provide site protection escrow funds, as required in Section 3.16. d. The Applicant shall provide $150,000 towards the relocation costs of the Willoughby Volleyball Courts. This is in addition to Parks Impact Fees. This requirement only applies to the first building permit for Lot #4 — the Ski Museum, including an Access/Infrastructure permit, and shall represent the complete obligation of the Applicant regarding volleyball relocation. e. The design for Lift One Lodge shall be compliant with projected mudflow impacts and recommended design accommodations as identified in the mudflow and debris study prepared by the Applicant and reviewed by the City of Aspen Engineering Department. f. Lift One Lodge shall be designed to a "highrise" standard for fire protection and be acceptable to the Fire Marshall. g. The final application represented that the Lift One Lodge will meet specific energy performance measures and commitments equivalent to LEED Gold certification. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit for the Lift One Lodge, sufficient evidence, such as a LEED point calculation sheet, demonstrating the project has been designed to meet this standard shall be presented to the Chief Building Official for acceptance. Section 7: Construction Management Plan Requirements A construction management plan must be submitted in conjunction with the first building permit application within the project (excluding permits for repairs and upkeep of existing buildings). The plan must include a planned sequence of construction that minimizes construction impacts to the public. If the project is bifurcated into phases, a CMP for each phase will be required. The plan shall describe management of: parking, staging/encroachments, truck traffic, noise, dust, erosion/sediment pollution, and emergency access during construction. Any Construction Management Plan for work within the project shall accommodate the annual Winternational event operations to the satisfaction of the local FIS event coordinator and the Aspen Skiing Company. This may include work stoppage on event days. Section 8: Measurements Height. Due to the nature of this site and consistent with the approach taken in the review of this project, the maximum height for development within this project, shall be calculated and depicted in the building permit submission as the maximum distance possible measured vertically from interpolated natural grade to the highest point or structure within a vertical plane. Architectural and mechanical appurtenances including but not limited to elevator overruns, mechanical equipment, antennas, chimneys, flues, vents, trellises, or similar structures shall be depicted and not extend over ten (10) feet above the specified maximum height limit and be limited to areas fifteen (15) or more feet from the outermost wall edges. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. ,Series 2011. Page 16 of 33 Floor Area. Due to the nature of this site and consistent with the approach taken in the review of this project, floor area shall be calculated as that floor space within the surrounding exterior walls as measured from the outside face of the nominal structure. For any story that is partially above and partially below interpolated natural grade, only the floor space above the point at which interpolated natural grade crosses the subfloor elevation of that story shall be counted towards floor area. The floor area tabulation shall include a separate measurement for decks, balconies, exterior stairways, gazebos, porches, and similar features. Areas exempt from the calculation of Floor Area shall be those areas identified in the Land Use Code in effect on the day of initial application — November 24, 2006, as applicable to this project. There is no limitation for at -grade landscape terraces. Reversion to Current Code. The above provisions for measuring improvements shall be in effect through the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each building, plus six months. Upon • reversion, all built improvements and dimensions thereof shall be considered conforming. Subsequent improvements shall be measured according to the method in effect at the time of building permit submission for such improvement. Section 9: Ground Stability Monitoring The existing inclinometer shall continue to be maintained by the Applicant with bi- annual readings taken through issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Lift One Lodge. The Building Permit application shall include a report on the readings and a subsequent report is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Section 10: Tree Permits and Protection Requirements Tree removal permits are required prior to issuance of a building permit for any demolition or significant site work. The City will issue a removal permit for the large spruce tree located on the comer of Gilbert and S. Aspen Streets. Please contact the City Forester at 429 -2026. Mitigation for removals must be met by paying cash in lieu, planting on site, or a combination of both, pursuant to Chapter 13.20 of the City Municipal Code. A tree protection plan indicating the drip lines of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site shall be included in the building permit application for any demolition or significant site work. The plan shall indicate the location of protective zones for approval by the City Forester and prohibit excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, and access over or through the zone by foot or vehicle. The plan shall include provision of six inches of mulch within each protection zone. The plan shall include irrigation of the protected vegetation throughout the entire length of the construction. The contractor must supply water to the trees at a rate which is appropriate for proper health. Due to the proximity and nature of the excavations, the protective zones will be required to be twice the width of the drip lines. Excavations within the protection zones shall be minimized and must utilize vertical excavation only, with no over digging. These excavations must be soil stabilized in a manner that prevents over excavation of the site. This will require a one sided pour for all foundation walls located within these protection zones. Areas of roots cutting shall require burlap protection to cover over Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. ,Series 2011. Page 17 of 33 the cut roots and additional watering in order to keep the soil and burlap moist along the cutting edge. A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the protective zone edge for each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site. This fence must be installed and inspected by the City Forester or his/her designee prior to issuance of a building permit for demolition or significant site work. The protective fencing and vegetation protection protocols shall remain in place through -out the construction period or as otherwise allowed to be removed by the City Forester. Section 11: Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. Since an upgraded main sanitary sewer line will be required to serve this new development, a "Line Relocation Request" and a "Collection System Agreement" will be required, both of which are ACSD Board of Director's action items. Generally 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. A wastewater flow study is required for this project to be funded by the Applicant. The Applicant's engineer must provide the district an estimate of anticipated daily average and peak flows from the project. If the study projects flows exceeding the planned reserve capacity of the existing collection system or treatment system, an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system constraint, the treatment capacity constraint, or both constraints. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. If the study projects flows exceeding the existing capacity of the current collection system or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. In this case, the District will fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for a larger line). The District will not approve a recapture provisions. The final design must provide enough room for all utilities in the re- design of Aspen street to accommodate the main sanitary sewer line relocation according to ACSD specifications. ACSD will administer and construct the proposed new main sanitary sewer line in Aspen Street at the developer's expense. The main sanitary sewer line relocation will have to be extended approximately an additional 200 feet to the south to accommodate the upper traffic circle in Aspen Street, the Ski Company's on mountain sewer line, and the service line for the Shadow Mountain Condominiums. When new service lines are required for existing development the old service lines (3) must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements and prior to all soil stabilization activities. On -site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD. On -site drainage and landscaping plans require approval by the district, must accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations and specifications. Permanent improvements are Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. ,Series 2011. Page 18 of 33 prohibited in areas covered by sewer easements or right of ways to the lot line of each development. Below grade development will require installation of a pumping system. Plumbing plans for the pool and spa areas require approval of the drain size by the district. Glycol snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and must preclude discharge to the public sanitary sewer system. All clear water connections are prohibited (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) including trench drains for the entrances to underground parking garages. Oil and Grease interceptors are required for all new and remodeled food processing establishments. Oil and Sand separators are required for public vehicle parking garages and vehicle maintenance facilities. The elevator drains must also be plumbed to the o/s interceptor. Plans for interceptors, separators and containment facilities require submittal by the applicant and approval prior to a building permit application. The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed building and utility plans are available. All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Amendments to the above requirements agreed to in writing by the Applicant and the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District shall supersede the sanitation requirements listed herein. Section 12: Requirements for Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy on Lift One Lodge Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for Lift One Lodge, the following conditions must be met: a. Completion of the improvements to Deane Street as described in the Final Plat, PUD Plans and Development Agreement. An additional surety at twice the remaining estimated costs of improvements may be accepted by the City to address timing issues related to seasonal construction or other practical issues. b. Approval and filing of a deed restriction for the affordable housing units located in the Skier Chalet Steakhouse building. c. Voluntary transfer of 1 /10` of one percent undivided interest in the dormitory units on Lot #2 to the City of Aspen to the extent determined necessary by the City Attorney. d. Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the affordable housing units located in the Skier Chalet Steakhouse building. e. Completion of the Ski Museum building located on Lot #4 to a "white box" or "shell" level of finish. This shall be met either through issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building or by completion of all structural, utility, grading/drainage, access /egress, ADA, fire protection, and fenestration improvements covered by the building permit and all exterior improvements required by the final HPC approval for the Ski Museum. f. Provision of employee housing for 21.62 FTE's through the provision of housing units within the Urban Growth Boundary including "buy- downs ", the provision of cash -in -lieu Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. ,Series 2011. Page 19 of 33 at the rate applicable on the date of payment, the provision of employee mitigation credits for extinguishment, or a combination thereof. g. Provision of $600,000 to be held in escrow by the City of Aspen for the eventual planned installation of a surface ski lift (a.k.a. platter lift) with an expected terminal facility located in Willoughby Park adjacent to the Ski Museum and taking skiers uphill to the existing or relocated Lift l A terminal. h. The final application represented that the Lift One Lodge will meet specific energy performance measures and commitments equivalent to LEED Gold certification. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Lift One Lodge, sufficient evidence, such as a LEED point calculation sheet, demonstrating the project has been designed and constructed to meet this standard shall be presented to the Chief Building Official. Section 13: Willoughby Park, Lift One Park, & Volleyball The Parks Department and The City of Aspen appreciate the Applicant's commitment to contribute $150,000 towards the relocation costs of the Willoughby Volleyball Courts. Payment of this shall represent the complete obligation of the Applicant regarding volleyball relocation. The City will decommission the volleyball court on Willoughby Park prior to or upon issuance of an Access /Infrastructure permit for Lot #4. Section 14: Environmental Health Department The State of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regard to asbestos. Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements, noise abatement and pool designs. Section 15: Water Department 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. Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. Section 16: Outdoor Spaces Outdoor terraces, balconies, decks, trellised areas, and the pool deck may have umbrellas, canopies, awnings, trellises, fans, portable or integrated heating elements, and similar devices to facilitate comfort and use of these exterior spaces. These spaces shall not be enclosed with temporary or permanent walls /windows or otherwise enclosed as interior conditioned space without an amendment to this approval. Section 17: Public Restaurant and Ayres Ski Deck The final application has represented and provided assurance that the entirety of the restaurant located on level 3 and a portion of the apres ski deck located on level 4 will be accessible to the general public and will not be an owners -only amenity. This does not prohibit the applicant or operator from limiting public access from time to time in the normal course of business. This obligation shall be memorialized in the Development Agreement. Conversion of the publicly Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. ,Series 2011. Page 20 of 33 accessible portion of this amenity to an owners -only or similarly restricted amenity shall require approval by City Council. Section 18: Skiers Chalet Steakhouse and Lodge Buildings Prior to redevelopment, the Skiers Chalet Steakhouse (a designated historic landmark) and the Skiers Chalet Lodge (proposed for re -use) shall be maintained in a reasonable state of repair by its owner. Periodic access shall be afforded the City's Historic Preservation staff to view the condition of the buildings and to conduct follow up visits to ensure that the resources are not becoming damaged through neglect. The Skiers Chalet Lodge and Skiers Chalet Steakhouse may continue to be utilized, including necessary upgrades, as housing for working residents prior to relocation and redevelopment of the buildings. The continued temporary use as housing shall not affect a change in use in the properties and shall not be subject to the City's Housing Replacement Program. All building and fire codes must be met. Relocation and rehabilitation of these two structures and the old lift one stanchion within Lift One Park shall be according to the allowances and limitations of the final Historic Preservation Commission approvals. Upon final installation of the original Lift 1 stanchion within Lift One Park, the official zone district map shall be amended to reflect Lot #3 of the Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PUD and this relocated structure as a designated historic landmark. Upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the relocated Skiers Chalet Steakhouse (the dormitory), the official zone district map shall be amended to reflect Lot #2 of the Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PUD and this relocated structure as a designated historic landmark. Upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the relocated Skiers Chalet Lodge (the ski museum), the official zone district map shall be amended to reflect Lot #4 of the Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PUD and this relocated structure as a designated historic landmark. Section 19: Development of Surface Lift Approved The proposed future development, construction, operation, and maintenance of a surface lift (a.k.a. platter lift) through Lots 1, 3, and 4 and other associated improvements necessary for uploading skiers from Willoughby Park to a point south of Lot 1 such that a skier could access Lift IA or a relocated Lift IA is hereby approved subject to a final review by the Community Development Director for sighting of stanchions, sighting of other necessary apparatus, sighting for safe alignment with Lift 1A, confirmation of approval from the State Tramway Board, and the required reviews by the Historic Preservation Officer and the Building Department for issuance of any permits required for its construction. Section 20: Condominiumization Approved Condominiumization of units, including the parking spaces, to define separate ownership interests within a Lot of the Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PUD is hereby approved by the City of Aspen, subject to recordation of a condominiumization plat in compliance with the current (at Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. ,Series 2011. Page 21 of 33 the time of condo plat submission) plat requirements of the City's Community Development Department. Section 21: Amendments Conversion of fractional lodge units to whole ownership residential units or non - fractional lodge units shall require a substantial amendment. The conversion of whole ownership residential units to fractional lodge units may be approved administratively. Section 22: 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 23: 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. FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2011. Attest: Planning and Zoning Commission: Jackie Lothian, Assistant City Clerk Stan Gibbs, Chairman Approved as to form: James R. True, Special Counsel Exhibit A — Property Descriptions Exhibit B — Proposed Subdivision Map Exhibit C — Proposed Street Vacation/Dedication Map Exhibit D — Proposed Illustrative Site Plan Exhibit E — Proposed Architectural Character Plan Exhibit F — Proposed Dimensional Allowances and Limitations Exhibit G — Proposed Heights Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. ,Series 2011. Page 22 of 33 Exhibit A Legal Descriptions The subject property is generally located on the east side of South Aspen Street south of Deane Street. The subject property consists of five parcels and the rights of way to be vacated in connection with this Application described as follows: Parcel A is legally described as Lots 1, 2, 13, and 14, Block 9 of the Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, including the portion of the vacated alley between Lots 1 and 14 and the west 20 feet of Lots 2 and 13. Parcel A is the former site of the Holland House Lodge, which was demolished in 2008. Parcel B is legally described as Lots 4 and 11, less the west twenty -two feet thereof, and Lots 5 through 10, Block 9 of the Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, including the portion of the vacated alley between said Lots. Parcel B is currently the site of the Skiers Chalet Lodge. Parcel C is legally described as Lots 12, 13, and 14, Block 8 of the Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen. Parcel C is located adjacent to South Aspen Street on the north side of Gilbert Street. Parcel is currently the site of the Skiers Chalet Steak House. Parcel D is legally described as Lots 3 and 12, and the west 22 feet of Lots 4 and 11, Block 9 of the Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, including a portion of the undeveloped alley between said lots. Parcel D is commonly known as Lift One Park and is owned by the City of Aspen, who has consented to the application. Parcel E is legally described as Lots 1 through 14, Block 7 and Lots 1 through 3, Block 8 of the Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, including the undeveloped portion of Juan Street between Blocks 7 and 8 and the undeveloped alley within Blocks 7 and 8. Parcel E is commonly known as Willoughby Park and is owned by the City of Aspen, who has consented to the application, and is leased in whole to the Aspen Historical Society, who has consented to the application. The following is a summary of the street vacations and dedications associated with the Lift 1 Lodge proposal: • Vacation of the eastern 37.5 feet of South Aspen Street from the centerline of Hill Street north to the southern edge of Deane Street and excluding portions of said area associated with the proposed turn-around and drop -off area at the corner of South Aspen and Deane Street. • Dedication to public right -of -way an area within the northwest portion of the proposed Lot #4, Willoughby Park, associated with the proposed turn-around and drop -off area at the comer of South Aspen and Deane Street. The final design and exact dimensions of this dedication shall be as depicted and described in the Subdivision Plat. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. ,Series 2011. Page 23 of 33 • Vacation of the northern 25 feet of Hill Street east of the centerline of South Aspen Street to the eastern boundary of the Eames Addition. • Vacation of the remaining dedicated portions of the alleyway of Block 9, Eames Addition. • Vacation of a Utility and Alleyway Easement encumbering the eastern 10 feet of Lot 2 Block 9, Eames Addition, recorded at Book 203, Page 375. • Vacation of Gilbert Street from the centerline of South Aspen Street east to a line extending south from the boundary between Lots 11 and 12 of Block 8 and connecting to the boundary between Lots 3 and 4 of Block 9, Eames Addition. • Vacation of Juan Street east of the South Aspen Street right -of -way to the eastern boundary of the Eames Addition. • Vacation of the alleyway of Block 8, Eames Addition. • Vacation of the alleyway of Block 7, Eames Addition. