Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.council.regular.20190325
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA March 25, 2019 5:00 PM I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Scheduled Public Appearances IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT scheduled for a public hearing. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes) V. Special Orders of the Day a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments b) Agenda Amendments c) City Manager's Comments d) Board Reports VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion) a) Resolution # 34, Series of 2019 - IGA for Mental Health Service Contract b) Resolution #36, Series of 2019 - Spring and Main Intersection Improvements Project c) Resolution #41, Series of 2019, regarding a Release and Settlement Agreement in the case of 119 Neale Avenue LLC v. City of Aspen, Pitkin County Case 2017CV30131 d) Board Appointments e) Minutes - February 25 and March 11, 2019 VII. Notice of Call-Up VIII. First Reading of Ordinances a) Ordinance #4, Series 2019 - 465 and 557 N. Mill Street Rezoning IX. Public Hearings a) Resolution #36, Series of 2019 - 660 S. Galena Street - 8040 Greenline Review, Dimensional Variances X. Action Items XI. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting April 08, 2019 COUNCIL’S ADOPTED GUIDELINES · Make Decisions Based on 30 Year Vision · Tone and Tenor Matter · Remember Where We’re Living and Why We’re Here P1 COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. P2 Page 1 of 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Richard Pryor, Chief of Police DATE OF MEMO: March 13, 2019 MEETING DATE: March 25, 2019 RE: Resolution # 034, Series of 2019, Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement between Pitkin County, Aspen Valley Hospital, Aspen School District and City of Aspen for Mental Health and Substance Use Services REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests approval of Resolution # 034, Series of 2019 (Attachment “A”), authorizing the execution of a 1-year intergovernmental agreement (Attachment “B”) between Pitkin County, Aspen Valley Hospital, Aspen School District, and City of Aspen to offer mental health and substance use services to Pitkin County by Mind Springs Health in collaboration with Mountain Family Health Centers. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In December 2017 Council approved an initial IGA for calendar year 2018 bringing together multiple community stakeholders and respective funding to collaborate with a single vendor, Mind Springs Health to provide a “Mental Health Continuum of Care.” In years prior to 2018, the Council had granted funds to multiple Aspen-area non-profit organizations providing mental health and substance abuse prevention and treatment services in the community. BACKGROUND: As stated by Pitkin County Health and Human Services staff, “…mental health and substance use have long been identified as the most significant health issues facing the people who live, work and play in Pitkin County. High rates of suicide, mixed messages surrounding the promotion of our ‘party town’, high rates of depression and anxiety, sleep disturbances, financial pressures, lack of psychiatric care, lack of specialized support for marginalized populations and the high cost of treatment, as well as other issues have inspired several different non-profit and private providers to try to step up and respond. The result has been a community perception of a fragmented and uncoordinated system of care.” 2018 saw the implementation of a contract with Mind Springs Health to provide a Mental Health Continuum of Care. Funding stakeholders (Pitkin County, City of Aspen, Aspen School District & Aspen Valley Hospital) and operational managers have been overseeing the implementation of services on a regular basis, ensuring this transition to a new model has been as successful as possible. P3 VI.a Page 2 of 4 In 2018 the IGA specifically addressed deficiencies initially identified in 2017 by the stakeholder group (Pitkin County, City of Aspen, Aspen Community Foundation, Aspen School District, Aspen Ski Company, and Colorado Mountain College.) Those gaps included: · Available care · Inconsistent coordination between partners for delivery of care · Missed opportunities to capture funding through Medicaid and private billing · Multiple providers seeking funding from the same funders · Lack of consistent data on the impact of grant funding awarded to mental health programs DISCUSSION: Mind Springs Health in partnership with Mountain Family Health Centers has been working as the contracted vendor. Stakeholders met regularly throughout 2018 to develop and refine outcome measurements to ensure effective implementation of the system of care. Attachment “C” is a presentation provided to the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday February 12th, 2019 at a work session to review the success of the program as implemented to date. Highlights are as follows: · Implementation of the first full time mental health therapist at the Aspen School District · Creation of the Rapid-Response Mobile Unit Program · Significant reduction in crisis response times both for law enforcement partners and Aspen Valley Hospital down from ~76 minutes to 42 minutes (32 minutes at AVH). · Enhanced capacity in: o Case management o Psychiatric medication management o Tele-psych access o Crisis services o Integrated health care § An increase from 816 to 1436 unduplicated clients between 2016 & 2018 § An increase from 8338 to 10,126 instances of services provided between 2016 & 2018 § 0 clients transferred from AVH to jail in 2018 The same partnership is to be continued through 2019 as defined in the IGA, at the same cost as in 2018 with the same services, listed below: Community Mental Health-$171,468 · 1.0 FTE Licensed Therapist: Rapid Response Mobile Unit Team Member- intensive, community based, outpatient treatment focused on high risk individuals who might not come into a clinic setting. Includes case management, therapy services and 1/3 cost of a vehicle. Intensive Stabilization Program Team Member- after crisis intervention, serve as a bridge between crisis services and standard outpatient services. · 1.0 FTE Case Manager: Rapid Response Mobile Unit Team Member (see above). Intensive Stabilization Program Team Member (see above). P4 VI.a Page 3 of 4 · 60 Hours/year of Advanced Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner time for jail: individuals who need mental health interventions but did not meet the state’s JBBS criteria. Nurse can prescribe to individuals needing medication management. Integrated Care Program - $197,818 · 2.0 FTE Behavioral Health Specialists: This staff will work in the MFHC Basalt Clinic and expand the current behavioral health program there. They will provide outpatient (6 sessions) services for families, substance use disorders, trauma, hypnosis, animal assisted and other evidence-based therapies. · 2.0 FTE Patient Care Coordinators: will work in the MFHC Basalt Clinic, one will be a patient educator, and the other a social health advocate. The patient educator will advocate for the patient and family, facilitating culturally appropriate communication between patient and providers and will identify and decrease barriers to behavior change and improve access to needed services. The social health advocate will provide care coordination to patients who are at most risk for health deterioration sentinel events and/or poor outcomes. The social health advocate will assess the determinants of health and assist the patient in addressing barriers and increase access to services. · Tele psych (4 hours) virtual meeting with psychiatrist School Based Therapists – $118,715 · 1.0 FTE Aspen School District Therapist: on-site student and family therapy and consultation with school staff to facilitate assessment by a multidisciplinary team available to all three schools · .6 FTE Basalt Schools, Roaring Fork School District School-Based Health Center Therapist: available to all three schools, focus on students with depression, trauma and/or anxiety, substance use At the time of writing, the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners has approved the IGA at Second Reading and Public Hearing on March 13th, 2019. The Aspen School District and Aspen Valley Hospital have yet to approve this IGA. P5 VI.a Page 4 of 4 FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: This intergovernmental agreement is for a second year of service. Pitkin County will serve as the fiscal agent through the Public Health Department and a single contract has been executed with Mind Springs Health as the lead agency for $488,000. Mind Springs Health will then subcontract to Mountain Family Health Centers. Participating members agree to provide 2019 funding in the same amount as their 2018 contributions. Aspen School District $40,000 Aspen Valley Hospital $73,275 City of Aspen $70,550 Pitkin County Healthy Community Fund $304,507 Total $488,332 Additionally, Pitkin County is providing office space at no cost at the Schultz Health and Human Services building and Aspen School District is providing office space for a school therapist at the Aspen Middle School at no cost. Pitkin County is also rolling its mental health therapy contribution to a school-based health center in Basalt, CO into this scope. It should be noted that City Council continues to fund approximately $99,000 per annum for the Human Services Officer (HSO) position within the Aspen Police Department. The HSO works closely with at-risk populations, including individuals with mental health conditions and has a very close working relationship with Mind Springs Health in implementing aspects of the Mental Health Continuum of Care as well as the recently funded Co-Responder Program. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council enter into the intergovernmental agreement and provide Pitkin County, as fiscal agent, payment of $70,550. ALTERNATIVES: City Council could elect to revert to a system of fragmented funding to mental health and substance use organizations or could elect to not distribute funds to any organization. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Resolution # 034, Series of 2019 Attachment B: Proposed Intergovernmental Agreement Attachment C: Mental Health Collaborative Presentation P6 VI.a Attachment “A” RESOLUTION NO 034 SERIES OF 2019 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL, ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO FOR MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE USE SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID DOCUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council an intergovernmental agreement for mental health and substance use services, a copy of which document is annexed hereto and made a part thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves an intergovernmental agreement between the City of Aspen, Aspen Valley Hospital, Aspen School District, and Pitkin County for mental health and substance use services, a copy of which document is annexed hereto, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said document on behalf of the City of Aspen. RESOLVED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ____ th day of March 2019, by the City Council for the City of Aspen, Colorado. ___________________________ Steven Skadron, Mayor I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held March ____, 2019. _____________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk P7 VI.a Attachment “B” INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROVIDED BY MIND SPRINGS HEALTH AND MOUNTAIN FAMILY HEALTH SERVICES THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made this ______ day of ____________________, 2019 by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, whose address is 530 East Main Street, Suite 302 Aspen, Colorado 81611 ("the County”) and Aspen Valley Hospital ("AVH'), Aspen School District (“ASD"), and the City of Aspen. (“COA"), and hereinafter severally referred to by name or collectively as the "Participating Members". RECITALS WHEREAS, This Agreement is entered into pursuant to, inter alia, C.R.S. §§ 29-1-201, et seq., and Article XIV, Section 18 of the Colorado Constitution. WHEREAS, Mental Health and Substance Use (“Mental Health”) were again identified in the 2017 Regional Community Health Assessment as the top health priority to address for those who live, work, and play in Pitkin County. High rates of suicide, mixed messages surrounding the promotion of a “party town”, high rates of depression and anxiety, sleep disturbances, financial pressures, lack of psychiatric care, lack of specialized support for marginalized populations and the high cost of treatment, as well as other issues have inspired a number of different non-profit and private providers to step up and respond. Although there are many assets within the community along the continuum of care (prevention, intervention, treatment, aftercare), gaps still remain in the continuum, and some of our most vulnerable, fall through the cracks. WHEREAS, Funding stakeholders of Pitkin County engaged in a focused strategic planning process in 2017 with the purpose of rapidly improving access to Mental Health programs and services by changing the way funding is allocated to programs. These Funders (Pitkin County, Aspen School District, Aspen Valley Hospital – “Participating Members”) have committed to using funding strategically to strengthen the system of care and improve service delivery. WHEREAS, Participating Members agreed to collectively pool their funding in 2018 to support a Mental Health Services proposal submitted by Mind Springs Health and Mountain Family Health Services (“Vendor”) for specified community mental health, crisis stabilization, integrated behavioral health care and school based services. WHEREAS, in 2018, Participating Members participated in quarterly Steering Committees with the Vendor. The Vendor convened funder organization staff monthly to participate in both a medical/law enforcement operations group, and a school-based operations group. Key Performance Metrics were designed and reported on during Steering Committee meetings. P8 VI.a Attachment “B” WHEREAS, Participating Members have agreed to renew the same contract with the current Vendor, at the same funding levels from each organization. WHEREAS, Participating Members do hereby collectively determine and declare that this Intergovernmental Agreement is necessary, proper and convenient for the continued fostering and preservation of the public health, safety and wellbeing. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements of the parties and other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. Effect of IGA. Except as expressly provided herein, this IGA shall replace and supersede all prior agreements of any kind between all or any of the Participating Members and any or all other Participating members hereto, to the extent and for the limited purpose as such other agreements may be related to the provision of funding collaborative and integrated mental health and substance abuse prevention, intervention, crisis stabilization, treatment and case management programs. 2. Fiscal Agent. Pitkin County agrees to be the fiscal agent providing payment to Mind Springs Health (and Mountain Family Health Centers) in the amount of $488,000 in 2019 for collaborative and integrated mental health and substance use prevention, intervention, crisis stabilization, treatment, and case management programs per the contract and approved in the County's 2019 budget (See Exhibit A- Mental Health Services 2019 Scope of Work). Once invoiced by Pitkin County in Quarter one, Participating Members agree to pay in full. 3. Funding Allocation. The Participating Members agree to provide funding in return for collaborative and integrated mental health and substance use prevention, intervention, crisis stabilization, treatment and case management programs as follows. By October each year Mind Springs Health (and Mountain Family Health Centers) will provide the County with a budget to fund collaborative and integrated mental health and substance use prevention, intervention, crisis stabilization, treatment, and case management programs for the next fiscal year. The share for each entity will be determined as follows: a. In-Kind Contributions: i. Pursuant to an annual lease agreement with Mind Springs Health, Pitkin County shall provide, at no cost, space in the Schultz Health and Human Services Building to Mind Springs Health for collaborative and integrated mental health and substance use prevention, intervention, crisis stabilization, treatment and case management programs. The value of this space is recognized as $59,766 per year. ii. Aspen School District shall provide, at no cost, space in the Aspen Middle School for Mind Springs Health a youth and family clinician. The value of this space is recognized as $45,000 per year. P9 VI.a Attachment “B” b. Cash Funding: i. Aspen Valley Hospital agrees to pay $73,275 of the provision of collaborative and integrated mental health and substance use prevention, intervention, crisis stabilization, treatment and case management programs provided by the Vendor. ii. Aspen School District agrees to pay $40,000 for the provision of a school based youth and family clinician provided by the Vendor. iii. City of Aspen agrees to pay $70,550 for the provision of collaborative and integrated mental health and substance use, prevention, intervention, crisis stabilization, treatment and case management programs provided by the Vendor. iv. Pitkin County agrees to pay $304,507 for the provision of collaborative and integrated mental health and substance use prevention, intervention, crisis stabilization, treatment and case management programs provided by the Vendor. 