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. ,Series 2011. Page 24 of 33 x Exhibit D Illustrative Plan II IM •_ y` I r ti l _ � pia' 1 ..,� 1 '""'" 4 ' C { 4 -- arr. { T • n f L /M/ I y l 2ttly iii : -...... 1 'fir "1 Il(I1I11Iu ' # ••'• • 1 , .... r ; \ _.. ' t 4■ V > > N. A ,, A* dr i ` — v . . till f i ,f }v1 \ ; .:,, y ,` - 9 - —_3-1 S LI -. _. _ ..t, . , 2. : l t , • v l'V. • .4 A 7 i C Abillilijtj } Ill I Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. ,Series 2011. Page 25 of 33 Exhibit E Approved Architecture li I II i f - - % ,. ' / �. . r West Elevation of West Wing ,, + sue• r � f - r , R -1/4,.` , - • . 119 v.9" r ' l 7 6 _ ' s T s � ins- i■ri Irir a , , L, t View of Lodge from southwest Elimi-- , I 1 - -- - a••• rr.r.. J m O . s 1.111--11=r ' ill 1 ; j . I 1 - -, 4 , 1 1 1 Architectural Floor plan of lodge unit and lock -offs Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. ,Series 2011. Page 26 of 33 Exhibit F Approved Dimensions Dimensional Requirement Proposed Standard Lodge Zone District Requirements Lift 1 Lodge, Lot 1 Minimum Lot Size 40,508 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft. Lot Area for Density 19,296 Site Specific Lot Area for Floor Area 19,104 Site Specific Lodge Unit Density Standard 537 sq. ft. of lot area per unit See Note Below* Minimum Lot Area per 3,859.2 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft. dwelling Unit (free market) Minimum Required Lot Area 19,296 sq. ft. 15,000 sq. ft. (sq. ft.) Minimum Lot Width 265 ft. 30 ft. Minimum Front Yard Setback East Wing: 1.3 ft. 5 West Wing: 4.6 ft. East Wing North: 1 ft. East Wing South: 1 ft. Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 West Wing North: 2 ft. West Wing South: 8.7 ft. Minimum Rear Yard Setback East Wing: 12.3 ft. 5 West Wing: 1 ft. Maximum Height Per height plan as represented Sloped Roofs: 38 Ft. in Exhibit G Flat Roofs: 42 Ft. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. _,Series 2011. Page 27 of 33 Dimensional Requirement Proposed Standard Lodge Zone District Requirements Lodge Units: 2.36:1, or Lodge Units: 2:1, or 38,208 45,142 sq. ft. sq. ft. Commercial Uses: 0.34:1, or Commercial Uses: 0.25:1, or 6,552 sq. ft. 9,552 sq. ft. Floor Area ratio* Non -Unit Space: 0.64:1, or Non -Unit Space: 0.5:1, or 12,304 sq. ft. 9,552 sq. ft. Free Market Residential Free Market Residential Units: 17% of total lodge Units: 25 %, or 19,252 floor area, or 13,013 sq. ft. Pedestrian Amenity Space No Requirement* No Requirement Lodge Units: 42 Spaces Lodge Units: 0.5 Spaces/Unit Commercial Uses: 6 Spaces Commercial Uses: 1 Space /1,000 Sq. Ft. Net Free Market Residential: 5 Leasable Spaces Project Parking* Residential Uses: 1 Affordable Housing Units: 8 Space/Unit Spaces Public Parking: 50 Spaces Lodge Members: 44 Spaces Skiers Chalet Steak House Affordable Housing, Lot 2 Minimum Lot Size 3,562 sq. ft. Established via PUD Lot Area for Density None See Note Below Lot Area for Floor Area None See Note Below Minimum Lot Area per 445.25 sq. ft. (8 Units) Established via PUD Dwelling Unit Minimum Lot Width 95 ft. Established via PUD Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. ,Series 2011. Page 28 of 33 Dimensional Requirement Proposed Standard Lodge Zone District Requirements Minimum Front Yard Setback 5.25 ft. Established via PUD Minimum Side Yard Setback North Side Yard: 11 ft. Established via PUD South Side Yard: 30.5 ft. Minimum Rear Yard Setback None Established via PUD Maximum Height 33 ft . Established via PUD .89:1, or 3,184 sq. ft. Established via PUD Floor Area ratio Pedestrian Amenity Space Remainder of lot Established via PUD Aspen Historical Society Museum and Willoughby Park, Lot 4 Minimum Lot Size 38,356 sq. ft. Established via PUD Minimum Lot Width 193.7 ft. Established via PUD Minimum Front Yard Setback 50.7 ft. Established via PUD Minimum Side Yard Setback East Side Yard: 20 ft. Established via PUD West Side Yard: 127.7 ft. Minimum Rear Yard Setback 25.2 ft. Established via PUD Maximum Height 31 ft. Established via PUD .11:1, or 4,320 sq. ft.* Established via PUD Floor Area ratio Pedestrian Amenity Space Remainder of lot Established via PUD Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. ,Series 2011. Page 29 of 33 Dimensional Requirement Proposed Standard Lodge Zone District Requirements Notes: • Lodge Unit Density Standard: The Applicant is requesting a Special Review for the density of lot • Lot 1 Floor Area Ratio: This project is requesting a special review to increase various Floor Area Ratios • Pedestrian Amenity: This site is outside of the area requiring pedestrian amenity space. • Project Parking: The project parking section of this table reflects the entire project, not just Lot 1. • Maximum Height: The heights for the Skiers Chalet Steakhouse Affordable Housing and Aspen Historical Society are taken from the ridge of the roof • Floor Area Ratio, Lot 4: This includes both the Museum and pool house. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. ,Series 2011. Page 30 of 33 Exhibit G Height Representations II r =-- -� 48' - --- ---.../ ---:-. . l i [� - 42' - 1 i r East Side of East Wing 42' —Z---- 48' ,-- .,� —� --- rs• i i '. .. y . , r 3 „ iiYr - . l � , ii'111111 , i V West Side of West Wing Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. _,Series 2011. ill Page 31 of 33 / r- 51.50_ ft riej-- r 49.50 ft l� L�' 44.20 ft 34.50 ft / — 40.40 ft ' --- itt 1 r C - ;I .. 3.5 fl4350ft , A gis ,,,. T --,_ , r . .. WI F ru --- 1 I r , Heights: East Wing 42.00 ft 53.40 ft 46.90 ft 43.90 ft _,4- - Hriii_1-.3.20ft — 37.00ft - - 47.75 ft 4 4 " .. " ,-- '". I --- ' L ! _ t • g ,. _ Heights: West Wing • Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. ,Series 2011. Page 32 of 33 Chi mney Roof 7 , I- - I i I 1 I 1 I Elevator Shaft — __ _ 11 Exit Stairway r y h'Enney I Roof I .' -: F.:, --_ 1 P -_______ F = C - rf DT �.t r C� _ F_1!I -I. _ - Portions of East Wing above 54' feet Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. ,Series 2011. Page 33 of 33 EXIIIBIT F LIFT ONE LODGE FINAL REVIEW DRC SUMMARY Parks Department pg. 1 Engineering Department pg. 4 APCHA pg.6 Sanitation pg. 9 Transportation pg. 11 Fire Marshal pg. 12 PARKS DEPARTMENT: Parks Department Requirements Prior to City Council Approval: The Parks Department and The City of Aspen appreciate the developer's commitment to contribute $150,000 towards the relocation costs of the Willoughby Volleyball Courts. The relocation and development will require a public process for which the applicant should support with a financial contribution towards the public process. The Parks Department has estimated $30,000 in costs towards the planning process. The development team has completed a significant amount of work on a feasibility study for locations throughout the City. This work combined with the proposed $180,000 in financial commitment will guarantee a complete and thorough public process. The City of Aspen with approval from the City Attorney's Office and The Parks Department will require a modified lease agreement clearly indentifying and describing P q g Y �g g the leased areas within Willoughby Park. The approved lease agreement should describe maintenance responsibilities, descriptions of the lease boundaries and any specifics that surround the leased areas. These would include but not limited to; special event uses, historical displays, lawn maintenance, gardens, trees, ski access etc..... The City of Aspen with approval from the City Attorney's Office and The Parks Department will require a maintenance agreement for Willoughby Park, Lift One Park the public easements and all common areas. The agreement should clearly indentify and call out responsibilities for maintenance of these facilities. The specific agreement needs will cover, who is financially responsible, who will actively complete maintenance needs (mowing, weeding, repairs), how often, irrigation responsibilities, expectations of each party as well as control and enforcement of the agreement. The Parks Department requires a completed easement agreement for public access across private lots 1 and 2 in order to connect to public lots 3 and 4. The agreement should be written and approved by the Parks Department, City Attorney and the Applicant. The City of Aspen should review and approve a planned schedule of completion milestones. In order to prevent an impact to the public infrastructure longer than the Lift One Lodge Page 1/12 Exhibit F — DRC Summary actual project completion The Parks Department is requesting that the applicant seek approval of a plan to replace all public lands and infrastructure in a timely manner. Financial guarantees should be in place to allow for re- construction of these public facilities in the event the project is underfunded or delayed. Scheduling of the project should allow for these improvements to be completed without connections to significant thresholds from the private development. The financial guarantees should be addressed through the City of Aspen Engineering Department's bonding requirements. The landscape plans should be reviewed and approved by The Parks Department with a required signature on the Plat Documents. The Parks Department requires involvement in the landscaping and site planning process for all facilities located within the project area. Parks Department Requirements Prior to Building Permit: Tree Removal and Protection: An approved tree permit will be required before any demolition or significant property changes take place. Parks is requiring that the tree permit be approved prior to submission of the building permit. Please contact the City Forester at 429 -2026. Mitigation for removals will be met by paying cash in lieu, planting on site, or a combination of both. As referenced in Chapter 13.20 of the City Municipal Code. Parks Department staff cannot support the removal of the large spruce tree located on the corner of Gilbert and S. Aspen Streets. Parks Department staff has identified the tree as a significant tree specific to the area and recommends its preservation. However, if City Council determines that the public benefits created by redevelopment of the site outweigh the loss of this resource, then the applicant will need to be prepared to fully mitigate for the removal of the tree. A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site and their represented drip lines. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the bldg permit set. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920 -5120) before any construction activities are to commence. As referenced in Chapter 13.20 Due to the proximity and nature of the excavations the applicant will be required to fence off a larger protection zone past the drip line of the trees. This protection zone located within the non - excavated area shall be twice the width of the drip line. Approval of all protection zones is required. Lift One Lodge Page 2/12 Exhibit F — DRC Summary Lift 1 and Willoughby Park Access and Amenities: The park's intended use and design is for public access in both winter and summer. Current designs have appropriately addressed public access from Gilbert and South Aspen Streets. Continued exploration into this should be considered. The landscaping should be coordinated with Parks so that additional plantings do not negatively impact the public space creating a private feel to the parks. The applicant is required to purchase and install to park's specifications all amenities, including but be limited to: irrigation, benches and other park furniture, property signs, enforcement signs, etc. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 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 proposed drainage concept for the site appears to work. However, the applicant must complete a drainage plan and report that complies with the City's Urban Runoff Management Plan, prior to final plat or building permit submittal whichever comes first. In addition to site drainage, the project will have to address street drainage. The project proposes to change the hydraulics and capacity of Aspen Street's drainage system. Therefore, the project will be required to install curb, gutter and other drainage control features (such as inlets and piping) on both sides of the street. If these features are not installed, drainage and sediment will not be controlled, thereby posing a flooding threat to downstream properties in addition to degrading the City's water quality. Because the proposed method for maintaining Aspen street in winter months (i.e. sanding) will have negative impacts on street runoff water quality, the City recommends additional water quality mitigation efforts. The project will need to provide plans for water quality treatment of Aspen Street runoff. The City proposes allowing the island off of Deane Street and the bulb outs on Aspen Street as potential location for water quality improvements. Street Design: Aspen Street: Since the street will not be snow melted, and the street slope of 13% is greater than the maximum allowable by City standards (ie 6 %), there is a concern for driver safety especially during the winter months. The City's current street section standard includes a 5 foot planter / green strip between the street and sidewalk. The current plans to not provide enough ROW for this strip on Lift One Lodge Page 4/12 Exhibit F — DRC Summary either side of the street. Without this strip, pedestrians do not have a buffer from vehicles that may jump the curb during adverse road conditions. Additionally, this strip is critical for snow storage, without it the City will have to remove snow along Aspen street at an additional cost to the general fund. The City standards also require a minimum of a 6 foot wide sidewalk for multifamily uses and 8 feet wide for commercial uses. The project is only allowing for a 5 foot sidewalk for the project. The use of a narrow sidewalk will decrease the level of service for pedestrians, this will make it difficult for pedestrians to carry skis and walk on the sidewalk without getting in the way of on coming pedestrians. Additionally, due to the steep slope of this street, the City anticipates an increase use of sanding. This increase in sanding will have a negative impact on water quality. The project approach to this issue includes the installation of catch basins for street drainage with over -sized sediment traps to better accommodate more sanding material in the runoff. The plan does not quantify how much sand and sediment will be captured in these inlets. As a result, the final drainage report and plan will need to quantify the sanding capture rate for the inlets this will include providing water quality treatment for up to the 80 percentile runoff event to provide treatment for the first flush. The Applicant has committed to providing the City Streets Department with an additional sanding truck and the special sanding material annually for this street. However Aspen Street will require an increase in staffing for street sweeping and sediment vault cleaning, both of which will be an increase to the City's annual maintenance costs. Skier Drop off at Deane Street: There are design concerns about the skier drop -off area at the intersection of South Aspen Street and Deane Street. As a result the applicant proposes two designs to address this issue, the City Engineering Dept recommends Option 2 of Exhibit 4. This option will not only protect Deane Street as a pedestrian corridor, it will reduce potential conflicts at this intersection. The Engineering Dept believes Option 1 of Exhibit 4 , will create confusion for the turning movements at the intersection. Street Design at Durant Street: Depending on the parking configuration Aspen Street will "jog" to the east. This is not functional in the winter when pavement markings might be obscured. In addition it may be difficult to jog when traveling down Aspen Street when it is snowpacked. To minimize this "jog" the applicant has offered Option 2 of Exhibit 2. This Option removes the head in parking on the west side of the street and converts it to parallel parking. This is not only a preferred option in that it minimizes the "jog ", it eliminates the safety hazard of head in parking. 42% of the accidents in The City are attributable to head in parking. Head in parking is oftentimes problematic in that parked vehicles are required to back into oncoming traffic when exiting a parking space. Oftentimes it is difficult for the driver to see oncoming traffic due to adjacent parked vehicles and it is also difficult for through traffic to judge movements of parked vehicles. Lift One Lodge Page 5/12 Exhibit F — DRC Summary Deane Street: The final configuration and materials used for Deane Street must meet the Engineering Dept standards and must be approved by the Engineering Dept prior to building permit submittal. This includes the drop off area and associated island for Deane Street. Utilities: Utility separation needs to meet the requirements of the City Engineering Department's Construction and Excavation Standards for Work in the Public Rights -of- Way per the graphic in Exhibit A. Separation is measured from the outside of the utility line or pipeline and the graphic allows for stacking or vertical separation in lieu of horizontal separation. The applicant has not addressed this issue for the dry stack utilities they are located to close to the proposed inlets on the west side. Additionally applicant is proposing that these utilities are located under a sidewalk. This will result in utility access covers in the middle of the sidewalk. City recommends relocating these into the road section instead. The applicant has also located the gas line to shallow. The minimum depth required is 30 inches not 24 inches. There is not enough room with in the ROW to maintain the proposed stormsewer. The City recommends either a change in ROW or an easement for this system. Mudflow: According to the mudflow analysis that was performed for the project site, the mudflow depths will reach 2.5 feet on the south side of building B and 1 foot on the south side of building A. Everywhere else on the site the mudflow depth will be less than 0.5 feet. The City will require 3 feet of freeboard on the north side of building B and 1 foot of freeboard everywhere else as recommended by the mudflow analysis. Additionally the study recommends absorption type of material along the proposed defection wall. 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. Fee In Lieu: The applicant may be eligible for the fee in lieu, additional analysis that complies with the City's Urban Runoff Management Plan needs to be performed in order to determine this. Lift One Lodge Page 6/12 Exhibit F — DRC Summary ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY: ISSUE: Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge — Aspen, LLC, is requesting approval for the redevelopment of several parcels on the east side of South Aspen Street between Deane Street and Hill Street. The Board will review the affordable housing mitigation aspect of the project. BACKGROUND: The plan seeks to develop a new lodge, a portion of the proposed affordable housing mitigation, parking improvements, a ski museum, and a platter ski lift. The mitigation requirement per the Land Use Code is at 30 %. Affordable Housing: This proposed development will generate a total of 37.62 employees, 34.27 employees for the lodge's 46 new lodge keys and 3,560 square of new net leasable commercial area; and 3.35 for the four new free - market residential units and the demolition of the Holland House Lodge's existing residential credit. The applicant is proposing to mitigate 100% by providing 8 dorm -type units on site for a total of 16 FTE's, and the balance of 21.62 to be housed off -site within the Urban Growth Boundary. The specifics are to be submitted for the City's review and approval prior to recordation of the proposed development's final PUD /timeshare documents. No affordable housing mitigation is required for 38 of the proposed lodge's 84 keys, one of its five free - market residential units, and 2,429 square feet the 5,989 square feet of net leasable commercial area as the development rights for these uses are to be derived from the project site's existing reconstruction credits. • 46 Unit Lodge GMQS Allotment 6.90 Employees • Commercial Allotment 3.38 Employees • Free Market Units 3.35 Employees • TOTAL Employees Generated 13.63 Employees This is based on the 30% requirement in the Code. The total amount of FTE's that will be generated by the development is a total of 37.62. The applicant is proposing to mitigate at 100 %. The plans are to provide eight dorm -type units in the Skier's Chalet Restaurant which will be moved to the lower portion of the development and remodeled. The 8 dorm -type units shall house two people each; therefore, the affordable housing to be mitigated on site will be 16 FTE's which mitigates for the requirement under the Code of 30 %. However, the applicant is proposing to mitigate at 100 %; therefore, the balance of the total employees generated, 21.62, will be mitigated off site and within the urban growth boundary. The eight dorm -type units will be located within what is now the Skier's Chalet Restaurant. The interior of the three -story building will be reconfigured as eight Lift One Lodge Page 7/12 Exhibit F — DRC Summary dormitory units with shared bathrooms and a common kitchen and dining area. A full basement will be constructed beneath the building which will be used for mechanical and tenant storage purposes. The eight dormitory units will contain approximately 2,697 square feet of net livable area (excluding the common storage, kitchen and dining areas. The proposed dormitory's net livable area per employee will be approximately 168 square feet, which exceeds the minimum requirement stated in the Guidelines of 150 square feet per employee. The units will be deed restricted and rented to seasonal lodge employees at rates to be determined by APCHA. Recommendation: The Housing Board reviewed the application at their regular meeting held March 2, 2011 and recommended approval of the application as to the affordable housing mitigation with the following conditions: 1. A total of 37.62 employees will be generated with the development of which 16 will be mitigated on site. The applicant is not obligated to mitigate at 100% per the Land Use Code, but has opted to do so. The additional mitigation of 21.62 FTE's will be reviewed and approved by APCHA. 