4. Quality Assurance. Participating Members are committed to working together to ensure that relevant performance measures are utilized for the purpose of on-going evaluation of services in accordance with the developed 2019 Key Performance Indicators. a. Pitkin County Public Health will be responsible for contract compliance with the Vendor. b. The Steering Committee agrees to meet bi-annually to review performance measures, financial expenditure and budget compliance. c. Participating Members agree to assign staff to participate in formal quarterly operational groups (protocols, issues, needs, communication, debriefs, etc.) with the Vendor. d. Participating Members agree to commit staff to participate in rapid case debrief outside of the quarterly operations groups. e. Participating Members agree to support by gathering key performance indicators necessary from the perspective of each member's operations. 5. Term and Extensions. This Agreement shall commence upon the date first written above, and shall continue through the 30th day of December 2019. This Agreement may be extended for successive one-year terms upon mutual written agreement of the parties 10 days prior to the expiration date. 6. Assignability. This agreement is not assignable by either party. 7. Modification. This Agreement may be changed or modified only in writing, by an agreement approved by the respective Boards of the Governments and signed by authorized officers of each party. P10 VI.a Attachment “B” 8. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties and all other promises and agreements relating to the subject of this Agreement, whether oral or written, are merged herein. 9. Severability. Should any one or more sections or provisions of this Agreement be judicially adjudged invalid or unenforceable, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remaining provisions of this Agreement, the intention being that the various sections and provisions hereof are severable. 10. Termination Prior to Expiration of Term. Any Party has the right to terminate or withdraw from this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving written notice to the other Parties of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. Such notice shall be given at least ten (10) days before the effective date of such termination. Termination of the Agreement relieves the cancelling or withdrawing Party of any further responsibility under this Agreement except for specifically identified obligations of a continuing nature based upon past performance under the Agreement. 11. Notice. Any notice required or permitted under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be provided by electronic delivery to the e-mail addresses set forth below and by one of the following methods 1) hand-delivery or 2) registered or certified mail, postage pre-paid to the mailing addresses set forth below. Each party by notice sent under this paragraph may change the address to which future notices should be sent. Electronic delivery of notices shall be considered delivered upon receipt of confirmation of delivery on the part of the sender. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to preclude personal service of any notice in the manner prescribed for personal service of a summons or other legal process. To: Pitkin County With copies to: Jon Peacock, County Manager Pitkin County Attorney’s Office 530 East Main Street, Ste. 302 530 East Main Street, Ste. 30 Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611 Jon.peacock@pitkincounty.com attorney@pitkincounty.com To: Aspen Valley Hospital With copies to: Dave Ressler, Chief Executive Officer Aspen Valley Hospital Attorney 0401 Castle Creek Road 0401 Castle Creek Road Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611 DRessler@aspenhospital.org attorney@aspenhospital.org To: City of Aspen With copies to: Sara Ott, Interim City Manager City of Aspen Attorney 130 South Galena Street 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611 sara.ott@cityofaspen.com attorney@cityofaspen.com P11 VI.a Attachment “B” To: Aspen School District With copies to: John Maloy, Superintendent Aspen School District Attorney 235 High School Road 235 High School Road Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611 jmaloy@aspenk12.net attorney@aspenk12.net 12. Government Immunity. The parties agree and understand that both parties are relying on and do not waive, by any provisions of this Agreement, the monetary limitations or terms or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. 24-10-101, et seq., as from time to time amended or otherwise available to the parties or any of their officers, agents, or employees. 13. Current Year Obligations. The parties acknowledge and agree that any payments provided for hereunder or requirements for future appropriations shall constitute only currently budgeted expenditures of the parties. The parties’ obligations under this Agreement are subject to each individual party’s annual right to budget and appropriate the sums necessary to provide the services set forth herein. No provision of this Agreement shall be construed or interpreted as creating a multiple fiscal year direct or indirect debt or other financial obligation of either or both parties within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory debt limitation. This Agreement shall not be construed to pledge or create a lien on any class or source of either parties’ bonds or any obligations payable from any class or source of each individual party’s money. 14. Binding Rights and Obligations. The rights and obligations of the parties under this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors and assigns. 15. Agreement made in Colorado. This Agreement shall be construed according to the laws of the State of Colorado, and venue for any action shall be in the District Court in and for Pitkin County, Colorado. 16. Attorney Fees. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, the substantially prevailing party, whether by final judgment or out of court settlement, shall recover from the other party all costs and expenses of such action or suit including reasonable attorney fees. 17. No Waiver. The waiver by any party to this Agreement of any term or condition of this Agreement shall not operate or be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach by any party. 18. Authority. Each person signing this Agreement represents and warrants that said person is fully authorized to enter into and execute this Agreement and to bind the party it represents to the terms and conditions hereof. P12 VI.a Attachment “B” The foregoing Agreement was approved by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado at its regular meeting held on the _____ day of , 2019. The foregoing Agreement was approved by Aspen Valley Hospital at its regular meeting held on the _____ day of , 2019. The foregoing Agreement was approved by the Aspen School District at its regular meeting held on the _____ day of , 2019. The foregoing Agreement was approved by the City of Aspen at its regular meeting held on the _____ day of , 2019. In Witness whereof, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed as of the day and year first above written. ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL By:_________________________ [Title] ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT By:_________________________ [Title] CITY OF ASPEN By:_________________________ [Title] BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVED AS TO FORM OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO By: ________________________ __________________________ Greg Poschman, Chair John Ely, County Attorney Manager Approval: By:______________________ Jon Peacock, County Manager P13 VI.a MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES COLLABORATIVE Presenters: Karen Koenemann, Public Health Director, PC Nan Sundeen, Human Services Director, PC Lindsay May, Program Director, MSH Jackie Skramstad, Clinical Operations Manager, MSH Gary Schreiner, Director of Behavioral Health, MFHC Lori Maloy, Chief Clinical Officer, AVH Michelle Miscione, Social Worker, AVH Richard Pryor, Chief of Police, APD Tom Heald, Assistant Superintendent, ASD P14VI.a A n d y e s w e d o n e e d h o p e . O f c o u r s e w e d o . B u t t h e o n e t h i n g w e n e e d m o r e t h a n h o p e i s a c t i o n . O n c e w e s t a r t t o a c t , h o p e i s e v e r y w h e r e . G R E T A T H U N B E R G P15VI.a How We Got Here: 2017 P16VI.a M E N T A L H E A L T H S T R A T E G I C P L A N N I N G P17VI.a Strategic Collaborative Team Charter V I S I O N : P i t k i n C o u n t y w i l l b e a t h r i v i n g , v i b r a n t , h e a l t h y a n d s t r o n g c o m m u n i t y m a d e u p o f f u l f i l l e d r e s i d e n t s w h o h a v e a c c e s s t o a n i n t e g r a t e d , e f f e c t i v e , a n d a f f o r d a b l e s y s t e m o f m e n t a l h e a l t h a n d s u b s t a n c e u s e t r e a t m e n t s e r v i c e s , r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e i r a b i l i t y t o p a y .. P U R P O S E : T o C r e a t e a S y s t e m o f C a r e w h i c h R A P I D L Y i m p r o v e s a c c e s s t o M e n t a l H e a l t h S e r v i c e s i n P i t k i n C o u n t y b y d e f i n i n g f u n d i n g m e c h a n i s m s a n d a p p l y i n g f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s t o s u p p o r t p r o g r a m s w h i c h r e f l e c t t h e s y s t e m o f c a r e p r i o r i t i e s , a n d d e m o n s t r a t e c o l l a b o r a t i o n P18VI.a Vital Mental Health Services Request for Proposals Increased Access to Mental Health Services (affordability, right time, right service, etc.) Fill Gaps in the Continuum of Care Enable Integration and Coordination of Services Strengthen Collaboration Between Providers Ability to Accept Medicaid for Allowable Services (prevention, intervention, treatment, aftercare)P19VI.a Key Features of Proposal 1. Offered multiple services to fill gaps along the Mental Health Continuum of Care 2. Demonstrated collaboration and integration between the two agencies 3. Both agencies were able to offer Mental Health services, regardless of ability to pay, and were able to take all forms of insurance (medicaid, medicare, etc.) 4. Provided new services to Pitkin County, including a full time school-based counselor and community mobile response unit 2018 P20VI.a Building Collaboration P21VI.a Collective Funding for Collective Impact 1 . A c c e s s t o I n t e g r a t e d C a r e 2 . I m p r o v e d C o l l a b o r a t i o n 3 . C o l l e c t i v e F u n d i n g = I n c r e a s e i n S e r v i c e s 4 . I n c r e a s e d S e r v i c e s a n d R o b u s t W r a p A r o u n d 5 . R e s p o n s i v e a n d Q u a l i t y S e r v i c e s P22VI.a Increased Quality Services Case Manager Therapist in the Aspen Schools Psychiatric Services in the Jail Part-time Therapist in the Basalt School Two Behavioral Health Specialists Two Care Coordinators Community- Based Therapist P23VI.a I feel so lucky to live in an area where no matter what, Mind Springs Health was there for me when I got back, every time. A N O N Y M O U S C L I E N T IMPACT!P24VI.a Increased Integrated Access P25VI.a Increased Integrated Access P26VI.a IMPACT! The Lake Christine Fire A S T O R Y O F C O L L A B O R A T I O N P27VI.a Increased Access P28VI.a Increased Responsiveness P29VI.a IMPACT! A Law Enforcement Story P30VI.a Collaboration P31VI.a IMPACT! A School District Story P32VI.a Increased Quality Services P33VI.a Increased Responsiveness P34VI.a IMPACT! An Aspen Valley Hospital Story P35VI.a of survey respondents said that the County's response to Mental Health Issues should be a top priority in the next two years 50% -2018 ETC Institute Community Survey P36VI.a New or Expanded Initiatives P37VI.a 2019 IGA 1. Continued Collective Funding at $488,000(2018 Amount) 2. Continued Contract with MSH/MFHC for Continuum of Care Services (same as 2018) 3. Allocate Unspent 2018 MSH/MFHC Contract Funds to Two New Initiatives, as recommended by Funder Steering Committee P38VI.a 2019 2018 Contract Unspent Funds P39VI.a Thank You! Questions, Comments, Words of Wisdom?P40VI.a MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Raquel Flinker, Project Manager Jordan Gray-DeKraai, Project Manager Pete Rice, PE, Senior Project Manager THROUGH: Tricia Aragon, PE, City Engineer DATE of MEMO: March 18, 2019 MEETING DATE: March 25, 2019 RE: Resolution #36, Series of 2019 - Spring and Main Street Intersection Improvements Project - Consent for Construction Contract ______ REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff seeks Council approval of the Spring and Main Street Intersection Improvements Project (Resolution #36, Series of 2019) contract for construction with Aspen Digger, Inc. in the amount of $276,322.06 (which includes contingency). Staff is requesting an additional budget authority in the amount of $106,713.11 as part of the spring supplemental in addition to the previously allocated budget of $169,608.95. BACKGROUND: The intersection of Main Street (SH 82) and Spring Street is one of the top 10 traffic accident locations in the City of Aspen. Feedback from the community has been that they feel this intersection is unsafe for pedestrians. This feedback, is due to the combination of the reduced reaction time for vehicles coming through Original curve, the impeded site lines between pedestrians and vehicles, and the extended pedestrian crossing distance. In 2017, a pedestrian was struck by a vehicle while crossing Main Street (SH 82) at this intersection. Due to this incident, Council directed staff to pursue an improvement project that would alleviate safety issues at this location. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) have been installed at four other unsignalized intersections along Hwy 82 to improve pedestrian crossing safety. The RRFB have been successful in providing the needed pedestrian safety in crossing HWY 82 and as a result the City has received positive feedback from the community on the use of RRFB. DISCUSSION: The Spring and Main Street Intersection Improvements Project will reduce the pedestrian crossing distance by implementing curb extensions on the northeast and southeast corners of the intersection. By adding curb extensions at these locations, pedestrians will have increased visual contact with vehicles and the interaction between users will be improved. P41 VI.b RRFB will be installed to alert drivers of crossing pedestrians. New stormwater infrastructure will be installed to accommodate the curb extensions, improve drainage and reduce ponding at the ADA ramps. These improvements will increase stormwater quality which is consistent with Engineering Standard requirements. Modified roadway striping will add a right turn lane from Main Street onto South Spring Street to encourage drivers to merge into the through lane prior to vehicles entering the intersection. This improves safety and congestion in the intersection. Electric Vehicle Charging Station Additive Alternative #1: To take advantage of this project’s timing and mobilization for construction, Car to Go is proposing an Electric Vehicle (EV) charging station on the East side of North Spring Street to serve one Car to Go EV that will be added to the fleet. Refer to figure 1. The Environmental Health and Sustainability department will be installing conduit along North Spring Street for a future electric charging station that can utilize the same trenching that will be required for the RRFB’s electrical conduit. This project aligns with the City’s Climate Action Plan in helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by providing parking for non-fossil fueled vehicles. These charging stations will tie into the City’s electric grid which is powered by one- hundred percent renewable energy. The cost for the EV charging station is $14,648.95. Figure 1: Electric charging station locations P42 VI.b Recommended Contractor: The Spring and Main Street Intersection Improvements Project was advertised for bid on June 29th, 2018. Gould Construction Inc. (Gould) was the sole bidder and their base bid totaled $378,245.90 which was considerably over the project budget. Staff determined last summer that construction should be postponed until 2019 to evaluate options that were in the best interests for the City. Based on the unit prices for a separate project awarded to Aspen Digger Inc. (Aspen Digger), staff requested a subsequent base bid totaling $237,884.65. Aspen Digger was awarded a contract for the King Street Infrastructure Improvements project. There are additional cost savings of $10,000 to the Spring and Main Street Intersection Improvements Project by contracting Aspen Digger. Savings are due to proximity of projects, combined quantities, and similarities between the projects. Gould Base Bid $ 378,245.90 Aspen Digger Base Bid $ 237,884.65 COST SAVINGS $ 140,361.25 Based upon total price, project experience, specialty work experience, and previous successful completion of City of Aspen projects by this contractor, staff recommends that it is in the City’s best interests to award this construction contract to Aspen Digger. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: 2019 Allocated Budget Spring and Main Street Intersection Improvements Project (000.327.81200.52130.50865) $154,960.00 Additional Alternative – EV Charing Station Transportation Fund (141.132.81200.57540.50881) $ 10,065.45 Asset Management Plan Fund (000.325.81200.53330.50875) $ 4,583.50 TOTAL $169,608.95 Expenditures Base Bid – Aspen Digger, Inc $ 237,884.65 Add Alt – EV Charging Station $ 14,648.95 Contingency (10%) $ 23,788.47 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 276,322.06 Additional Funds Requested Total Project Cost $ 276,322.06 2019 Allocated Budget $ 169,608.95 SPRING SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS REQUESTED (AMP) $ 106,713.11 P43 VI.b PUBLIC OUTREACH: The contingency includes public outreach, advertising and traffic notifications. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council approve the Spring and Main Street Intersection Improvements Project contract with Aspen Digger, Inc. in the amount of $276,322.06. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution No. 36, Series of 2019.” CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENT A – Resolution and Contract with Aspen Digger, Inc. ATTACHMENT B – Aspen Digger, Inc. Bid Proposal ATTACHMENT C – Spring and Main Street Construction Documents P44 VI.b RESOLUTION # 36 (Series of 2019) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND ASPEN DIGGER INCORPORATED AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for the Spring and Main Street Intersection Improvements Project between the City of Aspen and Aspen Digger, Inc., a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Attachment “A”; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves the contract for Spring and Main Street Intersection Improvements Project, between the City of Aspen and Aspen Digger, Inc., a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 25th day of March 2019. Steven Skadron, Mayor I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, March 25, 2019. Linda Manning, City Clerk P45 VI.b P46 VI.b P47 VI.b P48 VI.b P49 VI.b P50 VI.b P51 VI.b P52 VI.b CITY OF ASPENMAIN ST. - SPRING ST.INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTSASPEN, COLORADOCONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTSJUNE 2018REVISION DESCRIPTIOND'WNDES'DDATENO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:JOB #:DATE:© JVA, INC.SPRING STREET RRFB CITY OF ASPENSHEET NO.2401.41c06/20/2018KATYHNGDJVA, Inc.JVA, Inc.817 Colorado Ave., Suite 301www.jvajva.com970.404.3100Glenwood Springs, COZip 81601Boulder ● Fort Collins ● Winter ParkGlenwood Springs ● DenverCOVER SHEETC0.0JVA, Inc.JVA, Inc.817 Colorado Ave., Suite 301www.jvajva.com970.404.3100Glenwood Springs, COZip 81601Boulder ● Fort Collins ● Winter ParkGlenwood Springs ● DenverP53VI.b Know what's below. before you dig.Call R STANDARD NOTES,ABBREVIATIONS, & LEGENDC0.1 REVISION DESCRIPTIOND'WNDES'DDATENO.DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: JOB #: DATE: © JVA, INC.SPRING STREET RRFBCITY OF ASPENSHEET NO. 2401.41c 06/20/2018 KAT YH NGD JVA, Inc.JVA, Inc.817 Colorado Ave., Suite 301 www.jvajva.com 970.404.3100 Glenwood Springs, CO Zip 81601 Boulder ● Fort Collins ● Winter Park Glenwood Springs ● Denver P54VI.b D D D D D S 16"/20' Slow Children Sign Parking Sign Light Post Water Valves BIKEParking Pass 16"/20' Parking SignEdge of AsphaltFlowline Top Back Curb Sewer Manhole Site Benchmark Elevation=7907.4' Burie d G a s L i n e 18"/20'SidewalkRampBuried Electric Line Doub l e Y e l l o w C e n t e r l i n e S t r i p i n g Dash e d W h i t e S t r i p i n gDouble Yellow Centerline StripingSolid W h i t e S t o p L i n e Crosswalk19.0 ' Exis t i n g 2 h r P a r k i n g 19.0 ' Exis t i n g 2 h r P a r k i n g 19. 0 ' Exis t i n g 2 h r P a r k i n g 19. 0 ' Exis t i n g 2 h r P a r k i n g Exis t i n g 2 h r P a r k i n g Light Post Side w a l k Parking Sign 2"/2' 2"/2' 24"/20' Parking Sign RampA B C Storm Drain Manhole Benches on Concrete Pads Existing Utility Locate Origin Unknown Existing Utility Locate Origin Unknown Electric Transformer located on Northwest Corner of Common Area of Pitkin ROW Condominiums Parking Sign 6"/12' 6"/12' 24"/20' (2) 18"/15' 10"/12' 8"/15' 10"/15'5"/8' 8"/15' 6"/12' Mailbox 79107910 790 9 79 0 8 790779067911 7912 79 1 5 Retaining Walls D D 7911 7911 D D D D D S 16"/20' Slow Children Sign Parking Sign Light Post Water Valves BIKEParking Pass 16"/20' Parking SignEdge of AsphaltFlowline Top Back Curb Sewer Manhole Site Benchmark Elevation=7907.4' Burie d G a s L i n e 18"/20'SidewalkRampBuried Electric Line Doub l e Y e l l o w C e n t e r l i n e S t r i p i n g Dash e d W h i t e S t r i p i n gDouble Yellow Centerline StripingSolid W h i t e S t o p L i n e Crosswalk19.0 ' Exis t i n g 2 h r P a r k i n g 19.0 ' Exis t i n g 2 h r P a r k i n g 19. 0 ' Exis t i n g 2 h r P a r k i n g 19. 0 ' Exis t i n g 2 h r P a r k i n g Exis t i n g 2 h r P a r k i n g Light Post Side w a l k Parking Sign 2"/2' 2"/2' 24"/20' Parking Sign RampA B C Storm Drain Manhole Benches on Concrete Pads Existing Utility Locate Origin Unknown Existing Utility Locate Origin Unknown Electric Transformer located on Northwest Corner of Common Area of Pitkin ROW Condominiums Parking Sign 6"/12' 6"/12' 24"/20' (2) 18"/15' 10"/12' 8"/15' 10"/15'5"/8' 8"/15' 6"/12' Mailbox 79107910 790 9 79 0 8 790779067911 7912 79 1 5 Retaining Walls D D 7911 7911 REVISION DESCRIPTIOND'WNDES'DDATENO.DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: JOB #: DATE: © JVA, INC.SPRING STREET RRFBCITY OF ASPENSHEET NO. 2401.41c 06/20/2018 KAT YH NGD JVA, Inc.JVA, Inc.817 Colorado Ave., Suite 301 www.jvajva.com 970.404.3100 Glenwood Springs, CO Zip 81601 Boulder ● Fort Collins ● Winter Park Glenwood Springs ● Denver DEMOLITION PLANC0.2 P55VI.b D D D D S 16"/20' Slow Children Sign Parking Sign Water Valves BIKE16"/20' Parking SignEdge of AsphaltSewer Manhole Site Benchmark Elevation=7907.4' Burie d G a s L i n e 18"/20'SidewalkBuried Electric Line Doub l e Y e l l o w C e n t e r l i n e S t r i p i n g Dash e d W h i t e S t r i p i n gDouble Yellow Centerline StripingSolid W h i t e S t o p L i n e Crosswalk19. 0 ' Exis t i n g 2 h r P a r k i n g 19. 0 ' Exis t i n g 2 h r P a r k i n g Exis t i n g 2 h r P a r k i n g Light Post Side w a l k Parking Sign 2"/2' 2"/2' 24"/20' Parking Sign A B Storm Drain Manhole Benches on Concrete Pads Existing Utility Locate Origin Unknown Existing Utility Locate Origin Unknown Electric Transformer located on Northwest Corner of Common Area of Pitkin ROW Condominiums Parking Sign 6"/12' 6"/12' 24"/20' (2) 18"/15' 10"/12' 8"/15' 6"/12' Mailbox 79107910 790 9 79 0 8 790779067911 7912 79 1 5 Retaining Walls D D 7911 7911 D D D D S 16"/20' Slow Children Sign Parking Sign Water Valves BIKE16"/20' Parking SignEdge of AsphaltSewer Manhole Site Benchmark Elevation=7907.4' Burie d G a s L i n e 18"/20'SidewalkBuried Electric Line Doub l e Y e l l o w C e n t e r l i n e S t r i p i n g Dash e d W h i t e S t r i p i n gDouble Yellow Centerline StripingSolid W h i t e S t o p L i n e Crosswalk19. 0 ' Exis t i n g 2 h r P a r k i n g 19. 0 ' Exis t i n g 2 h r P a r k i n g Exis t i n g 2 h r P a r k i n g Light Post Side w a l k Parking Sign 2"/2' 2"/2' 24"/20' Parking Sign A B Storm Drain Manhole Benches on Concrete Pads Existing Utility Locate Origin Unknown Existing Utility Locate Origin Unknown Electric Transformer located on Northwest Corner of Common Area of Pitkin ROW Condominiums Parking Sign 6"/12' 6"/12' 24"/20' (2) 18"/15' 10"/12' 8"/15' 6"/12' Mailbox 79107910 790 9 79 0 8 790779067911 7912 79 1 5 Retaining Walls D D 7911 7911 S 16"/20' Slow Children Sign Parking Sign Water Valves BIKE16"/20' Parking SignEdge of AsphaltSewer Manhole Site Benchmark Elevation=7907.4' Buried G a s L i n e 18"/20'SidewalkBuried E lectric LineDouble Yellow Centerline StripingSolid W h i t e S t o p L i n e CrosswalkBenches on Concrete Pads Existing Utility Locate Origin Unknown Existing Utility Locate Origin Unknown 790 9 79 0 8 79077906S 16"/20' Slow Children Sign Parking Sign Water Valves BIKE16"/20' Parking SignEdge of AsphaltSewer Manhole Site Benchmark Elevation=7907.4' Buried G a s L i n e 18"/20'SidewalkBuried E lectric LineDouble Yellow Centerline StripingSolid W h i t e S t o p L i n e CrosswalkBenches on Concrete Pads Existing Utility Locate Origin Unknown Existing Utility Locate Origin Unknown 790 9 79 0 8 79077906REVISION DESCRIPTIOND'WNDES'DDATENO.DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: JOB #: DATE: © JVA, INC.SPRING STREET RRFBCITY OF ASPENSHEET NO. 2401.41c 06/20/2018 KAT YH NGD JVA, Inc.JVA, Inc.817 Colorado Ave., Suite 301 www.jvajva.com 970.404.3100 Glenwood Springs, CO Zip 81601 Boulder ● Fort Collins ● Winter Park Glenwood Springs ● Denver EROSION CONTROL PLANCE1.0 P56VI.b REVISION DESCRIPTIOND'WNDES'DDATENO.DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: JOB #: DATE: © JVA, INC.SPRING STREET RRFBCITY OF ASPENSHEET NO. 2401.41c 06/20/2018 KAT YH NGD JVA, Inc.JVA, Inc.817 Colorado Ave., Suite 301 www.jvajva.com 970.404.3100 Glenwood Springs, CO Zip 81601 Boulder ● Fort Collins ● Winter Park Glenwood Springs ● Denver STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANAND EROSION CONTROL DETAILSCE1.1 P57VI.b REVISION DESCRIPTIOND'WNDES'DDATENO.DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: JOB #: DATE: © JVA, INC.SPRING STREET RRFBCITY OF ASPENSHEET NO. 2401.41c 06/20/2018 KAT YH NGD JVA, Inc.JVA, Inc.817 Colorado Ave., Suite 301 www.jvajva.com 970.404.3100 Glenwood Springs, CO Zip 81601 Boulder ● Fort Collins ● Winter Park Glenwood Springs ● Denver EROSION CONTROL DETAILSCE1.2 P58VI.b DDDDS16"/20'SlowChildren SignParking SignWater ValvesBIKE 16"/20'Parking SignEdge of A s p h a l tSewer ManholeSite BenchmarkElevation=7907.4'Buried Gas Line18"/20'Sidew a l kBuried Electric LineDouble Yellow Centerline StripingDashed White StripingDoubl e Y e l l o w C e n t e r l i n e S t r i p i n gSolid White Stop LineCross w a l k 19.0'Existing 2hr Parking19.0'Existing 2hr ParkingExisting 2hr ParkingLight PostSidewalkParking Sign2"/2'2"/2'24"/20'Parking SignABStorm Drain ManholeBenches onConcrete PadsExisting Utility LocateOrigin UnknownExisting Utility LocateOrigin UnknownElectric Transformerlocated on Northwest Cornerof Common Areaof Pitkin ROW CondominiumsParking Sign6"/12'6"/12'24"/20'(2) 18"/15'10"/12'8"/15'10"/15'5"/8'8"/15'6"/12'Mailbox79107910790979087907790679117912 7915RetainingWallsDD79117911REVISION DESCRIPTIOND'WNDES'DDATENO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:JOB #:DATE:© JVA, INC.SPRING STREET RRFB CITY OF ASPENSHEET NO.2401.41c06/20/2018KATYHNGDJVA, Inc.JVA, Inc.817 Colorado Ave., Suite 301www.jvajva.com970.404.3100Glenwood Springs, COZip 81601Boulder ● Fort Collins ● Winter ParkGlenwood Springs ● DenverGRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANC1.0P59VI.b REVISION DESCRIPTIOND'WNDES'DDATENO.DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: JOB #: DATE: © JVA, INC.SPRING STREET RRFBCITY OF ASPENSHEET NO. 2401.41c 06/20/2018 KAT YH NGD JVA, Inc.JVA, Inc.817 Colorado Ave., Suite 301 www.jvajva.com 970.404.3100 Glenwood Springs, CO Zip 81601 Boulder ● Fort Collins ● Winter Park Glenwood Springs ● Denver GRADING AND DRAINAGE DETAILSCD1.0 P60VI.b REVISION DESCRIPTIOND'WNDES'DDATENO.DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: JOB #: DATE: © JVA, INC.SPRING STREET RRFBCITY OF ASPENSHEET NO. 2401.41c 06/20/2018 KAT YH NGD JVA, Inc.JVA, Inc.817 Colorado Ave., Suite 301 www.jvajva.com 970.404.3100 Glenwood Springs, CO Zip 81601 Boulder ● Fort Collins ● Winter Park Glenwood Springs ● Denver GRADING AND DRAINAGE DETAILSCD1.1 P61VI.b REVISION DESCRIPTIOND'WNDES'DDATENO.DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: JOB #: DATE: © JVA, INC.SPRING STREET RRFBCITY OF ASPENSHEET NO. 2401.41c 06/20/2018 KAT YH NGD JVA, Inc.JVA, Inc.817 Colorado Ave., Suite 301 www.jvajva.com 970.404.3100 Glenwood Springs, CO Zip 81601 Boulder ● Fort Collins ● Winter Park Glenwood Springs ● Denver GRADING AND DRAINAGE DETAILSCD1.2 P62VI.b D D D D S 16"/20' Slow Children Sign Parking Sign Water Valves BIKE16"/20' Parking SignEdge of AsphaltSewer Manhole Site Benchmark Elevation=7907.4' Burie d G a s L i n e 18"/20'SidewalkBuried Electric LineDoub l e Y e l l o w C e n t e r l i n e S t r i p i n g Dash e d W h i t e S t r i p i n gDouble Yellow Centerline StripingSolid W h i t e S t o p L i n e Crosswalk19. 0 ' Exis t i n g 2 h r P a r k i n g 19.0 ' Exis t i n g 2 h r P a r k i n g Exis t i n g 2 h r P a r k i n g Light Post Side w a l k Parking Sign 2"/2' 2"/2' 2"/2' 24"/20' Parking Sign A B Storm Drain Manhole Benches on Concrete Pads Existing Utility Locate Origin Unknown Existing Utility Locate Origin Unknown Electric Transformer located on Northwest Corner of Common Area of Pitkin ROW Condominiums Parking Sign 6"/12' 6"/12' 24"/20' (2) 18"/15' 10"/12' 8"/15' 10"/15'5"/8' 8"/15' 6"/12' Mailbox Retaining Walls D D S 16"/20' Slow Children Sign Parking Sign Water Valves BIKE16"/20' Parking SignEdge of AsphaltSewer Manhole Site Benchmark Elevation=7907.4' Buried G a s L i n e 18"/20'SidewalkBuried E lectric LineDouble Yellow Centerline StripingSolid W h i t e S t o p L i n e CrosswalkBenches on Concrete Pads Existing Utility Locate Origin Unknown Existing Utility Locate Origin Unknown REVISION DESCRIPTIOND'WNDES'DDATENO.DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: JOB #: DATE: © JVA, INC.SPRING STREET RRFBCITY OF ASPENSHEET NO. 2401.41c 06/20/2018 KAT YH NGD JVA, Inc.JVA, Inc.817 Colorado Ave., Suite 301 www.jvajva.com 970.404.3100 Glenwood Springs, CO Zip 81601 Boulder ● Fort Collins ● Winter Park Glenwood Springs ● Denver UTILITY PLANC2.0 P63VI.b D D D D S 16"/20' Slow Children Sign Parking Sign Water Valves BIKE16"/20' Parking SignEdge of AsphaltSewer Manhole Site Benchmark Elevation=7907.4' Burie d G a s L i n e SidewalkBuried Electric LineDou b l e Y e l l o w C e n t e r l i n e S t r i p i n g Dash e d W h i t e S t r i p i n gDouble Yellow Centerline StripingSolid W h i t e S t o p L i n e CrosswalkLight Post Side w a l k Parking Sign 2"/2' 2"/2' 2"/2' 24"/20' Parking Sign A B Storm Drain Manhole Benches on Concrete Pads Existing Utility Locate Origin Unknown Existing Utility Locate Origin Unknown Electric Transformer located on Northwest Corner of Common Area of Pitkin ROW Condominiums Parking Sign 6"/12' 6"/12' 24"/20' (2) 18"/15' 10"/12' 8"/15' 10"/15'5"/8' 8"/15' 6"/12' Mailbox Retaining Walls D D REVISION DESCRIPTIOND'WNDES'DDATENO.DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: JOB #: DATE: © JVA, INC.SPRING STREET RRFBCITY OF ASPENSHEET NO. 2401.41c 06/20/2018 KAT YH NGD JVA, Inc.JVA, Inc.817 Colorado Ave., Suite 301 www.jvajva.com 970.404.3100 Glenwood Springs, CO Zip 81601 Boulder ● Fort Collins ● Winter Park Glenwood Springs ● Denver HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLANC3.0 P64VI.b REVISION DESCRIPTIOND'WNDES'DDATENO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:JOB #:DATE:© JVA, INC.SPRING STREET RRFB CITY OF ASPENSHEET NO.2401.41c06/20/2018KATYHNGDJVA, Inc.JVA, Inc.817 Colorado Ave., Suite 301www.jvajva.com970.404.3100Glenwood Springs, COZip 81601Boulder ● Fort Collins ● Winter ParkGlenwood Springs ● DenverSITE DETAILSCD3.0P65VI.b REVISION DESCRIPTIOND'WNDES'DDATENO.DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: JOB #: DATE: © JVA, INC.SPRING STREET RRFBCITY OF ASPENSHEET NO. 2401.41c 06/20/2018 KAT YH NGD JVA, Inc.JVA, Inc.817 Colorado Ave., Suite 301 www.jvajva.com 970.404.3100 Glenwood Springs, CO Zip 81601 Boulder ● Fort Collins ● Winter Park Glenwood Springs ● Denver SITE DETAILSCD3.1 P66VI.b REVISION DESCRIPTIOND'WNDES'DDATENO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:JOB #:DATE:© JVA, INC.SPRING STREET RRFB CITY OF ASPENSHEET NO.2401.41c06/20/2018KATYHNGDJVA, Inc.JVA, Inc.817 Colorado Ave., Suite 301www.jvajva.com970.404.3100Glenwood Springs, COZip 81601Boulder ● Fort Collins ● Winter ParkGlenwood Springs ● DenverSITE DETAILSCD3.2P67VI.b REVISION DESCRIPTIOND'WNDES'DDATENO.DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: JOB #: DATE: © JVA, INC.SPRING STREET RRFBCITY OF ASPENSHEET NO. 2401.41c 06/20/2018 KAT YH NGD JVA, Inc.JVA, Inc.817 Colorado Ave., Suite 301 www.jvajva.com 970.404.3100 Glenwood Springs, CO Zip 81601 Boulder ● Fort Collins ● Winter Park Glenwood Springs ● Denver SITE DETAILSCD3.3 P68VI.b P69VI.b MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney DATE: March 20, 2019 RE: Resolution #41, Series of 2019, regarding a Release and Settlement Agreement in the case of 119 Neale Avenue LLC v. City of Aspen, Pitkin County Case 2017CV30131 ════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ BACKGROUND: 119 Neale Avenue LLC, managed by Jeffrey Shoaf, is the owner of 119 Neale Avenue (the “Property”). On November 20, 2017, 119 Neale Avenue, LLC, filed suit in Pitkin County District Court challenging City Council’s denial, in October of 2017, of an application to sever three TDRs from the Property. The City filed two counterclaims in the lawsuit: one relating to Mr. Shoaf’s alleged use of the property as a duplex and one related to a shed type structure on the property that was built without appropriate City approvals. During the time the lawsuit has been pending, the parties have been in discussions regarding a resolution of the litigation. The proposed settlement agreement is the result of those discussions. DISCUSSION: The lawsuit by the Plaintiff property owner was initiated after City Council denied his application to sever three (3) TDRs from the property. In summary, his claims are that the City abused its discretion in denying the TDR application and that City Council violated his constitutional right to due process and equal protection. The City filed an Answer to the Complaint and asserted two counterclaims against plaintiff relating to his alleged unlawful use of the property as a duplex and the construction of a shed on the property without the required City approvals. The City subsequently filed a partial motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s constitutional claims, which was granted in part and denied in part. After some initial discovery, the City subsequently filed a motion for partial summary judgment related to the constitutional issues. Prior to any response or ruling on the summary judgment motion, however, attorneys for the parties engaged in settlement negotiations and reached a proposed agreement, attached as Exhibit A. The primary substantive terms including the following: · The City agrees to grant 119 Neale Avenue two (2) (and only 2) TDRs based upon its 2015 application for TDRs. · Plaintiff Shoaf/119 Neale Ave agrees to demolish the shed on 119 Neale Avenue within ninety (90) days of receiving a demolition permit and agrees to comply with all applicable P70 VI.c 2 provisions of the City Code during demolition. He must submit his complete permit for demolition within thirty (30) days of execution of the settlement agreement. · Each party agrees to dismiss its claims/counterclaims against the other, with each side to bear its own costs and attorney’s fees. Attorneys for the City believe that this is a fair and appropriate resolution of this litigation. ALTERNATIVE: The City Council may vote to deny the resolution in which case the litigation will move forward. RECOMMENDATION: The City Attorney’s Office recommends that Council approve the settlement of the litigation and adopt Resolution 41, Series of 2019. P71 VI.c RESOLUTION #41 (Series of 2019) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE CASE OF 119 NEALE AVENUE, LLC V. THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, CASE # 2017CV30131. WHEREAS, on November 20, 2017, 119 Neale Ave. LLC filed suit in Pitkin County, Colorado District Court challenging City Council’s denial of an application, filed in 2015, to sever 3 TDRs from the property located at 119 Neal Avenue, Aspen, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, while the lawsuit has been pending the parties have been in discussions regarding a resolution of the litigation; and, WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a Release and Settlement Agreement, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” that would resolve all of the issues set forth in such litigation; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City of Aspen to approve such Release and Settlement and authorizes the Mayor to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves the Release and Settlement Agreement between the 119 Neale Avenue, LLC and the City of Aspen, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the Mayor to execute such agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 25th day of March, 2019. Steven Skadron, Mayor I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the 25thth day of March, 2019. Linda Manning, City Clerk P72 VI.c P73 VI.c P74 VI.c P75 VI.c P76 VI.c P77 VI.c P78 VI.c MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Linda Manning, City Clerk DATE OF MEMO: March 20, 2019 MEETING DATE: March 25, 2019 RE: Board Appointment By adopting the Consent Calendar, Council is making the following Board Appointment: Open Space and Trail Board – Alternate member Claudia Kirby Planning & Zoning Commission – Regular member Scott Marcoux Historic Preservation Commission – Regular member Gretchen Greenwood Regular member Bob Blaich Alternate member Kara Thompson Wheeler Board of Directors Regular member Amy Mountjoy Regular member Christine Benedetti Next Generation Advisory Commission Regular member Hillary Seminick P79 VI.d Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 25, 2019 1 BLACK DIAMOND AWARD ..................................................................................................................... 2 CITIZEN COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 2 CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS ................................................................................................................... 3 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ................................................................................................................ 3 BOARD REPORTS ...................................................................................................................................... 3 CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 3 Resolution #23, Series of 2019 –Contract for Rubey Park Security Services ...................................... 4 Resolution #6, Series of 2019 – Mobile License Plate Recognition Systems ....................................... 4 Resolution #27, Series of 2019 – Parks Fleet: Cat 962 Wheel Loader Contract .................................. 4 Resolution #26, Series of 2019 –USGS Contract for Roaring Fork River Gage .................................. 4 Resolution #28, Series of 2019 –312 W Hyman Avenue – Real Estate Purchase ................................ 4 Minutes – February 11, 2019 ............................................................................................................... 4 RESOLUTION #13, SERIES OF 2019 – Policy Resolution on Wireless Regulations ................................ 4 ORDINANCE #5, SERIES OF 2019 – Wireless Regulations Code Amendment........................................ 5 RESOLUTION #12, SERIES OF 2019 – 330 E. Main St – Hotel Jerome – Temporary Use ...................... 5 RESOLUTION #11, SERIES OF 2019 – Base 1 Lodge Extension of Vested Rights.................................. 6 P80 VI.e Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 25, 2019 2 At 5:00 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Mullins, Myrin, Hauenstein, and Frisch present. BLACK DIAMOND AWARD This is for the overhaul of the Lewis ice arena that took place last year. Not only was it significantly ahead of schedule but well under budget. Mayor Skadron recognized Patrick, Jose, James, Anthony and Oscar. Cory Vanderveen, department head, said he has been around a lot of maintenance teams. These guys are one of a kind. Really exceptional. I appreciate all that you do for our department. I can’t say enough great things about these employees. CITIZEN COMMENTS 1. Tom Yoder, Kemo Sabe, said he wants to help make Aspen better. Specifically talking about retail and romancing some of our flag ship buildings. Kemo Sabe is passionately devoted to delivering that service to our guest. We strive to create a shopping experience with charm and character. We would like to take one parking spot in front of our store. Kate said we got signatures from everyone on our street and one person was not on board. Kate submitted photos. Tom said Aspen is different from any place else. We want to take one parking space where we can show off our building and turn it into a hitching post. We have such a fascinating history. When we have our horses in town people are so enamored. Councilman Hauenstein said the first 9 years I was in town I was in retail. I think it is an attitude. I commend you. If you enjoy what you are doing it is infectious. I was at CCLC when they presented. I think it is worth a look. Councilwoman Mullins said I support looking in to it. Councilman Myrin asked how does the fossil fuel parking work. Mitch Osur, parking, said NEVs are free but electric and hybrid are not. Tom and I have been working on this for a while. I don’t think price is an issue. The big discussion is are we prepared to give up a parking space in the core. Councilman Myrin said I can get on board. Councilman Frisch said it is easy to see why Kemo Sabe has been so successful with your enthusiasm. I think we should explore this at a higher level that we have the downtown experience we want. I think we need to look at the bigger picture. They won’t be the only store that will come in wanting to utilize the downtown space. I am open to the discussion and think it is worth exploring. Mayor Skadron said I think this should be a business to business conversation not where the government is taking away space. I think the appropriate next step is to appear before the chamber board. Once there is general buy in we can refine the idea as to how it might work with designating 4 to 6 spots around the community. It can be explored by CCLC. Councilman Frisch said I think long term success comes with buy in from the business community. Mayor Skadron said next steps are to get in front of the chamber. If they support it we will send it back to CCLC as to what a policy might look like. 2. Tim Anderson said he thinks the Lift One vote was a rush to the election. This is a horrible time of year to have an election. He thinks Gorsuch is too tall and doesn’t fit the area. He thinks it would fit better without Gorsuch. It should have been several votes. The whole thing has not been thought out. He is disappointed with council. Nothing we can do now but vote. Councilman Hauenstein said this was not rushed through. There were over 5 public hearings. Gorsuch is no where near as tall as Lift One Lodge. The voters decided they wanted to have an election in March. I’m offended when people say we rushed this through. We have given it a lot of time. 3. Lee Mulcahy said he will be leaving for Kenya soon and taking used laptops. He asked again for a public hearing. Mayor Skadron said council’s belief is consistent with the public process. We believe you have been provided due process. This is a judicial matter and you are attempting to make it a political matter. 4. Toni Kronberg said the election is March 5th. Pitkin county has started the process for the airport. It is important the city becomes involved. P81 VI.e Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 25, 2019 3 CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilman Frisch said the Aspen boys high school team won the state championship 2 years in a row and the girls came in 2nd. Congrats. Councilman Myrin said thanks for the comments tonight. The Downtowner in December was changed from a fossil fuel free vehicle to a idling van. John Kruger, transportation, said the Gem vehicles in December had some electrical problems. They came back then had the same problems. They should be back on line shortly. We wanted to have enough vehicles to meet the demand. We expect to get the Gem vehicles back shortly. Councilman Myrin said it is hard to believe our contract does not require a similar replacement vehicle. Mr. Kruger replied there are no similar vehicles. This is the only way to meet the demand. At some point we may need to talk about switching vehicles. We had to do something to provide the service. Councilwoman Mullins asked how many are out of service. Mr. Kruger replied 2 of 5. Councilman Frisch said this is a Florida company that we brought to Aspen. There is no doubt there is huge success, but I think we need to have a discussion. If it is a change of vehicles I think it needs to be a broader discussion. Councilman Myrin said he is not happy about the fossil fuel vehicles out there. Councilman Hauenstein said if there are any laptops anyone wants to contribute to Lee’s project I would be happy to scrub them. I’m wearing my lobster claw belt buckle in memory of my father in law’s passing. Councilwoman Mullins said vote. Election day is March 5th. If you haven’t got your ballot get ahold of Nicole in city hall. Everyone be nice to postal carriers. They are so short staffed everyone is working double shifts. Mayor Skadron gave a big thank you to the team at the Wheeler for the laugh festival. It was really fun CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Jessica Garrow, community development, said Stephen Kanipe will be retiring this Friday as chief building official. One of the great joys of my job has been working with him. He began the REMP program, led the way of building code development at a national and international level. We are really excited to welcome Mike Metheny as the new CBO. We will have an open house this Thursday 3:30- 5:30 in the police community room. BOARD REPORTS Councilman Frisch said Nordic is putting making snow on hold. There are 60 Kilometers of free Nordic trails. Mayor Skadron said RFTA approved the supplemental budget. It included money for 8 electric busses. Significant maintenance savings over traditional fossil fuel busses. CONSENT CALENDAR Reso 6 - license plate system Councilman Hauenstein said on the 11th we had an item for 2 GO-4’s at 66,000 dollars, now we are purchasing 2 systems at 91,000. they are 5 year replacements, how do they affect the bottom line. Mr. Osur said we have been using this technology for 15 years. We manage over 100,000 permits through the system. We produce 700,000 tickets in 1 year. Over 3 million in revenue is produced that could not be done walking around. Reso #28 - real estate purchase P82 VI.e Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 25, 2019 4 Councilman Hauenstein said it is a 120 day due diligence period. When we purchased this we decreased the value by having it listed as historic. I think it was a bad investment. We are doing the best we can to liquidate it. Mayor Skadron said it was purchased on March 12, 2007. It was a policy of a previous council to protect historic assets. Scott Miller, asset, said it was purchased as an asset for affordable housing. Perhaps it was bad coordination between the housing fund and comdev on the historic side. Maybe there was a better way to vet that out before we bought the property. Councilman Frisch said there was a comment made that it was a break even. In 2007 now it would equate to 4.2 or 4.3 million. I know we are trying to get this off the books and move on. I want to make sure the city understands the cost of money. It is 800,000 higher. Councilman Myrin said I don’t support using the housing fund for historic designation. Council owes it to the housing fund to restore it from a place that is not counting against housing. We have the power to remove the designation. I’m not happy about where this is. We could decline the contract, remove the designation and put it back on the market. If our policy is we want it designated we should discuss where the 800,000 is coming from. Councilman Hauenstein said I agree with you on the idea of revisiting the designation. I feel some sort of commitment to the contract. If this falls through I would certainly entertain all the ramifications of delisting and what to do with the property. I feel some moral commitment to this contract. Councilman Myrin said we haven’t signed the acceptance. Jim True, city attorney, said the contract was signed by the city manager. However, it clearly has a provision that says if council does not approve the contract by March 1st it is terminated. Councilman Frisch said I gave some direction in executive session that we should keep the designation and move forward. I’m happy to have the discussion about rebalancing the funds. Councilman Hauenstein said I had the sense from council there were not three votes to rescind the designation for this property. Councilwoman Mullins said I support going forward with the contract. If it falls through we can discuss some of the points brought forward. Mayor Skadron asked what are the implications of removing the designation. Mr. Miller said I think the intention is to