2. The on -site dorm units will be rented to qualified employees of Pitkin County and must be qualified through APCHA prior to occupancy. The owner must provide signed leases to APCHA within five days of both parties' signatures. If the owner is unable to fill the units with employees of the development, than the units shall be leased to other qualified employees. The leases shall be for at least a six -month period of time. 3. The lease for the on -site dormitory units will be reviewed by APCHA along with the initial rental amount as it is not stated in the Guidelines. Once the rental amount is set and stated in the recorded deed restriction, the rent will increase by 3% or the Consumer Price Index (as stated in the Guidelines), whichever is less. 4. A laundry facility will be provided within the Skier's Chalet Restaurant basement area for use by the tenants. 5. One parking place per unit for the eight on -site units will be reserved within the parking structure. 6. A secure storage unit will be provided for each tenant in the basement of the Skier's Chalet Restaurant, for a total of 16 storage units. Lift One Lodge Page 8/12 Exhibit F — DRC Summary 7. All rental and ownership units must meet minimum occupancy requirements, whether provided on -site or off -site. 8. Any other units provided off site shall be reviewed and approved by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Board of Directors. If the units are ownership -type units, they must be sold through the APCHA lottery system. If any of the units are rental units, the units shall be available to all qualified employees of Pitkin County, although the applicant has the right to place a qualified employee of the Lodge. 9. The deed - restriction for the dormitory on -site units shall be recorded prior to the Certificate of Occupancy and no final Certificate of Occupancy for the Lift One Lodge or the free - market units will be issued until the mitigation requirement of 37.62 has been satisfied. SANITATION: Since an upgraded main sanitary sewer line will be required to serve this new development, a "Line Relocation Request" and a "Collection System Agreement" will be required, both of which are an ACSD Board of Director's action item. Once detailed plans for this application are made available and approved by the district, we can initiate these agreements. • Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. • Applicant's engineer will be required to give the district an estimate of anticipated daily average and peak flows from the project. • A wastewater study flow will be required for this project to be funded by the applicant. • All clear water connections are prohibited (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) including trench drains for the entrances to underground parking garages. • On -site drainage and landscaping plans require approval by the district, must accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations and specifications. • On -site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD. • Oil and Grease interceptors are required for all new and remodeled food processing establishments. Lift One Lodge Page 9/12 Exhibit F — DRC Summary • Oil and Sand separators are required for public vehicle parking garages and vehicle maintenance facilities. The elevator drains must also be plumbed to the o/s interceptor. • Plans for interceptors, separators and containment facilities require submittal by the applicant and approval prior to a building permit application. • Plumbing plans for the pool and spa areas require approval of the drain size by the district. • Glycol snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and must preclude discharge to the public sanitary sewer system. • When new service lines are required for existing development the old service lines (3) must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements and prior to all soil stabilization activities. • Below grade development will require installation of a pumping system. • Generally 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 areas covered by sewer easements or right of ways to the lot line of each development. • All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. • Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. • Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line). • The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed building and utility plans are available. • ACSD will administer and construct the proposed new main sanitary sewer line in Aspen Street at the developer's expense. The proposed main sanitary sewer line in Lift One Lodge Page 10/12 Exhibit F — DRC Summary b. Public Parking: Parking staff requests that the operating plan discussed by the applicant include the following information for approval by the Director of Parking: parking pricing, entry /exit technology, residential permit distribution and monitoring, carpool parking distribution and monitoring, enforcement and special event usage. Staff would also like to see the designated parking spaces for carshare and carpool uses be changed to a pool of 11 TDM- related parking spaces that can be utilized for either use as determined by current conditions at COO. For example these spaces could become 3 carshare spaces and eight carpool spaces or whichever combination is deemed appropriate at that time. c. Implementation: Staff is comfortable with leaving some of the TDM plan's final details to be determined prior to COO. However, staff would like the final TDM plan to be developed in conjunction with the Transportation Department and subject to approval by the Director of Transportation. d. Program Monitoring: Staff has discussed the following monitoring program with the applicant: reporting every two years for 10 years to include traffic counts, garage operations and TDM program participation. Program elements may be changed every two years as needed and approved by the Transportation and /or Parking Departments. 2. The Parking Department has additional comments regarding construction and signage associated with this project. a. The applicant will need to work with the Parking Department to develop a signage plan: Both sides of Aspen Street will need to be signed No Parking Fire Lane and signage sign receivers will need to be placed during construction. b. A construction parking plan will need to be developed that includes emergency access during construction. FIRE MARSHAL: See Attachment. Lift One Lodge Page 12/12 Exhibit F — DRC Summary Drew Alexander 134 Li i/1 E Ed Van Walraven [ed.van @aspenfire.com] it: Friday, May 27, 2011 11:55 AM e g9.4A Fre 10: Drew Alexander Subject: Re: Denis /'� t Hey Drew, lJ� I have read the response for Lift One Lodge from Hughes and Associates and I agree with the majority the evaluation and proposed remedies. There are some issues noted that I will need more clarification as the project moves forward. This of course would constitute additional meetings with the applicants. Call me if you have any questions. Thanks, Ed On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Drew Alexander <Drew.Alexander @ci.aspen.co.us> wrote: Hi Ed — I think Denis is already out for the long weekend. •ew Alexander City of Aspen [ Planner Community Development Department 970 -429 -2739 drew.alexander@ci.aspen.co.us Ed Van Walraven Fire Marshal Aspen Fire Protection District 420 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 970 - 925 -2690 (Office) Q70- 379 -1378 (Cellular) 0- 920 -4451 (Fax) 1 HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC. 520 Courtney Way, Suite A, Lafayette, CO 80026 -8863 USA FIRE SCIENCE & ENGINEERING Phone 303-439-0485 FAX 303-439-7160 www.haifire.com May 13, 2011 Bob Daniel Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge Aspen, LLC 24398 Hwy 82 Basalt, Colorado 81612 RE: Lift One Lodge Site Evaluation Aspen, Colorado Mr. Daniel: At your request, Hughes Associates, Inc. (HAI) has evaluated the Lift One Lodge information provided by Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge Aspen, LLC (RFML) with regard to fire department apparatus access issues and concern regarding specific firefighting and emergency response situations. A meeting was held with members of the RFML development team and Aspen Fire Protection District (AFPD) on February 24, 2011. The concerns expressed in the minutes from the meeting indicate that the following categories of concerns exist: 1. Inclement Weather Roadway Concerns 2. Apparatus Access (General) 3. Apparatus Access (Motor Court) 4. Water Supply 5. Specific Area Response Concerns With the exception of water supply items mentioned in the minutes, these issues will likely require modifications to the current design or performance -based solutions that would be considered by AFPD under Section 104.9 of the International Fire Code (2006 Edition) [IFC]. In some cases, specific items may require iterative negotiations as the hazards are more clearly understood. As such, continued discussions with AFPD, on a more frequent basis than typical projects, are encouraged. Even with the aforementioned modifications and /or revisions, it is believed that there are additional solutions that may be available through working in conjunction with AFPD and the concept of performance -based solutions. HAI can be of assistance in those discussions to enable the project to move forward. I have taken each of the topics noted above from the meeting minutes and provided specific commentary and in most instances potential solutions that should be considered. 1. Inclement Weather Roadway Concerns The steep slopes and narrow access corridor creates a concern in inclement weather since water from rain or melting snow combined with steep grades can cause wheel slippage, deep snow on the road surface can make traction difficult and piled snow after plowing can narrow the actual access corridor. Because of the balance between sloped roads and steep grades needed to accommodate both flat stretches for fire apparatus and slopes needed to traverse the area, complying via traditional means is not achievable. This is a common condition in slopeside properties developed in resort communities, and often cannot be avoided without BaltimoreiWashington 1 Alexandria 1 Chicago 1 Cindnnat 1 Dallas 1 Denver Idaho Falls Los Angeles 1 Marlborough • Minneapolis New York 1 Newark Oakdale 1 Orlando 1 Philadelphia 1 San Francisco 1 Warwick London 1 Milan 1 Seoul 1 Singapore 1 Taipei Bob Daniel Page 2 of 8 Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge Aspen, LLC May 13, 2011 infringing on other compliance requirements (e.g., community or corporate needs for maintaining ski or park lands intact, town restrictions on disturbing open space, etc.). It is acknowledged that balancing those needs against those of AFPD is necessary here, despite that many existing properties exhibit similar conditions. Approaches to addressing this issue should focus on providing the best driving surface possible under wet conditions and removal of snow from the area. For the concem of wet road surface, rough surfacing materials, ranging from large- aggregate asphalt to pattemed concrete to rough- hewn pavers, will provide better traction than smooth concrete or asphalt, particularly in wet conditions. Methods of moving the water surface to gutters would also be highly beneficial. These can include decorative channels (cut into asphalt or concrete or patterned into paver installation), increased drainage slope, cross -road gutters and other similar means. Other methods often utilized in roadway design are also available. Conversations indicate that these same comments have been presented by the City of Aspen Engineering Department, as well as the Streets Department. It is understood that RFMLA has addressed these issues with those departments via the installation of a wider street section, pan gutters beyond the driving surface and increased cross - slopes. Addressing snow is more problematic, however. Since snow can easily overcome the methods described above, it would be important to provide either technological or administrative solutions that would minimize the impact. Again, through our conversations I understand that you have working through the maintenance of this section of street with the Aspen Streets Department and have come to some conclusion on sanding applications. Snow removal becomes important in any case. As the last few years have shown, moving the snow to the side of the road doesn't eliminate the concem, particularly on narrow roads. Removing the snow from the area or having a dedicated location for snow storage that doesn't infringe on emergency vehicle response becomes a necessity in this case. Therefore, RFMLA should consider engaging a snow removal company for services above and beyond those normally provided by the City. 2. Apparatus Access (General) Section 503.1.1 of the IFC indicates that apparatus access roads are required to be provided such that all portions of the grade level of the building are within 150 feet of a road, with the distance based on a typical hose deployment. The distance can be increased in buildings provided throughout with an automatic sprinkler system, although the IFC does not specify a distance. A distance of 300 feet is commonly enforced in some Colorado fire jurisdictions, with the distance predicated on the amount of hose carried and easily deployed on fire apparatus. It should be noted that the latter part of the requirement makes the consideration of distance different than measuring via a radius from the points of access. This issue is often a point of contention between developers and emergency responders, given that the IFC- sanctioned methodology can result in measurable distances far less than those determined via a radius method. In addition to typical considerations, the building arrangement is such that there will be an east and west portion of the building beginning at Level 2, and additional consideration will be necessary given the access arrangement. Further, the capability to use aerial apparatus, since the roofs of each building are occupiable, will need to be considered. HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC. Bob Daniel Page 3 of 8 Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge Aspen, LLC May 13, 2011 The current access is limited by a number of features, including the hill slope into which the building will be built and the open space between the two portions of the building. These features make crediting apparatus access on the south side of the building and the areas on the interior of the "U" shape created by the building (identified as "Lift One Park" on the drawings) difficult, particularly when considering snow and inclement weather. On the east, apparatus access is provided from Gilbert Street and the fire road between the Caribou and Mountain Queen Condominiums. In both of these cases, snow plowing and removal will likely be of concern, since Gilbert Street is proposed to become a dead -end and the fire road is privately owned. It is in the interest of all the affected properties to maintain access to these locations. Discussions with the City and the owners of the two condominium complexes may be necessary to bring resolution to the issue. In any of these cases, however, deep snow could make access from these locations difficult, if not impossible. One improvement that could be proposed would be to provide a sidewalk or limited -width road (10 -12 feet, perhaps) between the door on the north end of the east building portion out to Gilbert Street. The surface would need to be kept clear of snow and ice during winter months to be considered useful, however. The location of both the Gilbert Street and fire road access points are not beneficial for aerial apparatus. Aerial operations require significant ground area to effectively deploy ladders or platforms, and the clear volume above ground for movement of the ladder or platform into place is also significant. In these two instances, there are few guarantees that parked vehicles, piled snow or other obstructions will not be present and that vegetation will not obstruct proper deployment of ladders or platforms. Therefore, consideration of other methods of accessing roofs will be needed. On the west, South Aspen Street points of access are indicated at intervals less than the 150 feet indicated in Section 503.2.5 of the IFC. Hammerhead tumarounds are indicated, however road slopes are steep leading up to those locations. In addition to the two-dimensional evaluation of turnarounds and road width, the differences in slopes at the transitions should be examined to ensure that fire apparatus (and other large vehicles) do not "bottom out" or over flex due to the changes in grade. Additionally, the cul-de -sac at the top of South Aspen Road is indicated to have an 8% slope in the direction perpendicular to travel (i.e., across the proposed hammerhead location). This steep of a slope can cause the apparatus to slide sideways due to its own weight and the lack of traction. Slopes of approximately 6% or less have been shown to be acceptable for most apparatus, and the project should determine if reducing the slope is possible. Regardless of the outcome of that evaluation, water and snow removal methodologies as described above should also be employed in this location. Even with the recommended improvements, apparatus access could be problematic due to the presence of parked vehicles, multiple large vehicles or groups of people resulting from emergency egress or observers of emergency events. Given these conditions, other methods of assisting emergency responders should be implemented to overcome possibly insufficient access capability, particularly assuming that other aspects of the project considered required or highly desired by the City of Aspen, RFMLA and other stakeholders (e.g., open space and parks, utility corridors, etc.) cannot be compromised. HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC. Bob Daniel Page 4 of 8 Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge Aspen, LLC May 13, 2011 Below are some listed opportunities that HAI believes will assist in mitigating the apparatus access issues noted above: a. A proposal that was provisionally accepted by AFPD for a previous development plan includes the use of high -rise construction and some high -rise fire protection methods. High -rises require the use of Type IA, Type IB or Type IIA construction, with some modifications, per Section 403.3 of the International Building Code (IBC). These construction types require fire resistance rating (ranging from one hour for Type IIA to three hours for Type IA) of structural elements, floor separations and roofs. The fire resistance rating will both reduce the potential for structural collapse and eliminate the involvement of structural members as combustible materials in any fire. Further, these construction types limit the use of combustible materials to very limited applications (see IBC, Section 603.1). One of those allowed is fire- retardant- treated wood in nonbearing partitions and in roof construction. It is recommended that RFMLA consider the use of metal in lieu of wood in these areas (e.g., steel studs for walls instead of wood, metal trusses in lieu of wood trusses, etc.) to reduce the potential for fires to travel within concealed spaces not required to be protected by automatic sprinkler systems. b. Another basic aspect of high -rise construction methods is the provision of protected enclosures for emergency responders. Typically, these include only stairway enclosures and elevator shafts. However, in this case, the separation of the two sections of the building suggests that an interconnecting enclosure would provide benefit, to allow responders to traverse from the east portion of the building (where apparatus access is more reliable) to the west side of the building (where apparatus can be problematic). The benefit would extend to occupants, as the corridor could form a pathway for rescuing and removing occupants from the roof of the west portion of the building, addressing the concern of aerial access to the west -side roof. Providing such an enclosure can be achieved by providing a fire resistance rating in the . corridor connecting the main entry area (lobby near the guest drop -off motor court) with the two stairway enclosures in west side of the building. The rating of the corridor should be equivalent to that of the stairway enclosures (assumed to be two hour fire resistance rated based on number of stories connected). This recommendation would require re- examining the lobby areas to identify preferred locations for walls and additional doors to accomplish the enclosure. c. An additional recommendation to address the aerial apparatus access issue would be to provide protected access to all areas of the roof. Typically, buildings over a certain height require direct access via stairway enclosures to the roof of buildings. This is to affect rescue and firefighting operations without the need for aerial vehicles. In this case, access to roof areas appears to be limited to levels with anticipated occupancy, such as the pool area in the east -side section of the building. However; the "green roof' levels could also be occupied with staff maintaining the roof vegetation and other items. Therefore, consideration should be given to providing access to all roof levels and ensuring that such access is protected with fire resistance rated construction between the stairway enclosure and the point of access (i.e., the "exterior door") if the stairway enclosure does not open directly to roof areas. Such access is not normally required by HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC. Bob Daniel Page 5 of 8 Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge Aspen, LLC May 13, 2011 the building code, and could be obviated if some of the other performance -based measures are implemented. High -rise buildings require the provision of the following fire protection systems, as a minimum: • Automatic sprinkler system, with protection throughout the building • Standpipe system • Emergency voice /alarm communication system (i.e., voice -based fire alarm system) • Fire department communication system (i.e., "firefighters' telephones ") • Smoke control system The sprinkler and standpipe systems provide obvious benefit, as does some form of fire department communication system, although an enhanced radio amplification system would seem to be a better alternative. The emergency voice /alarm communication system (EVACS) and smoke control system are considered life safety systems, and do not play a significant role in firefighting operations. Therefore, the EVACS and smoke control systems are not recommended in this case. Automatic sprinkler protection would likely be required regardless of the access issue, although one could argue that residential areas could be protected under NFPA 13R, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Residential Occupancies Up To and Including Fours Stories in Height. It would be preferable to protect the building with sprinklers systems designed under NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems. The residential protection requirements of NFPA 13 are more restrictive than those of NFPA 13R, and will provide improved initial suppression response, but not so restrictive as to introduce significant cost increases. Providing standpipes in the building is beneficial in addressing the apparatus issue, as well as a number of others, by reducing the need to provide hose access around the perimeter of the building. Standpipes are required in buildings where the difference in elevation between the point of apparatus access and the floor level of the terminating occupied floor (i.e., highest floor level or lowest floor level) is 30 feet. The determination of the "lowest level of fire department vehicle access" (as indicated in Section 905.3.1 of the IFC) is problematic in this case, given that the slope of the west road does not lend itself well to apparatus placement for operations. By providing standpipes that are part of a mixed riser with the automatic sprinklers, a cost - effective and operationally beneficial solution is provided without significant added project costs. Doing so would obviate any discussions on the applicability of Section 905.3.1 and would provide responders the ability to achieve the goals of Section 508 of the IFC without necessitating the implementation of snow removal operations on unpaved portions of the building perimeter. The combination of the noted improved construction type, reduced use of combustible construction materials, protected enclosures, roof accesses and improved fire suppression equipment are expected to provide similar capabilities as would be achieved through fire apparatus access and thus mitigate most, if not all, if not all of the access issues noted herein. 