move it forward and try to fit 4 units in the back. Ms. Garrow said if the designation is removed they can tear the house down and go through a regular building permit process. With it in place it is required to go through a public hearing for changes. There are a number of very large and important trees on the property that are part of the constraints. Councilman Myrin said I think it should be in the budget for the fall to have the money go back to the housing fund. · Resolution #23, Series of 2019 –Contract for Rubey Park Security Services · Resolution #6, Series of 2019 – Mobile License Plate Recognition Systems · Resolution #27, Series of 2019 – Parks Fleet: Cat 962 Wheel Loader Contract · Resolution #26, Series of 2019 –USGS Contract for Roaring Fork River Gage · Resolution #28, Series of 2019 –312 W Hyman Avenue – Real Estate Purchase · Minutes – February 11, 2019 Councilman Hauenstein moved to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #13, SERIES OF 2019 – Policy Resolution on Wireless Regulations Ms. Garrow said this is the policy resolution public hearing. If it passes, we’ll move in to first reading. This is related to wireless regulations. Our codes are out of date given to changes at the federal and state level. We have new FCC requirements we have to comply with. Our code must respond to requirements but maintain our small mountain character. We have done outreach with P&Z and HPC. We can’t outlaw facilities in zone districts or properties. Councilwoman Mullins said she didn’t see the request to see infrastructure co located. Ms. Garrow said having these co located is the preference. You will see it in the code language. This is formal direction to amend the land use code. P83 VI.e Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 25, 2019 5 Councilman Myrin asked is there a way to have a distance requirement from a bedroom. Ms. Garrow said there is not that specificity from bedrooms. We have included setbacks from facilities. We are also doing our best to say there need to be regular setbacks to treat it like mechanical equipment. Councilman Hauenstein said Bert’s comments boarder to me on emissions. It opens a grey area in my mind. Andrea Bryan, assistant city attorney, said that is something we are aware of. We tried to include regulations that address those concerns. The federal regulations prohibit us from regulating based on health concerns. Councilman Hauenstein said this is the second step. Did you have any response to community outreach. Ms. Garrow said because this is a requirement driven by changes to state and federal law, we focused on the wireless providers to make sure they have an opportunity to comment. We had detailed conversations with P&Z and HPC and conversations with the papers. We had some individuals specifically reach out to us. There will be a second phase related to design guidelines with broader community outreach. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Resolution #13, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #5, SERIES OF 2019 – Wireless Regulations Code Amendment Ms. Garrow asked if there were specific questions for March 11th. Ms. Bryan said we received comments from one provider on Friday. Councilman Frisch said there seems to be a different discussion on health issues in different communities. We could use some better understanding as to why 5 G is causing more conversation regarding health than other technology. Councilman Hauenstein moved to read Ordinance #5, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 5 (SERIES OF 2019) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AMENDING CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE RELATED TO WIRELESS REGULATIONS. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #5, Series of 2019 on first reading; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Myrin, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #12, SERIES OF 2019 – 330 E. Main St – Hotel Jerome – Temporary Use Councilman Myrin said he lives near the Jerome so he recused himself. Garrett Larimar, community development, said this is a temporary use request continued from January 28. The request is for an ice lounge. In 2017 the applicant applied for temporary use approval for special event structures and an ice lounge. They were granted annual occurrences for the tents but not for the ice lounge. They would like to continue with the lounge. It is 144 square feet on the Mill Street terrace. They are requesting 106 days for the lounge. It is 180 days total for the property per year. It will be for 5 annual recurrences with staff review. It is consistent with what you would expect to find at a lodge. Staff recommending approval with a 3 year extension so it coincides with the previous request. Sunny Vann, representing the applicant, said we are happy with the resolution. Councilwoman Mullins asked how often and when is it used. Mr. Larimar said we received comments about the lighting. Tony Delucia, representing the hotel, said it is used nightly. P84 VI.e Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 25, 2019 6 Councilman Hauenstein said is it for 3 years to be administratively approved. Mr. Larimar replied correct. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Resolution #12, Series of 2109; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #11, SERIES OF 2019 – Base 1 Lodge Extension of Vested Rights Mike Kraemer, community development, talked about the existing conditions of the Buckhorn lodge building. It was constructed in 1960s and is a mixed use building. There are three lodge units on the 2nd floor. The other units are commercial units. In 2015 it received conceptual approval for a mixed use lodge with 42 units. Variances granted included height, affordable housing mitigation and parking. The PD included submission deadlines that were not met, and the approval was deemed void. In 2016 council reinstatement was approved but removed all zoning variances. In 2016 the project received final approval with 42 units approximately 200 square feet each. It is compliant with all commercial lode zoning requirements. It included onsite parking. It is vested until July 2019. This is a formal request with an addendum. They are requesting an extension for 18 months. Since the approval there was a moratorium. It would not fundamentally change the approved project. The Base 1 project remains compliant with Commercial Lodge zoning. FTE mitigation increases from 1.97 to 2.44 FTE’s. The micro lodge concept would diversify the lodging base in Aspen. It is a stated goal of the AACP. The applicant would like to change the use. This is just a discussion. There is not a live application in with community development. They would like feedback for a change in use to 22 affordable housing units. There would be a range of unit size, smaller than the minimum APCHA requirements. They are suggesting offsite parking, Benedict Commons and the Rio Grande garage. There are spaces in the Benedict Commons building that the City of Aspen owns. They are currently leased today. A change of use to a PD is considered a major amendment to a site specific development plan. Affordable housing is an allowed use in the CL zone. There is a process for reviewing substandard size affordable housing units. Off site parking is problematic. Staff recommendation is should council want to extend the vested rights for the lodge project we would recommend a 12 month extension. There is a second resolution if council were to consider a change in use the extension be for 6 months. The 6 month extension is predicated on submission of an amended application. Once the application is submitted there is a 6 month automatic extension. Offsite parking at Benedict Commons or Rio Grande will not be considered. Councilman Hauenstein asked how many parking spaced does the city own at Benedict. What are they leased out for. What other subgrade parking does the city own. Mr. Osur said the city has a 99 year lease. There are 31 parking spaces in Benedict Commons. 6 are leased to Draco, 5 to 7th and Main, 5 to Bell Mountain a year at a time. 15 open spaces are leased to individuals. 20 spaces in the garage would be available. My concern is we would take the 20 cars and put them on the street. The Rio Grande is filled every day in February. They lease for 200 dollars a month. Councilman Frisch said there are 3 buckets of uses, affordable housing, Affordable lodging or commercial. What is available by right. Mr. Kraemer said the 3 different uses, lodge is approved. They pitched a change in use to affordable housing. It would be commercial net leasable on the 1st floor with affordable housing on the 2nd and 3rd floors. A financial institution is a permitted use in the CL. Councilman Frisch asked about the bulk and mass. Mr. Kraemer said different uses have different ratios. Ms. Garrow said within the zone there are different floor areas for different uses. Basement and ground is where there can be any type of commercial. 1 to 1, 6,700 square feet. For lodge it is 2 to 1. Affordable housing allowed floor area is .25 to 1. This property has a PD on it. It is reviewed by council. Councilman Myrin asked would the process be different if this was built. Ms. Garrow replied it is the same. The applicant is requesting an amendment during vesting. It is to change what is happening on the inside versus on the outside. One of the main differences is related to the subgrade areas. Applicant Chris Bendon and Mark Hunt P85 VI.e Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 25, 2019 7 Chris Bendon, representing the applicant said these are small rooms averaging 200 square feet. The intent is a nicely appointed room but to not stay in the room. The lowest level is where the parking exists. Valet service with tandem double parking. The guest amenity level is the basement. Bar, library and amenity space. The main floor is commercial space, restaurant and retail service. The second floor is 20 lodge units. The 3rd floor is 18 units. There is a rooftop deck amenity with public access. The issue we have is the project has been designed and approved and ready to submit for building permit. The costing came back and the hole to cut for the amenity and parking level is 35 feet deep. The underground costs more than everything above ground. We are exploring other things we can do with the property. We had a quick study of converting the upper levels to housing. We can get 22 units. 4-2 bedrooms, 4-1 bedroom and 14 studios. They are below the APCHA standard sizes. We have 3 directions we can go. The first is to pursue Base lodge close to how it was approved. We need to address the depth of the cut to address the cost. We would need to sacrifice the amenity level or the parking level. The first iteration of this project had offsite parking. The other way would be to sacrifice the amenity level. The affordable housing option would replace 2 levels of lodging with 2 levels of housing. The top floor would exist to some level. Ground floor commercial would remain. There may be basement commercial. The last option would be commercial. We are not interested in going through a major amendment. How do we preserve the investment. We have a fascination around the lodging use while making productive use of the property. We look at the Benedict Commons parking as a housing asset. How is it being optimized for the benefit of affordable housing. Mark Hunt, owner, said we’ve struggled with the parking on how to figure it out. It is what is important to the community and in what order. Hot beds are important but what types of hot beds. What I’m getting from my tenants is they are down 30 to 40 percent. It is a different demographic that is coming here. The underlying zoning really incentivizes you to do a bank or a pharmacy. As it relates to parking, it is a limited size site. All of the options will work. What do we want as a community. I would say this type of lodging would be number one because it doesn’t’ exist. Number 2 is affordable housing and number 3 commercial. What is most beneficial to me is the exact opposite. Mr. Bendon said one of the subgrade levels going away or strip away the parking and leave the amenity space. If we are interested in pursuing lodging, we would need to choose between amenity on site or parking on site. Mr. Hunt said with a lodge there is someone there 24-7 with valet. Having someone man a parking garage with housing doesn’t make sense. That is why we are asking to go off site. Mayor Skadron said if the direction leads to council supporting the lodge direction, what can we allow without substantial amendments. Ms. Garrow said what I would recommend is lose the amenity and parking on site you could put that in the resolutions. If the parking is moved offsite there has to be a solution. That is the more complicated from a land use perspective. The piece that requires the public process is the change in use from lodging to affordable housing. Mayor Skadron said when does a request become a major change. Ms. Garrow said the code was amended a few years ago to distinguish a major versus minor amendment. Mr. Bendon said I would layer on that council does have some latitude in applying what is a major versus a minor amendment. Mr. True said I’m not too sure there is that much discretion. Converting from lodge to affordable housing is a major amendment. The vested rights code does have some discretion about modifying the subgrade levels further. I don’t know what you would say if this was to proceed as a lodge the amenity space could be removed as part of the vested rights. The applicant said they don’t need the extended vested rights if they proceed with the lodge. I’m trying to tie all this together in a way that works. Mr. Bendon said we would need time, 12 months is doable. Mr. True said you do have some leeway to add conditions. I would be careful about granting conditions as part of the vested rights. Ms. Garrow said there is a difference in the major development section of the code and the review process. Councilman Hauenstein said it seems no matter what happens parking is the nut. I can understand how you want to try to make this work. We are constantly hit with parking. To keep the lodge I can’t abandon the parking. I like both the lodging and the housing options. I don’t know if I can support using the Benedict parking. Mr. Bendon said we would lease the parking spaces. Mr. Kraemer said there is the ability to reduce the parking through mobility and cash in lieu. Hunt…. P86 VI.e Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 25, 2019 8 Councilman Hauenstein said if we give you 12 months see what you can do to make option A work with parking on site. Back from dinner 8:30 Councilman Myrin asked is there a way to get from here to functioning like Benedict Commons but with commercial facing Cooper. Can we have parking for Draco and Main over to Rio Grande for these spaces. I’m willing to put energy into making the parking work. I don’t want to go a place with the code that allows a reduction in parking because we changed the code. Benedict Commons over parked for a plan for more housing around it. I’m not supportive of reducing the size of the units. Councilman Frisch said if you want to see a housing project you want them to honor the existing minimums in the APCHA guidelines. Councilman Myrin replied yes. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. 1. Peter Fornell said the lodge incentive program is something I want to talk about. It allows you to reduce affordable housing dramatically. It should be the last thing we are giving to a developer not the first. The parking, especially under the lodge could be the first thing we give to a lodge program. I expect it would be a lot easier to tell a visitor to not bring their car than an employee. The reason I was turned down for my parking garage was I was told it was a traffic generator. Don’t build parking and they won’t bring a car. Allow fewer parking spaces. Put it in the marketing and arrival materials. Keep the hot rooms. 2. Toni Kronberg said 18 months is warranted especially if the developer comes forward with a plan for workforce housing. How many dump trucks of dirt would have to be hauled out for the parking. Let them analyze the options and see what are best for the community. 3. Phyliss Bronson said I love the idea of Base lodge coming back. We need affordable lodging. I agree with what Peter said. I would hate to lose the amenity floor. Yes we need affordable housing but it will happen. To lose the lodge and get a bank is a travesty. 4. Sam Heuens - Sam’s Barbershop, lives at Benedict Commons. I support the lodge first and affordable housing second. The room size would dictate the room rate. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Frisch said he would love to see this building get realized. I would like to see basement floor commercial with a couple floors of lodging. I appreciate the parking as set up will not be in and out parking. If we lose the amenity space there is still the roof space. What other parking options do you see. Ms. Garrow said in terms of the specific project. If the option was off site we would need the solution to come in as part of the amendment. Councilman Frisch said commercial, lodging, lodging amenity for sure. I want some further discussion if the lowest level should be amenity or parking. Councilwoman Mullins said are you waiving the parking requirement. Councilman Frisch replied no. I appreciate people might want this over parking in the basement. Parking needs to be done somewhere. Councilwoman Mullins said what is more important, parking, affordable housing, affordable lodging. Peter made a good point about the affordable lodging incentive program. We really do need this affordable lodging. One of the big reasons Base 2 went down was because it didn’t have any parking. I think what we need is the affordable lodging. Requiring the 23 places in the one story basement. I prefer 6 months vesting with the lodging and the parking on site. Councilman Myrin said it seems like you could build the above grade and figure out the below grade another time. I’m ok with 18 months. I’m not trying to pressure development to happen any time soon. Mayor Skadron said the city can’t build its way out of a parking shortage. One of the broader issues is how the town markets itself. There is general consensus and support to allow for at least a 12 month extension of vested rights to work through these issues. The general direction is for affordable lodging. Mr. Hunt said the housing route was maybe there was an ability to amend a PD. Mayor Skadron said there was direction given by council for the lodging and to preserve the commercial. The direction on the parking is split. Ms. Garrow said we have a suggestion for amending the resolution. Page 162 1st P87 VI.e Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 25, 2019 9 resolution, section 1 - amend end of last sentence, vesting shall expire July 7, 2020 if following conditions are met. 1 year extension. Add subsection 2 to say remove 1 level of basement and apply for planned development review by July 7, 2019. Third subsection is parking and housing would be required to meet current land use code. Add subsection 4 if conditions are satisfied vested rights go through July 7, 2020, if not they would expire Jan 7, 2020. Councilman Frisch said I appreciate we are trying to expedite stuff. This conversation was not part of the original pitch to the public. Mr. Bendon said one step return to council with a public hearing. The wording gives us the ability to go back and say what do we want to do with the basement. The new parking code provides us with enhanced mobility. Councilman Myrin said he prefer it has a set number of parking spaces. More mobility options is code for less parking. Councilwoman Mullins said my preference is to keep the parking in the basement but I’m willing to listen to options. Mr. Bendon said I think the way Jessica drafted the language gives us the most flexibility. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Resolution #11, Series of 2019 with amendments; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor except Councilman Myrin, motion carried. Linda Manning City Clerk P88 VI.e Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 11, 2019 1 CITIZEN COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 2 CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS ................................................................................................................... 2 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ................................................................................................................ 3 BOARD REPORTS ...................................................................................................................................... 3 CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 3 Resolution #29, Series of 2019 – Contract for Replacement of electric Zamboni ................................ 4 Resolution #33, Series of 2019 – Contract with Publicis Sapient for Support of Salesforce/BasicGov 4 Resolution #32, Series of 2019 – Landis + Gyr Technology Inc contract for AMI project ................. 4 Resolution #35, Series of 2019 –Music Associates of Aspen (MAA) Marolt Lease ............................ 4 NOTICE OF CALL UP – Notice of HPC approval of Conceptual Major Development for 931 Gibson Avenue, HPC Resolution #2, Series of 2019 ................................................................................................ 4 ORDINANCE #7, SERIES OF 2019 – Debt Issuance Approval for Funding Construction for New Administrative Offices .................................................................................................................................. 5 ORDINANCE #6, SERIES OF 2019 – Historic Preservation Benefits Code Amendments ........................ 6 ORDINANCE #5, SERIES OF 2019 – Wireless Regulation Amendments ................................................. 7 RESOLUTION #25, SERIES OF 2019 – Removal of the Statement of Exemption from the Definition of Subdivision for 729 W. Francis St. ............................................................................................................... 9 RESOLUTION #31, SERIES OF 2019 – Appeal of variance granted by Resolution #4, Series of 2018 by the Board of Adjustment ............................................................................................................................. 10 P89 VI.e Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 11, 2019 2 At 5:00 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Mullins, Myrin, Frisch and Hauenstein present. CITIZEN COMMENTS 1. Mike Maple said thanks for getting Lift One on the ballot. Sorry to see the division on it. On the call up of 931 Gibson, it is next to my parents home. I was here last summer to encourage you to not do certain things regarding the lot split and bonuses. The application they came back with was not two houses with two garages. I was really excited to see that. There are no variances. It has all my support. One of the most important things about a city are the simple things like streets. I’m not 100% satisfied with the conditions of our streets year in and year out. That starts with the round a bout. I understand that is the purview of CDOT. I think you can encourage them to do a better job. It should be concrete. Cemetery Lane has drainage problems and should be improved. 2. Neil Siegel said he assumed the affordable housing system was tracking assets. It is a decade old problem. Council has twice funded for the development of a management system but no bidders fell within the requirements. It seems like the housing program is falling into the definition of insanity. Why not pause and take a look at the scope of the RFP. Perhaps the project is too ambitious. 3. Toni Kronberg said the streets department did a great job removing the ice this weekend. Voters approved Lift One and she is asking should we snowmelt South Aspen street before the project is complete. Something needs to be done with the pot holes in the round a bout. She asked to have the COPs for city offices be put to a vote. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilman Hauenstein gave a shout out to Tyler and the water department for their diligence over the weekend. There is a question about our water supply with avalanches. You can thank the water department for their diligence. This just points out the danger of our water supply. Streets deserves a big shout out in snow removal. They did a great job. I welcome Skippy on his election and Rachel in her coming home. Concrete for the round a bout has become a consensus. As far as the APCHA database scope, Neil you bring up valid points. We want to get it done and have control over the information. On snowmelt of S Aspen, the consensus was to see how gravel and salt works then snowmelt in the future if needed. Councilwoman Mullins gave congratulations to Skippy and Rachel. Thanks to all the voters for showing up. There was great discussion on the issues and good candidates. Thanks to the snowplowing and staff who has worked so hard to keep the streets clean. Neil, your comment about the tracking, it is time to look at the RFP. We need to get something done. On the census, Philip Supino is working on this. The 2020 census is 13 months away. Partners are organizing a valley wide campaign to get the info out there. Councilman Myrin said thanks to everyone who supported me in the most recent election and who voted no on the lift one proposal. I don’t see a path to solving our housing or traffic congestion problems when direction from the voters is to add hundreds of thousands of job generating square feet to Aspen with less than 100 % affordable housing mitigation. With no clear path to solve that problem I’m relieved and couldn’t be happier to retire from volunteering on these local campaigns. It’s time to let a new council and new volunteers resolve the impacts of adding this square footage to Aspen. If you know anyone looking for housing they need to double down now. The Sky hotel will open this year with only two affordable housing units and likely hundreds of hospitality workers needed. Eventually the Aspen Club, Lift One timeshare and Gorsuch will do the same under mitigating. P90 VI.e Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 11, 2019 3 Councilman Frisch said hats off to Torre and Ann and Rachel and Skippy. Some of us have been working on the housing administrative structure. APCHA was never set up for census but now it needs to get done. Hats off the Jerry and his crew. Mayor Skadron said thank you to all the candidates, it is really hard to sit at the council table. One thing harder than sitting at this table is running a campaign. Big thank you to Jerry and the streets department for keeping the streets clear. Thanks to Tyler and Dave and the water department for keeping the water flowing. Thanks to Sara Ott for being on top of the details. The City is working with CDOT to patch the pot holes until a permanent fix can be made. City crews are out 2 to 4 times a day repairing them. Trish Aragon, engineering, said we had a conversation today with CDOT and they are trying. While the weather is in these wet conditions we are limited as to what we can do. Until then we have to wait for the asphalt plants to open up. Most likely that won’t happen until April. Tyler Christoff, utilities, said we have crews out there 3 to 4 times a day doing temporary patching. The subgrade and weather conditions are not conducive to those lasting more than a few hours. We are looking at alternative materials to see if something might hold up better than what we are using CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Ms. Ott said tomorrow the work session schedule listed King Street drainage. It will be March 18th. Every 3 years we do a large pavement program. That will be this summer. There is $875,000 in the budget for repaving this year based on conditions. Linda Manning, city clerk, said the runoff election is April 2nd. The printer is currently printing the ballots. We hope to have them in the mail on Friday. In person voting will begin in the Clerk’s office on Monday. For any questions stop by the clerk’s office. BOARD REPORTS Mayor Skadron attended the CAST meeting in Denver. There was a keynote from the Governor. They heard a legislative update from Kevin Bommer with CML and an economic update from Brian Landowsky. There was a panel discussion on over crowing on trails and trail heads. CONSENT CALENDAR Reso #32 – AMI Mr. Christoff made council aware the total cost does not represent the total cost of the project. There will be an additional request in October to complete the radio network for the AMI. Councilwoman Mullins said this is the replacement of electric meters and AMI technology for water meters. Lee Ledesma, utilities replied correct. Councilwoman Mullins said there will be no gap in service. Ms. Ledesma replied correct. Councilwoman Mullins asked how will you contact the customers. Mr. Christoff replied individually. PR studio is on board to help with that. Ms. Ledesma stated we have a fact sheet and a website already. Councilwoman Mullins said the 1.6 includes the $200,000 grant from CORE. Ms. Ledesma replied yes. Councilman Frisch said this is a really big upgrade to our system. Mr. Christoff said it will create customer awareness about resource use both on water and electric. It will help them to make informed decisions. Reso #35 – MAA lease Councilwoman Mullins said this is to house music students in the summer. Who in the winter. Pete Strecker, finance replied Aspen Ski Co mostly. Councilwoman Mullins asked is it the same lease at Burlingame. What is the length of that lease. Mr. Strecker replied he is not sure on that lease. It is structured similarly in working with MAA in the summer and other employers in winter months. Councilwoman Mullins asked if it is a similar useful life of the property. Mr. Strecker replied that Burlingame should have a longer life. They are doing work out there now. Councilwoman Mullins asked how come we haven’t seen that lease. Mr. Strecker replied he is not sure the term of that lease. P91 VI.e Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 11, 2019 4 Reso #29 – Zamboni purchase Councilwoman Mullins said this is great. The Frank Zamboni company still manufactures these in California. Cory Vander Veen, recreation, said the same family still manufactures them. We have three machines and they are incredible. · Resolution #29, Series of 2019 – Contract for Replacement of electric Zamboni · Resolution #33, Series of 2019 – Contract with Publicis Sapient for Support of Salesforce/BasicGov · Resolution #32, Series of 2019 – Landis + Gyr Technology Inc contract for AMI project · Resolution #35, Series of 2019 –Music Associates of Aspen (MAA) Marolt Lease Councilman Frisch moved to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. NOTICE OF CALL UP – Notice of HPC approval of Conceptual Major Development for 931 Gibson Avenue, HPC Resolution #2, Series of 2019 Sarah Yoon, community development, said this was approved September 17 thru ordinance 22 for relocation of two historic buildings. They were required to submit HP major development review. On February 27 HPC approved a proposal for major development with a 3 to 0 vote. The meeting was opened with 4 members, but one member had to recuse. There is an extensive restoration plan and reconfiguration of the historic buildings and a 30 foot connector. There are no dimensional variations. Four letters of support were submitted. All HPC members voiced strong support for the project. Staff recommends council uphold the HPC approval. Councilman Myrin asked if the sidewalks are detached or attached. Jessica Garrow, community development, replied they will be approved as part of the final design. The ordinance requires a sidewalk. Sara Adams, representing the owner, said it will comply with the master plan. Ms. Garrow said typically they are detached but it will be part of the final review. Conceptual focuses on massing. The ordinance approving the relocation specified a sidewalk. Councilman Myrin said watching the snow this past week it ends up on an attached sidewalk. It is a lot easier to walk on a detached sidewalk. Councilman Frisch said he will not ask for call up. The 30 foot connector, is it something we could see a lot of. Ms. Adams said the function of the connector is the kitchen. We are maintaining the original interior stair and second floor. Ms. Garrow said this is a unique lot in a lot of ways. We don’t expect to see 30 foot connectors much. Councilman Hauenstein asked is the original structure demolished or on site. Ms. Garrow said demolished. Councilman Hauenstein said he is concerned with the quorum. Jim True, city attorney, said we made a determination some years ago if a recusal requires someone to step out it does not defeat the quorum. In this case there were 4 people who initiated the meeting and were present. She could not participate in the meeting and had to step out of the room. We considered this as maintaining the quorum. There is still a requirement that 3 people vote in favor. Councilman Hauenstein said my concern is 3 individuals made a decision on this. I don’t want to call it up for that. Councilwoman Mullins moved to uphold HPC Resolution #2, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, Motion carried. P92 VI.e Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 11, 2019 5 ORDINANCE #7, SERIES OF 2019 – Debt Issuance Approval for Funding Construction for New Administrative Offices Mr. Strecker said this will finance the new city offices with COPs. The existing Rio Grande and the renovation of the armory, neither are included in this financing. We don’t have cash for all three projects. There is some concern about delaying and going to a GO vote. Rates are about 3.78% for this type of package. It is a very good rate. COPs are a very common vehicles for issuing this type of dept. The City has done COPs for past debt, most recently for the police building. This ordinance has a set of