3. Apparatus Access (Motor Court) With the implementation of recommendations outlined for general apparatus access above, access into the motor court could be considered unnecessary from a response perspective. Combining the perspectives above with recognition that the motor court could be subject to HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC. Bob Daniel Page 6 of B Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge Aspen, LLC May 13, 2011 obstruction evacuating occupants, vehicles otherwise leaving the building or other similar responses to emergencies points to a conclusion that using the motor court presents constraints to responses that would be difficult to overcome. From the perspective that the motor court provides a tumaround for emergency vehicles, one could argue that the recommendations provided in the "Inclement Weather Roadway Concerns" could obviate the need for this particular location to act as a turnaround point. However, if AFPD desires this location as a turnaround point or the other recommendations making roadway surfaces passable are not practical, it is recommended that RFMLA pursue designing the motor court such that it can structurally support AFPD apparatus. Additionally, the study of turning radius performed in support of the February 22 meeting should be closely examined for other design issues that will need to be considered. For example, the turn radius study indicates that the front and rear bumpers will overhang the walkway around the perimeter of the motor court. As such, obstructions such as signs, bollards and decorations will need to be placed well beyond that radius traced by the vehicle bumpers. Because fire apparatus can discharge considerable amounts of carbon monoxide at low operating speeds (which is common for all diesel -driven trucks), ventilation in the motor court area would need to be given attention. Other such issues would need to be examined, as well as a part of the final design of this area. 4. Water Supply Issues Concems raised during the February 22 meeting included dead -end piping arrangements, proper placement of fire hydrants and the provision of sufficient flow. The design provided by RFMLA indicates transmission piping connected to the remainder of the Aspen water system at two points (at South Aspen Street and Deane Avenue and at a location south of Gilbert Street on the southwest corner of the property, both via 12 inch piping), with an 8 inch distribution line installed in South Aspen Street, connecting the northeast corner of the property to an existing distribution line at Durant Avenue. The piping arrangement provides for increased reliability, in that it supports multiples paths to fire hydrants and the service into the building. The 8 inch water line may restrict the flow rate to the facility, which could make achieving required fire flow problematic. The project should consider increasing the size to 10 inch during the planning phase, with the potential of reducing it back down to 8 inch if initial hydraulic calculations prove the capability. Hydrants are provided on the plan near the northeast and southeast comers of the building, along the east side of South Aspen Street. Additionally hydrants are located on South Monarch Street, to the north and south of Gilbert Street. This hydrant coverage is beneficial to the response approach as discussed above. However, if AFPD decides to utilize the motor court as a response location, providing an additional hydrant adjacent to motor court would improve their capabilities. 5. Specific Area Response Concerns AFPD has expressed concerns regarding the location of equipment and processes normally considered to be "high - hazard" in areas that would be difficult from a response standpoint. These include mechanical rooms (including those for elevators), large storage rooms, laundry facilities and the loading dock. HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC. Bob Daniel Page 7 of 8 Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge Aspen, LLC May 13, 2011 Based on the recommendations above, these areas should be provided with automatic sprinklers. However, the hazards that could be associated with the areas could exceed the capabilities of automatic sprinklers (e.g., large stacks of pallets, electrical /mechanical equipment with large quantities of flammable and combustible liquids, etc.). Additionally, the rooms and locations are generally located away from stairway enclosures where standpipe connections would be available or are in locations that place responders at risk. Based on these perspectives, the following recommendations are made: • The MechanicallElevator Equipment Room on Parking Level 3 should be minimized. If equipment can be relocated to other mechanical spaces, it should be. If the room or equipment cannot be relocated, then the specific equipment to be installed should be examined to ensure that the automatic sprinkler protection provided is consistent with the hazard. Standpipe hose connections should be provided at this level in the nearby stairway enclosure. • The Mechanical Room in the southeast corner of Parking Level 2 should be relocated such that it is within approximately 75 ft of the door of a stairway enclosure (which ensures that it is within reach of a standpipe connection). If the room cannot be moved, then the specific equipment to be installed should be examined to ensure that the automatic sprinkler protection provided is consistent with the hazard and, if warranted by the equipment, a standpipe hose connection should be extended to the room. • The Park's Department Storage Room in the southeast corner of Parking Level 1 should be relocated such that it is within approximately 75 ft of the door of a stairway enclosure (which ensures that it is within reach of a standpipe connection). If the room cannot be moved, then the specific equipment to be installed should be examined to ensure that the automatic sprinkler protection provided is consistent with the hazard and, if warranted by the equipment, a standpipe hose connection should be extended to the room. • In the Receiving area of Parking Level 1 (i.e., the Dock), ensure that automatic sprinkler protection will match the hazards present. Because of the extreme hazard presented by plastics, pallets and other items, administrative procedures will need to be put into place to remove these items relatively quickly. In some cases, like pallets, automatic sprinklers will only be able to provide protection against very specific quantities and arrangements, so it will be important to ensure the administrative controls are committed to. Because of the route between the adjoining stair and the dock, it would be beneficial to extend a standpipe connection to the dock for use by emergency responders, with the top of the stairs near the Service Lobby as a suggested location. These provisions should obviate the need to bring fire apparatus into the dock area. However, if AFPD desires apparatus access, discussions will need to occur as to which apparatus might be used so that the structural design of the facility can accommodate it accordingly. HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC. Bob Daniel Page 8 of 8 Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge Aspen, LLC May 13, 2011 In summary, the proposed performance -based solutions address the concerns raised in the initial meeting with the AFPD, and the hazards or situations noted in the meeting can be mitigated accordingly. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this information further, please feel free to contact me via email at dtomeceka!haifire.com or telephone at 303 -439 -0485. Regards, David Tomecek, PE Senior Fire Protection Engineer HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC. LIFT ONE LODGE r6^ h / /k G Final Review Criteria Planning and Zoning Commission PUD pg. 2 Timeshare Lodge Development pg .17 Subdivision pg. 22 Growth Management — Affordable Housing pg. 26 Growth Management — Essential Public Facility pg. 28 Growth Management — Remodeling or Replacement of Existing Commercial or Lodge Development pg. 30 Growth Management — Replacement of Demolished Multi - Family Residential Units pg. 31 Growth Management — Incentive Lodge Development pg. 32 Conditional Use for Restaurant/Bar, Dormitory Units and Commercial Parking Facility pg. 35 Amendment to the Zone District Map (Rezoning) pg. 38 Special Review pg. 41 Mountain View Plane pg. 43 Condominiumization pg. 45 Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 1/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings STAFF FINDINGS: PUD A development application for PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements (staff findings follow each requirement): A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff Finding Staff finds the proposal is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Outlined below is the project's consistency with applicable individual goals in the AACP. Managing Growth The community goals listed in the AACP include: • "Provide for a `critical mass' of permanent local residents by providing a limited number of affordable housing units within the Aspen Community Growth Boundary." The proposal houses 100% of the additional employees generated by the development. This exceeds the City's Land Use Code standard requirement of 60% mitigation and far exceeds the 30% mitigation requirement for this type of lodging. The proposal includes housing units for on -site workers, assisting with the long -term viability of the lodge operation, and is committed to meeting the remaining requirement through off -site house which could include use of the recently- created housing credit system. Staff finds the proposal meets this goal of the AACP. • "Contain development with the creation of the Aspen Community Growth Boundary..." The proposed development is within the Aspen Community Growth Boundary. Staff finds the project meets this goal of the AACP. • "Foster a well - balanced community through integrated design that promotes economic diversity, transit and pedestrian friendly lifestyles, and the mixing of people from different backgrounds." The project creates spaces for free - market and deed - restricted residences, lodging opportunities, lodging associated commercial, improved access to skiing, a ski museum, and enhanced pedestrian connections. The proposal includes a range of economic diversity — space for a non - profit, affordable housing, free - market housing, and market rate lodging. The uses are integrated into the site design in a manner that creates pedestrian places and opportunities for locals and tourists to integrate. Staff finds the project meets this goal of the AACP. • "We should endeavor to bring the middle class back into our community. We should discourage sprawl and recognize its cost to the character of our community, our open spaces and our rural resources as well as the fiscal expenses associated with the physical infrastructure of sprawl." The base of Aspen Mountain is an appropriate place for high density lodging development. This area is within walking distance to all the City's attractions and connections to the region's transit services. Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 2/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings The proposal does not contribute to sprawl and, by housing many of the employees on -site, attempts to limit additional sprawl. The proposal will also enhance a forgotten neighborhood. This "side" of Aspen Mountain accounts for only 3% (approx.) of the daily initial uplift of Aspen Mountain. Redevelopment of this area will bring back some vitality of this once popular area, highlight the area's historic resources, and utilize the area's public infrastructure. Staff finds the proposal meets this goal of the AACP. Transportation The community goals listed in the AACP include: • "Maintain and improve the appeal of bicycling and walking... by adding sidewalk connections, replacing sidewalks, and requiring sidewalks as part of development approvals, where appropriate..." The area now has very limited pedestrian infrastructure. In fact, one of the current obstacles to the use of Lift IA is the absence of proper pedestrian connections — the area is not currently convenient for pedestrians. The proposal focuses on accessibility by providing pedestrian infrastructure where none exists today, potential for a surface lift providing access to Lift IA, public parking, automobile drop -off zones, and shuttle service for lodging guests. Staff finds the proposal meets this goal of the AACP. • "Reduce the adverse impacts of automobiles on the Aspen area." The development includes underground parking for tenants and residents of the development and public parking for visitors, skiers, lodge guests, and restaurant patrons. The project provide enough parking for the businesses to be commercial successful without inducing unnecessary traffic. The area's surface parking will be removed (replaced underground) and the aesthetics will be substantially enhanced by this change as the streetscape will not be dominated by autos. The location of the public parking reduces the impact these cars would otherwise have on the surrounding community if they were required to park at street level in the neighborhood. Staff finds the proposal meets this goal of the AACP. • "New development should take place only in areas that are, or can be served by transit, and only in compact, mixed -use patterns that are conducive to walking and bicycling" The proposed development is served by existing transit (one half -block away) and is composed of compact mixed -uses conducive to walking and bicycling. The site is ideal for utilizing existing transit and encouraging walking/bicycling. Staff finds the proposal meets this goal of the AACP. The intent of the Transportation section states: • "The community seeks to provide a balanced, integrated transportation system for residents, visitors, and commuters that reduced congestion and air pollution. Walking, Bicycling and transit use is promoted to help us reach that goal." The proposed development promotes the use of transit and a pedestrian friendly lifestyle. The development is within walking distance to the center of town, shopping, recreation, and regional transit. Deane Street is proposed to be enhanced as a pedestrian friendly connection to other lodging and the Gondola Plaza. The existing Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 3/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings pedestrian experience along South Aspen Street is poor and this development will improve the situation by providing sidewalks, landscape improvements, interesting architecture and pedestrian- oriented commercial space. Staff finds the proposal meets the intent of the Transportation section in the AACP. Housing The community goals listed in the AACP include: • "Encourage development to occur within the Aspen Community Growth Boundary and emphasize 'good city form'. " The project is within the Aspen Growth Boundary and within the Aspen infill area. The development also promotes "good city form" by focusing development within areas already served with infrastructure. By providing additional lodging at the base of Aspen Mountain more visitors can be within walking distance of downtown Aspen, thereby minimizing the resort-wide reliance on the automobile. Staff finds the proposal meets this goal of the AACP. • "The public and private sectors should work together to ensure success in providing affordable housing." And "Encourage greater participation by the private sector in developing affordable housing." The project includes affordable housing on -site with the provision of dormitory style housing units. The project has committed to housing 100% of the additional employees generated by the development, exceeding the City's standard of 60% and far exceed the 30% requirement for lodging of this type. Staff find the proposal meets these two AACP goals. • "New affordable housing projects should reinforce and enhance a healthy social balance for our community and enhance the character and charm of Aspen." The proposal provide short-term rental housing for lodge employees, a critical need in the community, by retrofitting an historic structure — the Skier Chalet Steakhouse. This housing will relate well to the existing neighborhood structures, maintain historic reference to the original base of Aspen Mountain, and provide much needed rental housing. Staff finds the project meets this goal of the AACP. Economic Sustainability The intent of the Economic Sustainability section includes: • "Maintain a healthy, vibrant and diversified year - round economy that supports the Aspen area community..." The proposal includes much need lodging at the base of Aspen Mountain. This project will partially make up for the dramatic loss in bed base that the community has experienced over the past 10 years and will help sustain Aspen's resort and year -round local community. The significant provision of affordable housing will help sustain the social infrastructure of Aspen as well as local businesses. Staff finds the project meets the intent of this section of the AACP. • "Enhance the wealth - generating capacity of the local economy while minimizing the rate at which cash flows through the local economy and limiting the expansion of the physical size of the community." The project occurs within the Aspen Growth Boundary and attempt to maintain the region's bed base and tax generating commercial uses within the City limits. The development will increase the local economy's wealth- generating capacity by providing commercial and lodging uses Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 4/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings within the existing footprint of the community. The project also houses a non - profit (the ski museum), a significant amount of affordable housing, and a restaurant expected to be popular with visitors and locals. The project does not increase the physical size of the community. Staff finds the proposal meets the intent of this section of the AACP. Parks, Open Space, & the Environment • "Seek opportunities to discourage sprawl in order to preserve open spaces between communities. Encourage infill projects that integrate more housing into the existing urban fabric." The development enhances access to Aspen Mountain, the community's primary recreation facility, and provides functional open space within the project. The project discourages sprawl by effectively utilizing land within the existing footprint of the community to achieve community goals for lodging, affordable housing, recreation, historic preservation, and mountain access in a manner that re- vitalizes and visually enhances the neighborhood. Staff finds the proposal meets this section of the AACP. Design Quality The intent of the Design Quality section includes: • "Ensure the character of the built environment in Aspen is maintained through public outreach and education about design quality, historical context, and the influence of existing built and natural environments." This project addresses this goal by providing a home for a skiing museum. This idea has been on the "drawing board" for many years as a way to sustain understanding of the community's skiing heritage. Chalet architecture was prevalent in Aspen during the early years of skiing in North America. The proposal includes retrofitting of two chalet buildings — one for affordable housing and the other is being restored to house the museum. Staff finds the proposal meets the goals and intent of this section of the AACP. The community goals listed in the AACP includes: • "Retain and encourage an eclectic mix of design styles to maintain and enhance the special character to Aspen." The proposal integrates a traditional chalet style of architecture with the skiing museum and the former Chalet Steakhouse. The site plan and architecture represents a high quality design that will work with and enhance Aspen's unique character. There are multiple buildings and the mass is broken up through facade fenestration and the use of different materials. This helps the project relate to Aspen's historic development pattern. Staff finds the proposal meets the goals and intent of this section of the AACP. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 5/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings The existing character of the surrounding area is a mix of short-term lodging, commercial accessory to lodging uses, full -time free - market housing, full -time affordable housing, part-time free - market housing, recreational facilities, and ski area operations. While there has been some building refurbishment activity in the vicinity, the South Aspen Street area has not seen significant reinvestment in many years. The proposal provides a similar mix of uses — lodging, accessory commercial, free - market and affordable residential — with the addition of a non - profit operation of the ski museum. Staff believes the addition of the ski museum is compatible with the neighborhood as Lift 1 is the birthplace of skiing in Aspen. A museum celebrating skiing fits with this theme. In addition, the museum at this location was the subject of a successful public vote in 1991 indicating public acceptance of the concept. Staff believes the proposed uses are consistent and compatible with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the ability for surrounding properties to develop in the future. In fact, this project may actually enhance the opportunities for redevelopment by dramatically improving the appearance and vitality of this area of town. Additionally, the project will upgrade wet and dry utilities throughout the development allowing for easier connection by future users. The Project is proposing to improve the storm water mediation that presently is unchecked on South Aspen Street. The project will reconstruct South Aspen Street improving safety, function, and access to surrounding properties. The Project will also create an improved open space through the connection of Lift One and Willoughby parks as well as public useable public parking. These improvements to basic infrastructure will positively affect the developability of the area and not hamper or adversely affect future development possibilities of surrounding properties. Staff believes this proposal meets this criterion. 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 FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY The proposal requires allotments for lodging, affordable housing, and commercial space. The allotments have been requested and are available. Staff supports the allotment requests finding the proposal in compliance with the growth management criteria. If all of the requested growth management actions are approved, this criterion is met. If the growth allotments are not granted, the project does not meet this criterion. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 6/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings The PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. 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 sues and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: 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 landforms. 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. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Generally, Staff finds that the proposed dimensional standards are appropriate for the site for the above characteristics, as follows: a.) See discussion from 1.A. above. b.) The project's proposed massing and height responds the slopes of the site by stepping up the hillside and placing larger portions of the buildings to the center of the project so as to minimize the visual effects. Maximum allowable floor area on Lot 1 is 47,760 after slope reduction and subtraction of proposed vacated right -of -way. Subtracting the vacated right -of -way substantially reduces the lot area and the proposed of 77,010 represents nearly a 4:1 FAR. Assuming the vacated right -of -way as a part of the parcel, the proposed of 77,010 represents a 2:1 FAR, well under the limitations of the Lodge zone. c.) Most of the proposed building site has already been impacted by existing or prior development. One large tree will be affected to accommodate a portion of a building. This change was requested by the City during conceptual review to accommodate a ski corridor and staff believes this is a reasonable trade -off. Staff believes this criterion is met. d.) Any development on this property would likely increase the above impacts; however, Staff is comfortable that all of these impacts are adequately mitigated. Noise is regulated by city ordinance; trips are expected to increase, but stay within the existing road capacity. Many visitors will arrive to town by airplane and be brought to the lodges by shuttle where the convenient location will allow walking to downtown and to the ski area. If guests do drive, all parking is internal to the site underground. Regarding Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 7/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings impacts to historical resources, the Skiers Chalet Steakhouse is listed as an historic property is proposed for rehabilitation with HPC approvals. The Skier's Chalet Lodge was an "ordinance 48" building (the Ord 48 regulations no longer apply) and is proposed to be relocated, rehabilitated as a ski museum and historically designated, voluntarily. 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. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The scale and massing of the proposed lodge is compatible with that of the neighborhood. In fact, many of the hotels (St. Regis, Grand Hyatt, Little Nell) in this neighborhood are larger. There are several condo buildings in the surrounding area that are smaller than the proposal. While the proposal is higher and covers a larger land area, staff does not consider this to be incompatible with the neighborhood character. The project is broken into several structures, providing useable open space between buildings and an appropriate level of site coverage for the area. The proposal is appropriate for a lodge located on the south side of Durant Avenue and in -line with the character of this area. Staff finds this criterion met. 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: DOES IT COMPLY? YES. Staff finds the proposed amount of parking to be adequate to serve the needs of the development. The proposal satisfies the underlying zone district's parking requirements and provides additional parking for guests, day skiers, and the public. Given the proximity of the site to the commercial core, the ski area and transit connections and considering that many guests of facilities such as this arrive without a car, staff believes that the parking will be sufficient to meet the demand. Staff finds the proposal meets this review criterion. 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: Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 8/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings 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: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Adequate public facilities either already exist or will be upgraded at the owner's sole expense in order to meet the expected demand. South Aspen Street is a steeply pitched street with wintertime challenges. The City Engineer and the Fire Marshall are confident that the enhanced aggregate surface and winter maintenance will provide adequate and safe access to this project and for fire protection. To enhance fire protection, the structures will contain complete fire sprinkler systems. Staff believes that no density reductions are necessary. 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 mud flow, 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: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY Staff believes the site is suitable for development. Improvements the area's drainage are necessary and are part of the development proposal. A requirement to monitor the slope stability of the area to detect significant movement is recommended as an approval condition with ongoing monitoring before and during construction as necessary. The City Engineer is recommending 3 feet of freeboard at the base of the south facade structure to mitigate mudflow impacts. Staff believes that the proposal satisfies this criterion, with this condition of approval. 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. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 9/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings 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. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposal serves more than one goal of the AACP — affordable housing, economic diversity, historic preservation, and open space and recreation goals. No increase in the amount of density is proposed. Staff finds this criterion met. 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. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The site is located near the base of Shadow Mountain, but is not proposing to impact the mountainside in any way. There are unique historic ski lift apparatus proposed for preservation and enhancement along with a museum focused on Aspen ski heritage. This aspect of the project is a significant public benefit. Staff feels that the redevelopment of the site with lodging, residences, a restaurant, and underground parking will be an enhancement to the neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion met. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The structures on the site have been planned and organized around open space, significant vistas, and the "ski- back" corridor. This provide the potential for a future ski lift along the previous lift one alignment. The ski -back corridor also provides a significant public benefit and benefit to surrounding properties. The site plan permits an important view up Aspen Mountain along the original lift alignment. The site planning for the ski museum purposefully allows for event space for formal or informal gatherings and passive and active recreation. Staff finds this criterion met. Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 10/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings 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. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The structures are oriented to public streets, the ski corridor, the base of Lift 1A, or to small outdoor gathering or restaurant seating areas. There are multiple points to engage pedestrians, skiers, and provide for interesting streetscapes. The buildings include orientation to the sidewalk and the street, providing what staff believes will be a enjoyable pedestrian experience. Staff finds this criterion met. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY The Fire Marshal has reviewed the plans and has stated that there are no major concems with the proposal. The Fire Marshal did suggest a series of minor changes and the applicant has accommodated those requests (condition). A final review by the Fire Marshal is required prior to issuance of a permit. Emergency and service vehicle access to Aspen Mountain is maintained with this plan. Four parking spaces within the proposed turn- around (June 7th amended site plan). These spaces are proposed to replace existing spaces in the ROW predominantly used by the Shadow Mountain Condominiums. Given the operational demands at the base of the ski area, staff believes these spaces should be reserved for emergency vehicles, ambulance, etc. as well as vehicles associated with ski area operations or special events. Staff suggests these spaces be signed for emergency and official vehicles only (condition). All structures will be fire sprinkled for further safety. With two conditions of approval, staff finds this criterion met. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY The Building Department has reviewed the proposal and believes the project complies with all applicable accessibility requirements. A detailed review is required prior to issuance of a permit. Adequate pedestrian access is being provided with the addition of detached sidewalks. This should greatly increase access and safety for pedestrians who currently walk in the street. With a condition of approval, staff finds this criterion met. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 11/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings Site drainage from the properties is proposed to be handled by directing drainage into an extension of the existing storm drain facilities located in Durant Avenue and to the City's storm drainage system. This plan will accommodate the City's desire to minimize sedimentation -laden drainage from leaving the site and significantly improve the existing condition which allows sediment -laden surface drainage from the mountainside to sheet drain across the road and into the downtown. A drainage plan will be required to be filed with the final plat and a detailed drainage plan review is required prior to issuance of a permit. With a condition of approval, staff finds this criterion met. 7. For non - residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The plan allows a "ski- back" corridor along the original Lift One alignment. This is a significant public benefit of the project as this corridor is partially on private land and has been compromised with various physical intrusions over the years, including a street through one section. The plan also provides funds for a potential future surface lift within this corridor, further enhancing skier access to Aspen Mountain. The entrances to the lodges are well designed and allow for off - street loading /unloading as well as valet service. The ski museum incorporates an outdoor space which can be used for programmed events or informal gathering. Apres ski opportunity exists with this plan, allowing locals and guests to get their party on. Staff finds this criterion met. 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 ornamental 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. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed lodge will be extensively landscaped with vegetation appropriate to the climate. Several trees will need to be removed to allow for return skiing to Willoughby Park. Only one tree is significant and this tree must be removed to accommodate the building footprint changes made during the conceptual review to permit a ski -back corridor. All removed trees will be mitigated per Code requirements. Staff believes this is an acceptable trade -off. Staff finds this criterion met. Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 12/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 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. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff finds that the proposed architectural character will be an enhancement to the visual character of the neighborhood. This project will dramatically update the design quality of the neighborhood, reflecting an appropriate ski -resort style in an established neighborhood context. The design of the lodge clearly represents the lodge use, while the two chalet buildings provide historic context compatible with their respective affordable housing and museum uses. The lodge will be designed to LEED Gold standards, which is very significant given the rigorous design and operating requirements. This will be Aspen's first LEED -rated lodge and one of only a few in the country. Staff finds this criterion met. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall be 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. Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 13/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY The project is committed to meeting the City's outdoor lighting standards. Staff and the applicant believe this is achievable and expect no major issues. The proposed lighting pan appears to meet the City's requirements. An exterior lighting plan will need to be recorded with the final PUD plan set, which is typical for PUD projects, and a final check occurs during building permit review and site inspections. With a proposed condition of approval, staff finds this criterion met. 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. 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: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, WITH A CONDITION Willoughby Park and Lift One Park are already owned by the City. A portion of Lot #1 — Lift One Lodge — is proposed as a public ski and pedestrian easement, more than meeting this standard. Staff has proposed a condition of approval that an operations agreement be submitted as part of the final development agreement. With a condition of approval, staff believes this criterion is met. 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. Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 14/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY Public infrastructure exists in the area. With improvements made to the infrastructure by the developers, adequate facilities are available to accommodate the development. Some oversizing to accommodate future needs is being planned addressing street profile improvements, utilities and drainage. finds this criterion met. I. Access and Circulation. 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. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, WITH A CONDITION All structures and all of the units and associated uses have access from public rights -of- way. A surface easement for skiers, park users, and park maintenance over the portion of Lot #1 directly south of lift one park is recommended as a condition of approval. This condition is not necessary for accessing a public way, as the standard requires, but will be important for maintaining a continuous skiing corridor through the property. Because this ski -back corridor and potential for a lift has been a central theme of the proposal, staff believes a condition of approval is important. Staff will also suggest Council require these easements as part of the street vacation action. If additional portions of Gilbert Street are vacated (more than proposed by the applicant) staff will suggest a similar access easement over portions of Gilbert. With a condition of approval, staff finds this criterion met. 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. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The transportation study indicates that the area's streets and intersections are currently operating below capacity and will continue to do so even after the lodge has been built and are open for business. The report includes other projects that could affect the overall transportation patterns and found `no perceptible difference' from current traffic conditions. All parking will be below the buildings. In addition, South Aspen Street will be reconstructed and use a rougher surface for enhanced winter traction. Staff finds this criterion met. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 15/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. 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: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY There are no historic trails through the subject property which would require dedication or improvement and the AACP does not recommend any additional trails on the property. Portions of the private property will require surface easements allowing the ski -back corridor and pedestrian access during the summer. This is proposed as a condition and can be incorporated into the final plat. No security gates, guard posts are proposed. With a proposed condition, staff finds these criterion met. J. Phasing of Development Plan. (Note: this criteria 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. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees -in -lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY The project is not proposed in phases. The City will require the development agreement (done after approvals and prior to actual development) secure the landowner's performance and possible site remediation costs. This will ensure the public interest is protected against possible financial burdens of completing public infrastructure, public amenities, project amenities where a significant public interest exists, and costs for safety and aesthetic remediation of an incomplete or abandoned development site. With as a proposed condition, staff believe this criterion is met. Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 16/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings STAFF FINDINGS: TIMESHARE LODGE DEVELOPMENT An applicant for timeshare lodge development shall demonstrate compliance with each of the following standards, as applicable to the proposed development. These standards are in addition to those standards applicable to the review of the PUD and Subdivision applications. A. Fiscal Impact Analysis and Mitigation. Any applicant proposing to convert an existing lodge to a timeshare lodge development shall be required to demonstrate that the proposed conversion will not have a negative tax consequence for the City. In order to demonstrate the tax consequences of the proposed conversion, the applicant shall prepare a detailed fiscal impact study as part of the final PUD application. The fiscal impact study shall contain at least the following comparisons between the existing lodge operation and the proposed timeshare lodge development: 1. A summary of the sales taxes paid to the City for rental of lodge rooms during the prior five years of its operation. If the lodge has stopped renting rooms prior to the time of submission of the application, then the summary shall reflect the final five years the lodge was in operation. The summary of past taxes paid shall be compared to a projection of the sales taxes the proposed timeshare lodge development will pay to the City over the first five years of its operation. As part of this projection, the applicant shall specify the number of nights the applicant anticipates each timeshare lodge unit will be available for daily rental to visitors (that is, the annual number of nights when the unit will not be occupied by the owner or the owner's guests), the expected visitor occupancy rate for these units, the expected average daily cost to rent the unit, and the resulting amount of sales tax that will be paid to the City. 2. An estimation of the real estate transfer taxes that would be paid to the City if the existing lodge were to be sold. If an actual sale of the property has occurred within the last 12 months, then the real estate taxes paid for that sale shall be used. This estimation shall be compared to a projection of the real estate transfer taxes the proposed timeshare lodge development will pay to the City over the first five years of its operation. This projection shall include a statement of the expected sales prices for the timeshare estates, and the applicable tax rate that will be applied to each sale. 3. A summary of the City- portion of the property taxes paid for the lodge for the prior five years of its operation, and a projection of the property taxes the proposed timeshare lodge development will pay to the City over the first five years of its operation. This projection shall include a statement of the expected value that will be assigned to the property by the Tax Assessor, and the applicable tax rate. Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 17/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings The fiscal impact study may also contain such other information that the applicant believes is relevant to understanding the tax consequences of the proposed development. For example, the applicant may provide information demonstrating there will be "secondary ", or "indirect" tax benefits to the City from the occupancy of the timeshare units, in terms of increased retail sales and other economic activity in the community as compared to the existing lodge development. The applicant shall be expected to prove definitively why the timeshare units would cause such economic advantages that would not be achieved by a traditional lodge development. Any such additional information provided shall compare the taxes paid during the prior five years of the lodge's operation to the first five years of the proposed timeshare lodge's operation. If the fiscal impact study demonstrates there will be an annual tax loss to the City from the conversion of an existing lodge to a timeshare lodge, then the applicant shall be required to propose a mitigation program that resolves the problem, to the satisfaction of the Aspen City Council. The accepted mitigation program shall be documented in the PUD Agreement for the project that is entered into between the applicant and the Aspen City Council. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE The proposal does not include a conversion of existing lodging into a timeshare lodge development. The redevelopment contemplates development of entirely new lodge buildings and the former lodging buildings on the site are intended to be relocated and used as a ski museum and an affordable housing building. These properties are not in current lodging use. The Holland House has been demolished and the Skier's Chalet buildings are not being used for nightly rentals. Neither has been in active lodging operation in close to 10 years. During the initial conceptual review (2007) staff reviewed the proposal, the recent activity of the lodging uses, the City's tax information for the operations, the re -use concepts for the actual lodging buildings, and decided the project should be handled as a new project, not a `conversion.' Staff believes this criterion applies to the conversion of existing buildings from traditional lodging operations to fractional ownership and believes this criterion is not applicable in this case. B. Upgrading of Existing Projects. Any existing project that is proposed to be converted to a timeshare lodge development shall be physically upgraded and modernized. The extent of the upgrading that is to be accomplished shall be determined as part of the PUD review, considering the condition of the existing facilities, with the intent being to make the development compatible in character with surrounding properties and to extend the useful life of the building. 1. To the extent that it would be practical and reasonable, existing structures shall be brought into compliance with the City's adopted fire, health, and building codes. Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 18/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings 2. No sale of any interest in a timeshare lodge development shall be closed until a certificate of occupancy has been issued for the upgrading. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE The Applicant is proposing an entirely new project - not a conversion of an existing project to a timeshare lodge development. This criterion is not applicable. The new development shall be required to meet the City's adopted fire, health, and building codes and compliance will be checked at the time of building permit review. This criterion is not applicable. C. Preservation of Existing Lodging Inventory. An express purpose of these regulations is to preserve and enhance Aspen's existing lodging inventory. Therefore, any proposal to convert an existing lodge or other property that provides short term accommodations to a timeshare lodge should, at a minimum, replace the existing number of units on the property in the planned timeshare lodge. If the applicant is unable to replace the existing number of units, then the timeshare lodge development shall replace the existing number of bedrooms on the property, or the applicant shall demonstrate how the proposal complies with the purposes of these regulations, even though the planned timeshare lodge will not replace either the existing number of units or bedrooms. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE The Applicant is proposing an entirely new project - not a conversion of an existing project to a timeshare lodge development. This criterion is not applicable. The project does, however, propose to add additional beds and rooms which will add to the City's lodging stock. This criterion is not applicable. D. Affordable Housing Requirements. 1. Whenever a timeshare lodge development is required to provide affordable housing, mitigation for the development shall be calculated by applying the standards of the City's housing designee for lodge uses. The affordable housing requirement shall be calculated based on the maximum number of proposed lock out rooms in the development, and shall also take into account any retail, restaurant, conference, or other functions proposed in the lodge. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The development is providing housing mitigation for 100% of the additional employees generated by this development. This exceeds the City's requirement more than achieves compliance with this criterion. 2. The conversion of any multi- family dwelling unit that meets the definition of residential multi - family housing to timesharing shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 26.530, Resident Multi - Family Replacement Program, even when there is no demolition of the existing multi - family dwelling unit. Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 19/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The RMF replacement requirement of 1.25 employees is more than met with the provision of approximately 16 employees to be housed in the Skier Chalet Steakhouse building. Staff finds this criterion met. E. Parking Requirements. 1. The parking requirement for timeshare lodge development shall be calculated by applying the parking standard for the underlying zone district for lodge uses. The parking requirement shall be calculated based on the maximum number of proposed lock out rooms in the development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposal provides off - street parking for all of the uses according to the City's requirements, plus an additional 50 spaces for public parking. The lodge parking calculation complies with the maximum number of rentable divisions or "keys," as required in this standard. Staff finds this criterion met. 2. The timeshare lodge development shall also provide an appropriate level of guest transportation services, such as vans or other shuttle vehicles, to offer an alternative to having owners and guests using their own vehicles in Aspen. 3. The owner of a timeshare estate shall be prohibited from storing a vehicle in a parking space on -site when the owner is not using that estate. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY The applicant has committed to van/shuttle service and on -site storage of vehicles will be prohibited in the development agreement and timeshare instruments. With a condition of approval, staff finds this criterion met. F. Appropriateness of Marketing and Sales Practices. The marketing and sale of timeshare estates shall be governed by the real estate laws set forth in Title 12, Article 61, C.R.S., as may be amended from time to time. The applicant and licensed marketing entity shall present to the City a plan for marketing the timeshare development. 1. The following marketing and sales practices for a timeshare development shall not be permitted: a. The solicitation of prospective purchasers of timeshare units on any street, mall, or other public property or facility; and b. Any unethical sales and marketing practices which would tend to mislead potential purchasers. Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 20/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings 2. Giving of gifts to encourage potential purchasers to attend a sales presentation or to visit a timeshare development is permitted, provided the gift reflects the local Aspen economy. For example, gifts for travel to or accommodations in Aspen, restaurants in Aspen, and local attractions (ski passes, concert tickets, rafting trips, etc.) are permitted. Gifts that have no relationship to the local Aspen economy are not permitted. The following gifts are also not permitted: a. Any gift for which an accurate description is not given; b. Any gift package for which notice is not given to the prospective purchaser that the purchaser will be required to attend a sales presentation as a condition of receiving the gifts; and c. Any gift package for which the printed announcement of the requirement to attend a sales presentation is in smaller type face than the information on the gift being offered. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY The application commits to incorporate these limitations on gifts into the development agreement and timeshare instruments. With a condition of approval, staff finds this criterion met. G. Adequacy of Maintenance and Management Plan. The applicant shall provide documentation and guarantees that the timeshare lodge development will be appropriately managed and maintained in an manner that will be both stable and continuous. This shall include an identification of when and how maintenance will be provided, and shall also address the following requirements: 1. A fair procedure shall be established for the estate owners to review and approve any fee increases which may be made throughout the life of the timeshare development, to provide assurance and protection to timeshare owners that management/assessment fees will be applied and used appropriately. 2. The applicant shall also demonstrate that there will be a reserve fund to ensure that the proposed timeshare development will be properly maintained throughout its lifetime. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY The application commits to incorporate these maintenance provisions into the development agreement and timeshare instruments. With a condition of approval, staff finds this criterion met. H. Compliance with State Statutes. The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed timeshare lodge development will comply with all applicable requirements of Title 12, Article 61, C.R.S.; Title 38, Article 33, C.R.S.; and Title 38, Article 33.3, C.R.S.; including the requirements conceming the five (5) day period for rescission of a sales contract, and the procedures for holding deposits or down payments in escrow. Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 21/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY The application commits to comply with State requirements. With a condition of approval, staff finds this criterion met. I. Approval By Condominium Owners. If the development that is proposed to be timeshared is a condominium, the applicant shall submit written proof that the condominium declaration allows timesharing, that one hundred (100) percent of the owners of the condominium units have approved the timeshare development, including any improvements to the common elements that the applicant may propose, that all mortgagees of the condominium have approved the proposed timeshare development, and that all condominium units in the timeshare development will be included in the same sales and marketing program. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE The project is not currently a condominium and does not proposed a conversion of an existing condominium. This criterion is not applicable to this project. J. Prohibited Practices and Uses. Without in any way limiting any requirement contained in this Chapter, it is unlawful for any person to knowingly engage in any of the following practices: 1. The creation, operation or sale of a right -to -use interest or any other timeshare concept which is not specifically allowed and approved pursuant to the requirements of this section. Right -to -use timeshare concepts (e.g. lease -holds and vacation clubs) are considered inappropriate in Aspen and are not permitted. 2. Misrepresentation of the facts contained in any application for timeshare approval, timeshare development instruments, or disclosure statement. 3. Failure to comply with any representations contained in any application for timesharing or misrepresenting the substance of any such application to another who may be a prospective purchaser of a timeshare interest. 4. Manage, operate, use, offer for sale or sell a timeshare estate or interest therein in violation of any requirement of this Chapter or any approval granted pursuant hereto, or cause or aid and abet another to violate any requirement of this Chapter, or an approval granted pursuant to this Chapter. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY The application states that the timeshare operation will comply with these prohibitions. With a condition of approval, staff finds this criterion met. Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 22/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings STAFF FINDINGS: SUBDIVISION Section 26.480 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements. 1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Please see Staff's response to PUD Review Standard A(1). Staff finds this criterion met. 2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Please see Staff's response to PUD review standard A(2). Staff finds this criterion met. 3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Please see Staffs response to PUD review standard A(3). Staff finds this criterion met. 4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY The project is being reviewed for the necessary approvals. If those approvals are granted, this criterion is met. B. 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: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY This property is suitable for development with a few technical considerations; particular attention needs to be paid to drainage and mudflow hazards. The preliminary drainage recommendations have been reviewed by the City Engineer and accepted. More specific drainage designs will need to be reviewed and approved and made part of the final plat. This is proposed as a condition of approval. Likewise, the mudflow analysis has been Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 23/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings reviewed by the City Engineer. Specific recommendations for the design of the buildings have been made and have been proposed as conditions of approval. No other known natural hazards exist and staff believes, with proposed conditions, that this criterion is 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: DOES IT COMPLY? YES This proposed subdivision does not represent a potential for inefficient public services or unnecessary public costs. Staff finds this criterion 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 specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES. The applicant has detailed the improvements this project is providing, as required in Chapter 26.580, and is not requesting any variations. Therefore, the above standards for reviewing variations are not applicable and staff find this standard 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: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed development complies with both requirements of replacement housing and of new housing. Affordable housing in excess of the City's requirement is being provided and staff finds this criterion met. (Note: the requirements of Chapter 26.520 were recodified within Chapter 26.470.) Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 24/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY The residential development within this project requires school land dedication. The application commits to providing a cash -in -lieu of land dedication. Staff supports the cash -in -lieu as this site and the amount of land dedication would be an inappropriate method of meeting the standard. Staff has included a condition of approval that requires the school land dedication fees be paid prior to building permit issuance. The applicable schedule will be that in effect at the time of building permit submission. With this condition, staff believes this standard is 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. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY The proposal requires allotments for lodging, affordable housing, and commercial space. The allotments have been requested and are available. The request for allotments is being reviewed concurrently. Staff supports the allotment requests finding the proposal in compliance with the growth management criteria. If all of the requested growth management actions are approved, this criterion is met. Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 25/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings STAFF FINDINGS: GROWTH MANAGEMENT — AFFORDABLE HOUSING The development of affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the APCHA Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria (2005 Land Use Code printing): a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the new units, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.C, Development Ceiling Levels. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposal requires allotments for lodging, affordable housing, and commercial space. The affordable housing allotments have been requested and are available. The allotments are from the 2010 growth year as the application for final review was accepted in December 2010. Staff finds this criterion is met. b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Please see Staffs response to PUD Review Standard A(1). Staff finds this criterion met. 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: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, WITH CONDITIONS. The proposed affordable housing units have been reviewed by APCHA staff and the board for compliance with the Guidelines. A recommendation of approval with a series of conditions has been forwarded to the P &Z. Staff has included these as conditions within the draft resolution and believes this standard is 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 percent of 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 Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 26/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from APCHA. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The on -site affordable housing is being provided in the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse building. This is an ideal re -use of an historic resource. The units, which are in a dormitory configuration, have been designed to meet this standard. All units are at grade or on the second and third floors. The subgrade space of this building is proposed for mechanical and storage uses. All mitigation is proposed through on -site units or actual units within the City. This may include use of housing credits, which is a new program for off -site housing. The applicant has committed to providing housing mitigation in excess of the requirements. None of this mitigation is proposed through cash -in -lieu. Staff finds this criterion 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 operation 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: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, WITH A CONDITION The affordable housing is proposed to be owned and operated by the applicant (or successor). This is appropriate and desirable for both dormitory units and units associated with a lodging operation. A legal instrument ensuring the permanent affordability of the units is necessary and staff is proposing a condition of approval. Staff finds this criterion met. Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 27/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings STAFF FINDINGS: GROWTH MANAGEMENT — ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY Pursuant to Section 26.470.040.D.3. of the Regulations, the City Council may approve the development of an essential public facility upon the recommendation of the planning and Zoning Commission subject to compliance with the following criteria (2005 Land Use Code): a) The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and/or structure to be an Essential Public Facility. Accessory uses may also be part of an Essential Public Facility project. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The City defines an Essential Public Facility as "a facility which serves an essential public purpose is available for use or benefit of the general public and serves the needs of the community." The Aspen Historic Society is a not - for - profit organization with a mission of enriching the community through preserving and communicating Aspen's remarkable history. They are supported through donations, limited fee services, and the Aspen Historic Park and Recreation District property tax. The facility is proposed to serve a needs of the community and a public purpose — education — and will be for the use and benefit of the general public. The Director finds the facility meets the definition. Staff finds this criterion met. b) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the uses, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.C, Development Ceiling Levels and Section 26.470.030.D, Annual Development Allotments. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposal requires allotments for lodging, affordable housing, and commercial space. No specific allocation is required for essential public facilities and no growth ceiling exists for this type of use. All necessary allotments for the project have been requested and are available. The allotments are from the 2010 growth year as the application for final review was accepted in December 2010. Staff finds this criterion is met. c) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Please see Staff's response to PUD review standard A(1). Staff finds this criterion met. d) A sufficient percentage of the employees expected to be generated by the project are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash -in -lieu thereof in a manner acceptable to the City Council. The Employee Generation Rates may be Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 28/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings used as a guideline but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs. The City Council may waive, or partially waive, affordable housing mitigation requirements as it deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The applicant is requesting the housing mitigation for the museum be waived in light of the extensive preservation and rehabilitation work proposed — the relocation and rehabilitation of two historically significant structures, the rehabilitation of the original lift one terminal (a National Historic resource), and the redevelopment of Willoughby Park as park space complimentary of the historic resources. Staff believes this is an adequate trade-off. The investment in the historic resources serves a significant community goal — preserving and enhancing the Aspen's skiing legacy. The employee needs for the museum are expected to be handled through existing staffing with minimal additional demands (probably 1.5 to 2.5 total additional employees) and within the operational plan of the Historic Society. In additional, the project as a whole is exceeding the City's requirements for affordable housing mitigation. Staff is recommending this waiver be granted. Staff finds this criterion met e) Free - Market residential floor area on the parcel is accompanied by affordable housing units or mitigation pursuant to 26.470.040.C.6, unless otherwise restricted in the zone district. The City Council may waive, partially waive, or establish a different limitation as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE No free - market residential space is proposed for the museum parcel. This standard is not applicable. 0 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: DOES IT COMPLY? YES. The project can be accommodated with existing public infrastructure. Some services are being upgraded by the applicant to address direct needs. No disproportionate public service burdens are expected. Staff finds this criterion met. Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 29/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings STAFF FINDINGS: GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW — REMODELING OR REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL OR LODGE DEVELOPMENT. Remodeling or replacement after demolition of existing commercial or hotel/lodge building and portions thereof shall be exempt from the provisions of growth management, provided that no additional net leasable square footage or lodge units are created and there is no change -in -use. If redevelopment involves an expansion of net leasable square footage or lodge units, only the replacement of existing development shall be exempt and the expansion shall be subject to Section 26.470.040.C.2 or 3. Existing, prior to demolition, net leasable square footage and lodge units shall be documented by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer prior to demolition. Also see Reconstruction Limitations, Section 26.470.070, and definition of Net Leasable Commercial and Office Space, Section 26.104.100 (2005 Land Use Code): STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The project involves some replacement of existing development and some new expansion. Replacement of 20 lodge rooms from the Holland House lodge, 10 lodge rooms from the Skier's Chalet Lodge, and 8 rooms from the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse lodging (lodging was upstairs from the steakhouse) is exempt from growth management while the remaining 46 room (keys) are subject to the requirements for new growth. Likewise, 2,429 square feet of replacement commercial space is exempt from growth management while the remaining 3,560 square feet are subject to the requirements for new commercial space. Staff finds this criterion met. Compliance with requirements for new lodging units and commercial space are addressed in other sections of staff findings. Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 30/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings STAFF FINDINGS: GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW - REPLACEMENT OF DEMOLISHED MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS The replacement of demolished multi - family residential units shall be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter if the requirements of the Multi - Family Housing Replacement Program are met. (See Chapter 26.530 — Multi - Family Housing Replacement Program.) Replacement units shall not be deducted from the respective Annual Development Allotments of Development Ceiling Levels established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. The development of additional residential units, beyond those merely being replaced, shall be subject to this Chapter. Also see Reconstruction Limitations, Section 26.470.070 (taken from the 2005 printing of the Land Use Code). STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? The applicable code (2005 code) requires 50% of the demolished units, bedrooms, and net livable square footage of free - market residential portion of a building be replaced with on -site deed restricted affordable housing. The replacement units can be off -site or provide through a cash -in -lieu if certain conditions exist. The application proposes the replacement of the one affected unit (a managers apartment within the former Holland House Lodge) by housing 1.25 employees within the redeveloped Skier Chalet Steakhouse. Staff considers this on -site replacement as the Steakhouse is part of the overall project, being relocated and rehabilitated as part of the proposal, and will be located on a newly created parcel to be known as lot 2 of the Lift One Lodge subdivision. The amount of replacement housing meets the 50% requirement, which translates to .5 units, .5 bedrooms, and 489 square feet. The reconstruction credit was established as part of the Conceptual PUD review. Staff finds the project in conformance with the Residential Multi- Family Replacement Requirements. Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 31/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings STAFF FINDINGS: GROWTH MANAGEMENT — INCENTIVE LODGE DEVELOPMENT The development of new or expansion of existing free - market residential units within a mixed -use project shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria (2005 Land Use Code): a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the expansion, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.D, Annual Development Allotments. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposal requires allotments for lodging, affordable housing, free - market housing, and commercial space. All necessary allotments for the project have been requested and are available. The allotments are from the 2010 growth year as the application for final review was accepted in December 2010. Staff finds this criterion is met. b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Please see Staff's response to PUD review standard Al. Staff finds this criterion is met. c) The project contains a minimum of one lodge unit per five hundred (500) square feet of Lot Area and these lodge units average five hundred (500) square feet or less per unit. These two standards (the density standard and the unit -size standard) may be varied in some cases according to the limitations of the zone district in which the project is developed and still meet this criterion. (See zone district requirements.) Units developed in excess of those necessary to meet the Lot Area standard shall not be required to meet the average -size standard. For the expansion of a lodge which is not being demolished/redeveloped and which does not currently meet the Lot Area standard, only the average unit -size standard of the new units shall be required in order to meet this criterion. Projects not meeting the density or unit -size standard shall be reviewed pursuant to 26.470.040.C.2 — Expansion/New Commercial, Lodge, or Mixed Use Development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposal meets the "density" standard with one lodge key for each 230 s.f. of lot area and is in compliance with this criterion. The average size of the lodge rooms is 537 s.f., exceeding the 500 s.f. standard. This zone allows for an up to 10% increase in the average unit size (to 550 s.£) through Special Review. The application seeks special review approval. Assuming the special review is approved, staff finds this criterion met. Please see staff comments under Special Review. Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 32/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings d) Associated free - market residential development, as permitted pursuant to the zone district in which the lodge is developed, shall be allocated on a unit basis and attributed to the annual development allotment. Each unit shall require the provision of affordable housing mitigation by one of the following methods: i) Providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or a Carriage House for each residential unit pursuant to Section 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses. The unit need not be detached or entirely above grade to meet this criterion. ii) Providing on -site or off -site Affordable Housing Units equal to 30% of the free - market residential units (on a unit basis). The affordable housing units shall be one - bedroom or larger and be provided as actual units (not as a cash - in -lieu payment). Affordable housing units provided 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. Provision of affordable housing mitigation via units outside of the City of Aspen shall require approval from City Council, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.D.2. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. iii) Paying an affordable housing cash -in -lieu fee normally associated with exempt single - family and duplex development, pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Notes: The City encourages the affordable housing units required for the free - market residential development to be associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long -term viability of the lodge. An efficiency or reduction in the number of employees required for a lodge component of a Incentive Lodge project may be approved as a credit towards the mitigation requirement for the free - market component of the project, pursuant to Section 26.470.050.A.1 — Employee Generation. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The applicant has committed to meeting this criterion through option ii and the provision of affordable housing. The applicable requirement translates as a need to provide 1.2 one - bedroom units with each one - bedroom unit housing 1.75 employees. (1.2 one- bedroom units required x 1.75 FTEs housed per one - bedroom unit = 2.1 FTEs to be housed.) The proposal exceeds this requirement. The application has committed to exceeding the 30% affordable housing standard. A portion of the mitigation may be provided by affordable housing credits. This is a new program not in effect at the time the application was originally submitted. The credit program is equivalent to a developer providing built units and is preferred over cash -in -lieu. Staff finds this criterion met. Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 33/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings e) Thirty (30) percent of the employees generated by the additional lodge, timeshare lodge, exempt timeshare units, and associated commercial development, according Section 26.470.050.A, Employee Generation Rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash -in -lieu thereof. On -site affordable housing units shall be one - bedroom or larger units. Employee mitigation shall only be required for additional development and shall not be required for replacement development. The Planning and Zoning Commission may consider unique characteristics or efficiencies of the proposed operation and lower the mitigation requirements pursuant to Section 26.470.050.A.1 — Employee Generation. Affordable housing units provided 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. Provision of affordable housing mitigation via units outside of the City of Aspen shall require approval from City Council, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.D.2. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The additional 46 lodging keys (84 total minus 38 existing) requires the mitigation of 6.9 employees. The 3,560 additional commercial square feet (5,989 s.f. total minus 2,429 s.f. existing) requires mitigation of 3.38 employees. Together, the additional lodge and commercial space requires the mitigation of 10.28 employees. The project has committed to house 100% of the additional employees generated by the development or 34.27 employees, at a Category 4 or lower rate, some of which may utilize the City's affordable housing credit program. This far exceeds the requirements of the City and the requirements of this criterion. Staff finds this criterion met. f) 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: DOES IT COMPLY? YES. The project can be accommodated with existing public infrastructure. Some services are being upgraded by the applicant to address direct needs. No disproportionate public service burdens are expected. Staff finds this criterion met. Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 34/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings STAFF FINDINGS: CONDITIONAL USE FOR RESTAURANT/BAR, DORMITORY UNITS, AND COMMERCIAL PARKING FACILITY When considering a development application for a conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether all of the following standards are met, as applicable (the City Council is the final review authority for this Application): a) The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Community Plan, with the intent of the zone district in which is proposed to be located, and complies with all other applicable requirements of this title. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The restaurant and bar within the lodge, the dormitory affordable housing units, and the commercial parking facility are conditional uses in the Lodge zone. The purpose of the Lodge (L) Zone District is to encourage construction, renovation and operation of lodges, tourist - oriented multi - family buildings, high occupancy timeshare facilities and ancillary uses compatible with lodging to support and enhance the City's resort economy. Free - market residential units within this Zone District shall be permitted, but not required, to be used as short-term tourist accommodations. The City encourages high- occupancy lodging development in this zone district. Therefore, certain dimensional incentives are provided in this zone district, as well as other development incentives in Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS). [Land Use Code section 26.710.190.A.] The restaurant is a typical amenity of a hotel in this area. It is expected to serve guests of the lodge as well as the general public, especially during ski season. Staff expects this amenity of the lodge will enhance the viability of the lodge and Aspen's resort economy. In evaluating the potential to lease parking spaces to the general public, Staff feels that the commercial parking use will alleviate some of the on- street parking pressure in the area that has been building over the years due to the lack of off - street parking that has been provided in many of the older condo developments in the vicinity. Dormitory accommodations are appropriate for housing employees of the lodge on -site. It has been the City's experience that on -site employee housing, especially for hotel employees, are typically small units able to accommodate singles or roommate style living (as opposed to family units). Staff believes dormitory units are compatible with lodging operations and appropriate for this project. Staff believes this element of the project supports the resort economy. Regarding compliance with the AACP, please see Staff's response to PUD review standard Al. Staff finds this criterion is met. Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 35/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings b) The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The base of lift 1 has been used for lodging operations since the inception of skiing in Aspen. Many of these facilities have had restaurants and/or dormitory housing for employees within the lodge or in an adjacent building. The restaurant and dormitory units will enhance the mix of uses in the neighborhood and compliment the existing lodging, multi - family housing and recreation activities in the neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion met. c) The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES. The lodge is designed to accommodate service needs and deliveries from within the lodge's subgrade parking. This will minimize or eliminate any adverse effects of the restaurant use. The restaurant will be required to have modern venting and is not expected to create any undue smoke, odors, vibration or other adverse impacts on surrounding properties. Staff believes that the potential commercial parking that is proposed within the parking garage will not be visible or impact the circulation in the immediate area. The dormitory units are not expected to create undue adverse impacts such as vibration, odor, deliveries, etc.) on surrounding properties. Parking for the dorm units is within the proposed parking garage. Staff finds this criterion met. d) There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES. The project can be accommodated with existing public infrastructure. Some services are being upgraded by the applicant to address direct needs. No disproportionate public service burdens are expected. Staff finds this criterion met. Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 36/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings e) The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES. The employee housing demands for the restaurant have been factored into the overall project's housing mitigation requirement. No employee generation is expected from the dormitory units or the parking. Staff finds this criterion met. Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 37/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings STAFF FINDINGS: AMENDMENT TO THE ZONE DISTRICT MAP (REZONING) In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider (26.310.040): Note: There are several rezonings covered in this section. Portions of vacated streets are proposed for rezoning (Aspen zones property to the midpoint of streets). Those are Hill Street from Park Historic to Lodge, South Aspen Street adjacent to proposed Lot 2 from Park Historic to Affordable Housing Historic. The two parks are proposed for rezoning from Park to Public to accommodate the ski museum and underground parking. Finally, a PUD overlay on the entire project to reflect the PUD approval for the project. a) Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES. None of the proposed rezoning conflict with the Land Use Code. Staff finds this criterion met. b) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES. Please see Staff's response to PUD review standard Al. Staff finds this criterion is met. c) Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering the existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES. The surrounding area provides a mix of lodging, multi - family housing most of which is used for short-term accommodations, affordable housing, recreation uses and facilities, and active parks use. Most of the area is zoned Lodge. The two parks are zoned Park. The area south of this site is zoned Conservation, allowing a range of uses including residential. And, some Affordable Housing zoned land is in the vicinity. About half of the surrounding land is zoned with a PUD overlay. The proposed zoning will allow development similar in use and intensity as the surrounding development. Staff considers the proposed zoning compatible with the surrounding zone districts and existing land uses. Also see PUD review standard A.2. staff finds this criterion met. d) The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES. Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 38/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings This rezoning standard is also covered under PUD review standards. A transportation study for the project was submitted with the application. The transportation study indicates that the area's streets and intersections are currently operating below capacity and will continue to do so even after the lodge has been built and are open for business. The report includes other projects that could affect the overall transportation patterns and found `no perceptible difference' from current traffic conditions. All parking will be below the buildings. In addition, South Aspen Street will be reconstructed and use a rougher surface for enhanced winter traction. Staff finds this criterion 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: DOES IT COMPLY? YES. The project can be accommodated with existing public infrastructure. Some services are being upgraded by the applicant to address direct needs. The project proposes significant improvements to the area's pedestrian access and parking. Significant upgrades of the areas storm water system are proposed. No disproportionate public service burdens are expected. Staff finds this criterion met. 0 Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES. No adverse effects on the natural environment as a result of this rezoning have been identified by staff or referral agencies. Upgrades to storm water drainage systems are expected to minimize adverse effects on the natural environment. Locating lodging facilities within walking distance of typical tourist attractions (downtown, skiing) and within walking distance to existing transit makes better use of existing resources and minimize adverse effects on the natural environment. The project itself is proposed as a LEEDs Gold project, significantly minimizing energy requirements. Staff finds this criterion met. g) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES. Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 39/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings The rezoning and the project will enhance the neighborhood's short-term accommodation history and character. The area has long been a place for tourist accommodations and this rezoning will allow development consistent with the character of the community. The area is the original base of Aspen Mountain and contains a nationally recognized historic resource related to the emergence of skiing in North America. The area has been planned for a skiing museum for two decades to celebrate the emergence of Aspen as an international ski resort and this plan will assist in that vision. Staff believes this criterion is met. h) Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES A public vote in 1991 supported a ski museum within Willoughby Park. To accomplish this, the zoning should be changed to a zone permitting museum use. Staff is recommending Public as it reflects the public ownership and usage of the parcel and permits the museum. Other rezonings are supported by the adopted Conceptual approval of the project. i) Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff does not foresee any conflict with the public interest and believes the requested zoning changes are in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Land Use Code. Staff finds this criterion met. Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 40/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings STAFF FINDINGS: SPECIAL REVIEW The Planning and Zoning Commission may approve an adjustment of the "density standard" and the "unit -size standard" and the project shall remain qualified for the height, Floor Area, and Growth Management incentives associated with these standards. The review shall be pursuant to the review procedures for Special Review, Chapter 26.430, and the following criteria (taken from the 2005 printing of the Land Use Code, and City Council is the final review authority for this application): a) The density standard may be amended by a maximum of 10% to one lodge unit per 550 square feet of Lot Area. The average unit -size standard may be amended by a maximum of 10% to permit an average unit size of 550 square feet. An adjustment in excess of these increases may be approved through adoption of a PUD plan, but the project shall no longer be qualified for associated incentives. b) The project includes a generous amount of non -unit spaces, amenities, and services for guests of the lodging operation. This can include both internal and external amenities.. c) The project provides a range of unit sizes and configurations to be attractive to a broad segment of potential guests. Flexible units are encouraged. d) There exists a system or strategy for the project to maximize short-term occupancies. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposal meets the density standard with one lodge unit per 230 square feet of lot area and requests amendment to the unit size standard to permit the average unit size of 537 square feet. The project does include a generous amount of on -site amenity and services, with a restaurant/bar, fitness facility, business center, public ski lockers, and a rooftop pool and deck. The project includes a wide range of unit sizes and configurations, making it more resilient or sustainable through economic and market changes. The project is proposed as a fractional ownership providing an operational plan to maximize usage by owners and the general public. Staff believes the project is very responsive to the standards and finds the project in compliance with these criteria. The Applicant is also requested an increase to the amount of floor area within the lodge which is devoted to the individual lodge units and commercial uses. This increase must receive a Special Review approval based upon the criteria listed in Section 26.430.040.A, Special Review. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met: e) The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 41/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff does believe the project has been designed appropriately with respect to mass, scale, height, open space, view planes, and landscape treatment. The project provides a physical presence that will enhance the character of the surrounding land uses consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. Also see staff findings under Planned Unit Development. Staff finds this criterion met. 0 The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts including, but not limited to, the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood, or blocking of a designated view plane. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The project is being reviewed concurrently for compliance with the Wheeler View Plane restrictions. Staff believes the project is in compliance with the view plane. Traffic impacts are apparent as the existing neighborhood has several large parcels sitting fallow, but those impacts are expected to be negligible according to the traffic report. Parking availability is addressed through the provision of public parking within the project. Massing and scale issues of the project are addressed through the Planned Unit development criteria and staff is supportive of the proposed dimensions. Staff finds the project in compliance with this criterion. Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 42/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings STAFF FINDINGS: MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE The Lift 1 Lodge site is impacted by one of the City of Aspen Mountain View Planes — the Wheeler Opera House View Plane. This view plane intersects the site at Gilbert Street. No development shall be permitted within a mountain view plane unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below (the City Council is the final review authority for this application): a) No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided in Section.435.050. C.2. When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable building height otherwise provided for in this title, development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445 as a planned unit development, so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian space, and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height requirements, view plane height limitations. The Planning and Zoning Commission may exempt any developer from the above enumerated requirements whenever it is determined that the view plan does not so effect the parcel as to require application of PUD or that the effects of the view plane may be otherwise accommodated. When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane, and the likelihood that the redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to reopen the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane, and re- redevelopment to re -open the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall approve the development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES. Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 43/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings The view plane intersects the ground just north of the project site. Development within designated mountain view planes is subject to heightened review, not expressly prohibited. This particular view plane was arguably created to regulate development in the foreground so as to preserve views from the Wheeler to the mountain. In this instance, the code requires development to proceed through a PUD review. This allows flexibility in the design to minimize the effects on the view plane while recognizing the rights of the property owner. The project is being reviewed as a PUD, which permits variation in the dimensions of the building as well as relief from the restrictions of the view plane. In ever other similar situation where development has been proposed in the neighborhood above the view plane line, the development has been reviewed as a PUD and approved after discussing trade -offs of design, program, visual and other neighborhood or community impacts, and the value of the particular view being affected. In many of those case, the resulting impact on the view plane has been more substantial than is proposed in this case. Intrusions into the view plane considered insignificant have been permitted. Lastly, the actual impact of the proposal is minimized by intervening development and vegetation such that the project may not actually be seen from the sidewalk in front of the Wheeler. The following pictures were taken on a site visit during conceptual review after height flags and construction equipment were erected demonstrating heights of the proposed development. The height representations were of the larger conceptual project (using the upper SkiCo oproperty). The project has been reduced in scope and scale and staff believes the affects on the view plane have diminished since conceptual review. Considering the history of administering this view plane and the minimal or no actual affect on the view from the Wheeler sidewalk, staff believes this standard is met. Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 44/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings i STAFF FINDINGS: CONDOMINIUMIZATION Section 26.480.090.A of the City Land Use Code provides technical criteria for development applications including condiminiumization for the sale of fractional ownership interests. The criteria in this Section address technical standards and provisions that must be incorporated on the subdivision plat. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY The plats and submissions for Condominiumization require a substantial portion of the project be completed. The Applicant will be required submit these documents once this level of construction has been achieved. Staff is recommending the approval grant the right to condominiumize the project subject to a condo plat being reviewed and recorded. With a condition of approval, staff finds this standard met. Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 45/45 Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings ,l n IN N 1 t ` ;t r p d ,,,, c LL.. v c:s1 00 N J cu c O w J \ i 1 i I ., L__ 1____. 1 1 `E -. L_I II rF H 1. I f t , ---- , i • + I - ..— 1 1 - • � .ter - O r N ro W al CA CA 1 0 .- 1 1 N o 1 i o a N 03 It] Y ..:',, ,-;1;0: a) per" °.;1; O 1 f -�I I i. r.- , �,` 1 A J I .w a) s c 1 , 1 1 I , n' Vii!;. i 0 1 . � . e ,1* , _ J ■ \ riaitic ', e _ CO ..�tiggi 1 'It 7 :.err ' - v ii i II .s 4 1 4 1 ti 1 -- .„-s4-4,, l '7121, 1 i 11111 i ll: :1 1 1 . 'l m om l 1 li. ti . r I i .i' I� �, 1 1: FI/ ♦ A `11 1 � 1 * 1;11', p 1 . l v -, . 1 11 _ _ i � t ' . '": " I r�i IIII I j C , - . 0 :�4 II I 0 Ill � ! I ! 1111 ' 111111 e%f — a� ,1 '�' 111 I ;. 9 11 - v •— r'1 ."�.° n' `' '• , E a t T.i,; i . I � , ' ,,rtI . , , t IIIVIII • y , . .a+ ,: : ILJ � ti� : iee ,.: , , 1 l .w` a NI 1.0 D o a MI C LL a) cn 0 J C 0 J M r ij 1 -1 7 CO ) - r r - 1 i r -- -_Jt 1 I 1 X Ip aF. 1 W W ■ L .. 1 0 1 c L ! itr vilr . 0 1 cc 1 , I I � . I Y P 1 I h. I 1 mine taffi 4 - -J L - - Eri irii1U1! 9f�l+I �d!nEln_nnrmfln: k; ;:' 6 u ( . . „.‘,ts:,,,,,,.., i 'Kr I � . I s caw 1 in i I 'I 1lZt ;11 :Is 1, tit* _ .� 1-- ' - (1 ;3e' fi r, - t ,. I! Z P r O 1 i �il1C I k 11 ik C i 4) W 01 H � co) 2 O d 7/7/2011 Honoring Aspen's Past Embracing Aspen's Future Lift One Lodge Final PUD 07.05.11 pass - _ — 1 Heights - 42' N \ — 38' ,., — 6 j ! ...., i IA ir .._ .. . , ,. ._ _._ _ .,.., .: T ----- : , -.1 ---, , r` a -0 _ _ _ _ 07.05.11 pass Lift One Lodge Final PUD f, I I 1 1 21 1 15.. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner <M RE: 861 Ute Ave - Residential Design Standards Variance, - Public Hearing DATE: July 5, 2011 APPLICANT /OWNER• Photo of Subject Prope : Laguna Sierra, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: i ` - \ David Johnston, David t * "- . *till Johnston Architects, PC I .< \ LOCATION: '' '. - - "" f lOrTo * Lot 11, Ute Addition to the ���'' - ,; ! \^ ' City and Townsite of Aspen. + The property is located on - '`` ,, the corner of Ute Avenue and' , ' , South Alps Road. CURRENT ZONING: R -6 PUD, Medium Density , Residential with a Planned Unit Development overlay SUMMARY: The Applicant requests a a variance from the Secondary Mass Residential Design ; , „- Standard. t ' 1 ' • STAFF RECOMMENDATION: J',. I Staff recommends denial of • *a- pi the requested Residential A ii Design Standard Variance. South _. Alps ' - _4 _ _ _ __ a' - - Rd. Ute Ave LAND USE REQUESTS: The Applicant is currently constructing a new single - family residence at 861 Ute Avenue. The current building plan meets all the Residential Design Standards, but the new owner would like to request a variance from the Secondary Mass requirement, as outlined below: • 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.B.1, Building Form, Secondary Mass (requires 10% of a building mass to be located in a detached structure, or attached with a subordinate linking element). The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority. REVIEW PROCEDURE: A variance from the 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 requesting a variance from the Secondary Mass requirement for a new single - family home. In January of 2007, the previous homeowner decided to demolish the existing structure and build a new single - family home on the property. As part of their design, the owner requested two (2) Residential Design Standard Variances — one from Secondary Mass and the other from the garage width standard (26.410.040.C.2.a requires the living area to be five feet greater in width than the garage). The owner requested Administrative variances, which were denied by the Community Development Department'. The owner decided to redesign the project rather than appeal the decision. The original home design was submitted for building permit in the fall of 2007, and a permit was received in January of 2011. The current owner purchased the property in January 2011, and hired David Johnston Architects, PC to make some modifications to the design. While the current property owners have a valid and active building permit for a new single - family home, they are requesting a variance from the Secondary Mass requirement. 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, and the approved building permit meets all the residential design standards. The requested variance is to the Secondary Mass requirement. The Applicant's Secondary Mass is their garage, which ' A copy of the 2007 variance request is attached as Exhibit C. No formal denial was issued by the Community Development Department, as the applicant decided to end the application after learning that staff was not going to grant the requests. under the R -6 zone district is considered an accessory building. Accessory buildings must be at least five (5) feet from the primary structure. A secondary mass may be connected to the primary structure by a linking element that is no more than ten feet in length and width and with a plate height of no more than nine feet. Below is a plan drawing of the approved building plans with the five foot distance. The blue area is the main house, the red is the garage, or secondary mass, and the orange is the linking element. This plan meets the Residential Design Standards because of the five -foot "void space" between the main house and the secondary mass. a Secondary Mass Main House (Primary Structure) (Accessory Structure) g. 9«d. DAD T e r I .i . . o r; Linking Element 9' -62 • V © South Alps Road (Private Road) Below is a rendering from the Application illustrating the "void space" as seen by someone walking or driving east on Ute Avenue. The "void space" is located behind the secondary mass, so it is not entirely visible from the street. The top drawing illustrates the approved building permit, with the five foot "void space." The bottom drawing represents the requested variance without the required "void space." This drawing is also in the Application as Exhibit 13. II • ]i f i . ' d 32_ X4 0 � si ' -# >� , : With "void space" y1_ _ _ - Area of focus 1 p Without "void space" ce" 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: Staff does not believe the requested variance meets the variance criteria. The Ute Avenue neighborhood include diverse building types, including The Gant, single family homes in the 1010 Ute PUD, the Benedict Office Building, the Tenth Mountain Division affordable housing, and the Aspen Club and Spa. Staff believes that the diverse buildings . contribute to the character of the neighborhood, but do not include a specific context that necessitates a variance from the standard. In addition, staff does not believe there are any unusual site - specific constraints that warrant the variance. The lot is approximately 5,200 square feet in size. The current design meets the letter and intent of the code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the request does not meet the variance review standards that are set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.410.040 D, Variances. Staff recommends a denial of the request. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2011, approving a variance request from the Secondary Mass requirement of the Residential Design Standards to construct a single - family residence located at 861 Ute Ave." ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Staff Findings Exhibit B: Application Exhibit C: 2007 Variance Application Exhibit A: Staff Findings Section 26.410.020 (D)(2): Residential Design Standard Variances 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: Staff does not believe the requested variance meets the variance criteria. The Ute Avenue neighborhood include diverse building types, including The Gant, single family homes in the 1010 Ute PUD, the Benedict Office Building, the Tenth Mountain Division affordable housing, and the Aspen Club and Spa. Staff believes that the diverse buildings contribute to the character of the neighborhood, but do not include a specific context that necessitates a variance from the standard. In addition, staff does not believe there are any unusual site - specific constraints that warrant the variance. The lot is approximately 5,200 square feet in size. The current design meets the letter and intent of the code. Staff finds that the review criteria are not met. • rxhlbl C al law ma GRETCHEN GREENWOOD & ASSOCIATES, INC. _ /ll� 1111 ARCHITECTURE • INTERIOR DESIGN • PLANNING P4.7 I .. 1 ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 7. Written Description of the Proposal and how the development complies with the Residential Design Standards This application seeks an administrative review for two of the individual requirements of the Residential Design Standards Due to unusual site specifics. BACKGROUND Lot 1 1 Ute Addition, (86 I Ute Avenue) is a lot bordered on the North by Ute Avenue, to the West by the Black Swan Condominiums and to the East and South by pnvate property owned by the Aspen Alps Condominiums. Adjacent to the east property line of Lot 1 1 , sits private property owned by the Aspen Alps Condominium Association and further to the east is the Aspen Alps Road (a private road). This is shown on the condominium map enclosed in this application. Lot 1 I currently has a house of 2,193 Sq.Ft. with driveway access off of Lite Avenue. The development plan is to demolish the residence and build a single family 2,966 Sq.Ft. residence with the same access off Ute Avenue. VARIANCE REQUESTS This application seeks an administrative review for two of the individual requirements of the Residential Design Standards based on the development context as stated in 26.4 1 0.020(D) I a. it b. Due to unusual site specific conditions. I . A vanances for the Residential Design Standard 26.4 (B) I Secondary Mass: Required access for this Lot I I is currently off Ute Avenue, due to private property bordering the south, east and west sides of the lot. The Aspen Alps Condominium Association owns land bordenng the east and south sides of Lot 1 1 . The Aspen Alps Road (a pnvate road) sits further to the east of Lot 1 I and provides access to the Aspen Alps condominiums. This road is private and due to the pnvate property bordenng Lot I I on the east, access for Lot I 1 from the east property line is not allowed. To the south of Lot I I , the property is owned as well by the Aspen Alps, and there is no road or alley allowing access to Lot I I from the south. The west side of the property borders the Black Swan Condominium Association and access to the property is not allowed from that pnvate property as well. 520 WALNUT STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • TEL: 970/925 • FAX: 970/925-7490 • ggreenwooditIggaaspen.com Page 2 Therefore, the front yard of the proposed house along with the garage access is proposed to remain, as it always has been, off Ute Avenue. In order to minimize the presence of a garage from the Ute Avenue streetscape, the proposed design recesses the garage 26' -0" back from the property line, and 40' -0' back from the edge of the asphalt of the street. Because the only areess to the garage and the front door of the residence is from Ute Avenue, this proposed design puts the facade under the house creating a positive streetscape from Ute Avenue. The garage meets the criteria of 1 0'-0" feet back from the front of the building, shielding the garage facade from Ute Avenue approaching from the east and west. With the garage recessed, this design allows the entry of the house to be a dominant element and further shields the garage facade from the streetscape. The recessed garage does not allow for a semi detached garage secondary mass form to be constructed on the property. If a secondary garage mass was developed, as shown in the Residential Design Standards, it would have to sit 10 ` -0" off of Ute Avenue, creating a negative streetscape for pedestrians and vehicles as the garage doors would be very visible. Although not required, the recessed garage allows for additional parking for the residence of 2 more vehicles over and above the 2 parking spaces required. Ute Avenue is a desirable area for parking for skiers, employees, etc. and 2 additional off street parking spaces would be an asset for the neighborhood. Therefore, by having to access the lot off of Ute Ave. and recessing the garage without creating a secondary mass for the garage provides a positive and better streetscape, more open space on Ute Ave. and meets the intent of the Residential Design Standards. 2. A variance for the Residential Design Standard 26.4 10.040 (C) 2.a. Lot I f is a substandard size lot at 50' -0" x I00' -0". The 50 foot dimension is the north property line that borders Ute Avenue. With the required access for Lot 1 1 off Ute Avenue, and the width of the Lot being 50 feet, the proposed 22' -O" width of the recessed garage does not allow the standard regarding that the living room of the first floor be 5' -O" greater than the width of the garage. With the second floor of the residence, this standard is met, as the second floor of the residence sits above the recessed garage. Another part of this standard is met, by the garage facade recessed 10' -0" back from the front facade of the house and 16' -0" from the front of the one story element/porch. r' ., Page 3 Due to the substandard lot size and recfuired access, the combination of these two variances work to meet the intent of the Residential Design Standards, by creating a streetscape that 15 more desirable for the pedestrian. Section 26.4 10.010 (A) of the code state the purpose of the design standards 15 to preserve established neighborhood scale and character" With the house and garage sitting between the Black Swan Condominiums and the Aspen Alps Tennis Courts, we believe that the design as proposed fits the neighborhood scale and character. All other residential design standards for the residence are met.