parameters outlining allowance for the current market. The schedule on page 2 will need to be extended out further. We need a guaranteed max price first. It will be more like late May. Councilman Myrin asked is it a line of credit. Mr. Strecker replied we do a site lease and lease out the ground. We get paid up front for that. We take those dollars and pay back in annual instalments. We get the proceeds all up front in this case. Councilman Hauenstein said it is a lease to buy with a no buy out in the end. Mr. Strecker said we do take ownership of the building at the end of the payments. Councilman Hauenstein said he would like to explore further the possibility of financing a portion of this through the Wheeler fund. It would benefit the Wheeler fund paying a higher interest than they are receiving. Mayor Skadron said this has come up a number of times. Mr. Strecker said currently our policy restricts us from longer than a 10 year intra fund loan. It would make the pay back a lot higher on the general, stormwater, APCH and IT funds. It stresses the other funds that would have to make those payments. Councilman Hauenstein said you are saying there is a downside to borrowing from the Wheeler. Councilman Myrin said we are the ones who set the 10 year limit. We could change it to 30. I wouldn’t let the obstacle of the 10 year restriction get in the way. Councilman Hauenstein said if we did a 20 or 30 year payback and there was a benefit to the Wheeler and the city and COPs for the remainder. Mr. Strecker said I would need to talk to bond council to see if there is a limit where that deal becomes less attractive. Councilman Hauenstein said if there is support on council I would like that explored. Councilman Frisch said the Wheeler has 30 some million dollars that is earning some amount of money. We are about to obtain 30 million dollars. Is there a way where it is not an all or nothing situation where we can lower the cost to the community. Ward is asking and I’m asking. Ms. Ott said we will pull back out the memo from May and the minutes from October where you talked about COPs. Councilman Myrin said the timing for this and being able to draw on the Wheeler may make more sense. Ms. Ott said we are asking you is the market good today or is the market good when we need to do the armory. We feel it is good now. We will pull the info back out and get it to you as quickly as we can. The premise for the funding for this is all based on COPs. We’ve modeled it off of 30 years. Councilman Myrin said on the demolition and design work for 3.8 million, is that included in the construction renovation. Mr. Strecker replied the 30.6 million includes that as well. Mayor Skadron said we are at first reading now because council did our homework and this is our best option. It is a matter of prudent financing on behalf of the city. Councilwoman Mullins moved to read Ordinance #7, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor, Motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 7 (SERIES OF 2019) AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE FINANCING OF CERTAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS OF THE CITY, AND IN CONNECTION THEREWITH AUTHORIZING THE LEASING OF CERTAIN CITY PROPERTY AND THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF DOCUMENTS RELATED THERETO; SETTING FORTH CERTAIN PARAMETERS AND RESTRICTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE FINANCING; AND PROVIDING OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO. Councilman Hauenstein moved to adopt Ordinance #7, Series of 2019 on first reading; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Myrin, yes; Frisch, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. P93 VI.e Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 11, 2019 6 ORDINANCE #6, SERIES OF 2019 – Historic Preservation Benefits Code Amendments Amy Simon, community development, said we have been talking with council, HPC, public and steak holders for over a year. The city has 300 designated landmarks. We have had HP benefits since 1987. There have been very few changes in the last 32 years. We are very proud of our benefits but recognize updates are needed. HPC supports the amendments. Through outreach, survey and response was very positive. Historic properties are in cases allowed more units than other properties. Floor area is the most valuable benefit. We made it so smaller lots are eligible for less footage. We are suggesting amendments to GMQS, related to single family and duplex. No changes to commercial properties. Currently if someone were to add on to a home they get a break on affordable housing fees. $400,000 a year is being waived. One idea is accept that it is an important fee waiver. Another alternative is to remove it or cut the benefit in half. Another alternative is to replace it with a reduction in other permit fees. A different option is to replace this with expedited permitting. The ordinance is currently written that the affordable housing waiver stays in place for ASpenModern properties. We are also suggesting amendment to TDRs where council is given more discretion. Council has the chance with HPC recommendation to decide if it is a good idea or not. We are also suggesting the City no longer be a review body for state historic preservation income tax benefit. The reviews are becoming more and more complicated. The state ought to make these calls themselves. There are some new ideas in the ordinance. First is to do with TDRs. In MU, new single family homes would take a 20 % hit. A citizen suggested they could get it back in TDRs. There are a few projects with a sizable light well, like a donut hole, and we are suggesting that the floor area could be waived. Councilwoman Mullins asked about the $400,000 in affordable housing fees. Ms. Simon replied it is a 4 year average. Councilman Hauenstein asked does council want to continue waiving parking. His concern is with workhouse housing being waived. Ms. Simon said HPC has the authority to waive on site parking on residential properties. There is no fee waiver involved. It means someone will probably park on the street. For commercial they can waive the parking if there is a physical restriction. They can also waive the fee. Councilman Hauenstein said I applaud you on scaling the floor area bonuses. Is there a matrix that you can apply so it becomes less subjective. Ms. Simon said we tried to list specific examples. Councilman Hauenstein asked with a lot split, can they be condomonimized. Does the historic asset have to be attached. Ms. Simon said with a lot split one lot might have a single family house and one might have a duplex. They can be condomonimized. Councilman Frisch said he wanted to make sure we were not over stimulating the HP program. There are three things on the table; the size benefit, waiver benefit and time to process. I appreciate the outreach to developers. Affordable housing is the first thing we chuck out. I need some more certainty about the affordable housing waiver. It needs to be off the table or the last thing to go. What other pure monetary things can we do if we take affordable housing 100 percent off the table. Ms. Garrow said we’ve outlined some alternatives. One is do nothing. Two is do a 50% reduction. Third is off set it with a reduction in permit review fees. Fourth is remove the fee waiver and don’t replace it with a monetary waiver but replace it with expedited review. Councilman Frisch said I’m not looking to keep the monetary package what it is. I think the first question is are you trying to protect the same benefit package and rearrange it or lower it. Ms. Simon said we are interested in replacing the affordable housing fee waiver with another type of waiver. We’ve gotten feedback that suggests while the benefits are generous there is so much review time it is needed. Councilman Frisch said a year ago I talked about taking the affordable housing waiver away completely. I think we can give away less and have really high quality projects. Ms. Garrow said perhaps we can provide more detail as to what these waiver are. It is important to note that the changes we are making to the duplex incentive and the floor area bonus is really tightening up the program. I would characterize it as pulling back overall. Councilman Frisch said if we take the average sale price and the amt of effort we are putting in I want to make sure it is a meaningful thing. I’m not sure in a 10 million dollar expense $75,000 is going to change one iota of the quality of the project that is done. P94 VI.e Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 11, 2019 7 Councilman Hauenstein said option 4 is most attractive, nix the waivers and have a time bonus instead of a dollar bonus. It seems like the HPC bonuses are used as a development tool. How many projects are lived in by the current owners. Is it possible to have a time element to vest the benefits. If a party receives the benefits there is a timeframe on it. If they flip it the bonuses are due. Councilwoman Mullins said it should be a partnership between the city and developers to be stewards. We want to make sure each party is getting equal benefit out of it. At a minimum I think the affordable housing waiver should be gone. If we need that financial incentive it should be transferred some place else. I’m not sure the expedited permitting is appropriate. Councilman Myrin said it would be helpful to understand what was waived for the Lundy house. It is on the market for 29 Million. Right now we tell the sellers it doesn’t come out of their pockets. I support removing it from AspenModern as well. Mayor Skadron said he concurs with the general comments. The focus is Adam’s comment around understanding what the average incentive package is. It is too aggressive and generous now. Councilwoman Mullins moved to read Ordinance #6, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 6 (SERIES OF 2019) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE RELATED TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION BENEFITS Councilman Hauenstein moved to adopt Ordinance #6, Series of 2109 on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Hauenstein, yes; Frisch, yes; Myrin, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #5, SERIES OF 2019 – Wireless Regulation Amendments Ms. Garrow said the core team has been working on updating the wireless code. This is the third time in front of council. Why amend the code. There have been recent changes to state and federal rules. They go in to effect on April 14. This code will create the best service with the least negative impact to the community. Key aspects include compliance with state and federal rules, design requirements, height requirements, spacing and setbacks requirements and timeline. State and federal laws follow FCC guidelines. There are a number of new definitions. Defining wireless communication facilities. Example – requirements related to radio frequencies. Design requirements related to camouflaging and concealment. Colocation when possible. Architectural compatibility requirements as well as with natural environment and screening. It is treated very similar to mechanical equipment. There is language that limits the height of free standing facilities to 25 feet. It is below what other communities have adopted. The City is very unique. We have Ref 1 requirements. There are reductions in height in the CC. We have viewplane and 8040 greenline requirements. This may be something that we need to address once applications come in. There are some higher heights allowed via special review only if they can be effectively camouflaged. Most of our light poles are less than 20 feet, 17 to 18. Signal poles are 22 feet tall. Main and Galena has a signal pole at 30 feet. Spacing requirements are 100 foot for private property and 600 feet when in the right of way. Exempt when property is screened or for technical requirement. Setback requirements for private property are 50 foot from the property line and not permitted in a front yard. There are review timelines we have to comply with. Depending on the application they are 60 and 90 days. We have 10 days to determine if an application is complete. Regular construction rules that apply to the right of way. Andrea Bryan, assistant city attorney, said the new FCC rules are in effect now but we have until April 14 to adopt design guidelines. P95 VI.e Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 11, 2019 8 Councilwoman Mullins asked is anything we are proposing in contradiction with legislation that is in place now. Ms. Bryan stated we don’t believe so. Verizon is giving their opinion on that in a letter in the packet. Councilwoman Mullins said the other concern is the health issues. I would like it if we can continue to follow any type of research on that. Ms. Bryan said that is one area federal law is clear on we cannot prohibit based on. Brandon Dittman, wireless attorney, said the extent to which municipalities are permitted to regulate is that the applicant is compliant with all federal requirements. Mayor opened public comment. 1. Mellissa Regan, Sherman and Howard, council to Verizon wireless. Andrew Cole, Verizon, said they are thankful and grateful to Andrea and Jessica for working with us. They adopted a lot of the comments we proposed. There are two areas we want to address. Height limitation of 25 feet. Second is if there are variances for the height they will have to come before council as a special review. Council has limited discretion. We want to make sure you are aware on those limitations. Mr. Cole said small cells are lower power smaller facilities that tend to fill in gaps in capacity. Small cells add lanes for data driven tasks. On height, we realize you are balancing public policy, while it may be possible to deploy at 25 feet we don’t know how technically feasible it would be to deploy an entire city at 25 feet. It could deprioritize Aspen from a technical feasibility standpoint. Ms. Regan said lower height could mean more poles. For variance the code reads it would have to come to council as a special review. Under state law they are a permitted use by right. The review is narrowly prescribed. The shot clocks would put pressure on staff and council as well. Councilman Myrin said is the process under Ref 1 if something is above 25 feet it would go to voters. Mr. True said I don’t think it would be the case. We are talking about the right of way. We bring up Ref 1 about how sensitive the city is to heights. Councilman Hauenstein said they are low power, high band width and short range. Mr. Cole said either 4G or 5G. Low power in both. Shorter range in both. Higher band width only apply to 5G. Wireless is changing extremely rapidly. Councilman Hauenstein said are we going to be seeing a huge volume of applications. Ms. Garrow replied we have heard from all 4 major carriers. Right now, we already process applications, maybe 1 a month. Not sure it will dramatically increase. Mr. Dittman said applicants can submit applications in batches. Typically, you will see more come in at one time. Ms. Regan said often we will batch them together. Councilman Hauenstein asked how does Verizon feel about collocating. Mr. Cole said with another carrier at 25 feet it would be nearly impossible under the technology we use. It is not an interference on channels but on total height and how the equipment would need to be stacked. Councilman Hauenstein asked how tall a pole would you need to co locate. Mr. Cole said it depends on the sum total of the network, the neighborhood, where on the block and the topography. As we roll out 5G it will live with 4G for an extended period of time. Devices will connect to one or the other for an extended period of time. We would like to deploy multiple technologies on the same pole. Ms. Garrow said we tried to balance community character with federal and state requirements. We added language that says policy resolution is maintained. As we see the applications we can update the code if needed. We feel the code has an appropriate balance at this point. Brandon – you see different heights across the country. It is difficult to collocate. If you want to achieve more colocation more height is needed. Paul Schultz, IT, asked Mr. Cole about mobile versus fixed and what is proposed. Mr. Cole said he can’t speak to that right now. Ms. Regan said that is part of the ongoing discussion about what the plan for Aspen looks like. Mr. True aid we’ve talked a lot in Ref 1 about right of way issues. People could put things on top of buildings. Given federal shot clocks that can’t be addressed. I don’t know where it leads you if Ref 1 is kicked in. Most of the time it is right of way. You have federal preemption. The vote potentially comes mute. We were focusing on Ref 1 to point out the height sensitivity in this community. P96 VI.e Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 11, 2019 9 Councilman Hauenstein asked what have you done in other communities. Mr. Cole replied 5 communities deployed fixed wireless. Councilman Frisch said my reading is the lobbyists worked their way in DC and you can do what ever you want. I appreciate you are sincerely trying to work on this but your break in point is 25 feet and then some. I think we try to craft something simple and with enough pushback that gets them to try to think about it a little bit. Ms. Garrow said we tried to craft language that does that and has some special review and shows they need some higher height. We have money to do more detail design guidelines for the right of ways. This is the first step in a multi step process. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Mr. Dittman said there are many federal lawsuits over these regulations suing the FCC over these. That process is still ongoing. There will be updates to address these. The lawsuits don’t affect the shot clocks. Councilman Myrin asked are there things we could tighten up that we haven’t. Mr. Dittman said this is one of the more restrictive codes in Colorado. After this process there is a licensing process where you will create a licensing agreement where additional requirements will be flushed out. This is Aspen customized. There is a lot of language from the federal laws. Ms. Bryan said a lot of the language is from our prior code which was quite restrictive and comphrensive. Ms. Ott said we’ve been in close contact with our peers in the valley as well as Senator Bennet’s office talking about controls. Councilman Hauenstein moved to adopt Ordinance #5, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Hauenstein, yes; Frisch, yes; Myrin, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #25, SERIES OF 2019 – Removal of the Statement of Exemption from the Definition of Subdivision for 729 W. Francis St. Phillip Supino, community development, said this will remove certain restrictions placed on the property from the definition of subdivision around 1978. It addressed housing issues related to subdivision. Council saw fit to place restrictions on the property related to affordable housing, including a 6 month minimum lease requirement and notice to sell to the tenant and first right of refusal. There is an administrative process to remove some of restrictions. It does not address the notice of intent to sell and right of first refusal requirements. Those requires council review and approval by resolution. The current standards in the code no longer valid. Between growth management and other code there is a more robust and enforceable system. Removing those requirements would not change future use of the property. This would clear title. Staff recommends approval. Joe Krabacher, representing the applicant, said the codes in effect in the 70s impose these requirements. At that time there was a big wave of condominumizations. It was common at the time for right of first refusal. The code was amended and these two provisions were in the old code. Minimal rental restrictions and first refusal. When the code was amended it talks about the rental restriction but not the first refusal. We are asking it be released. A lot that I see only have the rental restriction. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Resolution #25, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried. P97 VI.e Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 11, 2019 10 RESOLUTION #31, SERIES OF 2019 – Appeal of variance granted by Resolution #4, Series of 2018 by the Board of Adjustment Kevin Rayes, community development, said this was a front yard setback variance appeal for 431/433 W Hallam. The property is located in the R6 zone and currently contains a duplex. The owner is planning to redeveloped with a single family dwelling. The proposed design would require removal of several large spruce trees to meet the setbacks. Parks determined the trees cannot be removed. The applicant is requesting a variance from Comdev to move the house 5 feet forward to accommodate the trees. On August 23rd we received an application for a 5 foot front yard variance. On December 13th the Board of Adjustment, BOA, reviewed the application and approved it as Resolution 4, 2018. On December 27th we received an application from a neighbor appealing the decision. The appeal stated the BOA abused their discretion. For an appeal, there are three criteria for council to consider. The decision or determination shall not be reversed or modified unless denial of due process, exceeded its jurisdiction or abused discretion. Regarding due process, certain timeframes when appeals must be submitted and hearings submitted. The appellant submitted noticed via certified mail and everyone else via newspaper. We believe this was met. Relating to jurisdiction, the BOAs jurisdiction is defined in the land use code. It is to hear, review and approve variances. The BOA shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove a development for variances the terms of this title. This is not in question. The appellant is questioning discretion. While the board needed to use its discretion, the question is whether they abused it. In approving the variance the board relied on several facts. The memo and exhibits as well as the application from the applicant. They also relied on the facts presented at the hearing by staff and applicant. They also considered public testimony heard during the hearing. The criteria for the board to consider was referenced as part of the presentations. Following the presentations, the board asked follow up questions regarding a design modification and constraints to the lot. The board ultimately approved the variance. While staff recommended denial, we believe the decision was made ethically. We recommend council uphold the Boards decision. Mr. True said emphasize under the standard of review the decision of council is based solely on the record of the body. In regard to the record there was a transcript that was attached. That is proposed to be withdrawn and replaced with an audio version of the proceeding. We would request you disregard anything from the transcript and reply on the remainder of the record. There are a great deal of people in the audience. This is not a public hearing but a public meeting. The record cannot be supplemented by testimony tonight. The attorneys for the owner prepared the transcript. I should have recognized it and questioned it. It was not prepared by us. The official transcript would have had to be done by the clerk. Pete Thomas, represent the appellant, said there has been a lot of talk about let’s keep Aspen Aspen. Let’s keep the west end the west end. How do we do that by holding people to the letter to the code. A variance should not be used as an escape valve for people to maximize their development. That is exactly why it was used in front of the BOA. Variances are considered by the courts to be granted sparingly. Variances erode the very fabric of the code. There needs to be a mighty reason to allow them. When is a variance proper. A dimensional variance is only permissible if 3 criteria are met. 1 – consistent with the code. 2- minimum variance necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the property. 3 – enforcement of the code would cause unnecessary hardship. An alternative design is available that does allow for a reasonable home and reasonable use of the property. BOA is free to disagree. We are not challenging the discretion of the board but the complete absence of the findings in the record. They didn’t do that. They didn’t even mention the code criteria. That puts you in an impossible situation. With respect to the second criteria where is the discussion in the minutes. They asked the applicant if they considered alternative designs and they said it doesn’t work. The shortcoming relates to the absence in the record and the inadequacies in findings. Chris Bendon, representing the owner, showed image of the home with the trees. We assumed the trees could be removed. They are very similar to other trees in the area. The City forester changed during this time and it became apparent that a removal permit would not be issued. We looked at design options and all had a hardship level of impact. He showed an image with the house footprint and trees to be removed and ones that needed to be preserved and ones not permitted to be removed. I’ve reviewed the minutes P98 VI.e Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 11, 2019 11 and feel they are an accurate representation. Due process is very clear. The BOA handled the process part in an admirable way. I think you should be proud of them. Regarding abuse of discretion, we think the BOA made a rational decision. They were presented with information and they made findings. The application, written summary, narrative and describing how the criteria is met. We provided a summary with mapping and pictures. Staff did the same thing. Losing 20 to 30 percent of floor area is catastrophic. The BOA questioned staff and the applicant on specifics related to the property and trees. We told them the neighbors to the east received a handful of variances including pushing the house closer to the street. They took written and verbal testimony. They heard responses to the testimony and asked us questions. The total deliberation was just under an hour. The record is very clear, They read, heard, listened and were told about the criteria. They discussed the criteria. All parties had ample opportunity to understand the application. The BOA facilitated a reasonable and rational discussion. They were inundated with how the application met up with the criteria. The resolution is referring to the criteria and body of evidence and the finding they made. At one point the BOA asked the city attorney, Andrea Bryan, if they were ready to advance to decision making. They were clear on 2 points, the effects of not receiving a variance would be catastrophic. Secondly, they were inundated on the criteria. It is clear in our mind the BOA did their job correctly. The process was spic and span. Calling their decision arbitrary is untrue. We ask that the council uphold the decision and make clear the BOA treated everyone with respect. Since the approval, we’ve had conversations with the neighbors. Independent of the approval we are working on how to make the mass and scale more appealing to the neighbors. Nancy would rather have neighbors that are happy. Nancy wants to build a house with the same floor area everyone else in the neighborhood has. Mr. Thomas said we are not saying they disrespected anyone. The applicant bombarded them with their information and staff presented them with information. The BOA never synthesized that information and articulated on the record how they meet these three facts. Mr. True said if Pete is questioning the validity of what Chis said I think you need to disregard that. I don’t think it is appropriate to open that. Mr. Thomas said we did respond to Chris and we offered to give them a variance and we were met with it’s all or nothing. Mr. True said those arguments have been made and I would direct council to what is in the packet. Ms. Garrow said the BOA is tasked with hearing variances along with variations. Variances relate to hardships where variations relate to design. They hear all variances related to setbacks. Mayor Skadron said Chris gave a list of elements that were presented to the board, is the BOA equipped to deal with this type of application. Ms. Garrow replied absolutely. They see applications like this throughout the year. Sometimes they vote against and sometimes for. Councilman Hauenstein said Pioneer Park owns a sliver along 4th Street. Mr. Bendon replied they have a carport and some other surface parking. As you turn down 4th it truncates our parcel. Councilman Hauenstein said what the BOA approved was to move the setback 5 feet closer to Hallam. Mr. Bendon replied correct, normally it is 10 feet. They changed it from 10 feet to five. The curb line extends quite a bit. What you see of the front yard is public right of way. Ms. Garrow said the discussion of setback on page 557, within the meeting minutes there is discussion of this question as to what is the setback. The BOA said it seems like the house is 30 feet back. Councilman Hauenstein said the perception is the house is farther back. The house to the east is closer than what the setback would bring this property. Mr. Bendon replied correct. Councilman Myrin said I’ve never been a fan of variances. Councilman Frisch said you are asking us to remand it back to the board rather than over turn. Mr. Thomas said we are saying there is no basis for you to make a decision one way or the other. Councilman Frisch said the 10 concerns about the lot, 9 seems to be well known. The FAR numbers are maximums not minimums. I’m confused by the thought process of the BOA and I’m supportive of what staff was P99 VI.e Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 11, 2019 12 trying to make in their original concerns. I think minimally there is some value in it going back to the BOA to try to flush that out a little bit. Councilwoman Mullins said I agree with staff’s original recommendation with some type of modified design. As I understand it we are to be looking at due process, jurisdiction or abuse of discretion. As I read the minutes we are ok on due process, jurisdiction is not an issue. Though the members of the BOA don’t cite title 26 verbatim they do discuss them. To me, though I don’t agree with what has been approved, I support the process. They performed their review the way they should and within the criteria. Councilman Hauenstein said I agree with Ann on this. I don’t like the idea of a variance. If we are supposed to rule on procedure only I’m not convinced the property doesn’t have the potential for a nice home without the setback. I’m torn on overturning BOA findings when the procedure has been met. Mr. True said this is not a hearing de novo that allows you to make your own decision. Mr. Thomas has suggested there is not sufficient evidence to support the decision. Mr. Bendon is suggesting there is. You have to determine there is sufficient evidence. The minutes are accurate and all of the exhibits are part of the record. Mayor Skadron said when I read the minutes, I see no evidence that the BOA applied the criteria of any kind to this decision. One of the comments discusses the balance between government and people. I’m concluding based particularly on the minutes they insufficiently applied the criteria. Mr. True said that is within your authority. You can remand it back to the BOA and ask them to have further proceedings. You can give them direction but don’t need to. You can reverse the decision and the variance will not be granted. These things are close calls. Councilman Myrin made a motion suggesting reversing the BOA Resolution #4. Councilman Frisch seconded. Mayor Skadron said do you think it should be remanded back. Councilman Hauenstein said I could support it being remanded back. Councilwoman Mullins said I think they did address the various issues. Mr. Bendon said often there are decisions where the boards are not reciting sections of the code. If that is what is necessary we are happy to go back to the BOA. Mayor Skadron said I don’t expect the BOA to become experts on land use code but I need something in the minutes. Councilman Frisch said it is not a black and white issue. I think there is a minimum sufficiency. I’m not sure how they came up with the decision they did. I would prefer to withdraw the motion and remand it back. Councilman Myrin said he is ok with that. Councilman Hauenstein moved to remand back to the BOA. Mr. True said we need that as a resolution. He suggested modifying one of the 31s to change to remand to BOA for further consideration of all the criteria set forth under the code. Councilman Frisch said he would like the BOA to focus on the staff recommendation and why they feel they did not meet those. Mr. True said I understand that, but I think you need to be able to allow new evidence. Councilman Frisch seconded the motion. Mr. true said the proposed motion is to accept new evidence. All in favor except Councilwoman Mullins. Motion carried. Linda Manning City Clerk P100 VI.e TO: Mayor Skadron and City Council FROM: Mike Kraemer, Senior Planner THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director MEETING DATE: 1st Reading: March 25 2nd Reading: April 22 RE: 465 and 557 North Mill Street Rezoning APPLICANT: North Mill Street, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Chris Bendon. BendonAdams, LLC LOCATION & PARCEL ID: 465 and 557 North Mill Street PID#’s: 273707300048, 273707300013 CURRENT ZONING & USE: The properties are located within the Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI) zone district. There are a variety of “Service Uses” and “Service, Commercial, and Industrial” uses presently operating on the two lots. PROPOSED ZONING & USE: The Applicant proposes to rezone the properties to the Mixed Use (MU) zone district which would allow for a variety of different uses not currently allowed in the SCI zone district. Development, redevelopment, or a change in use for the properties are not proposed at this time. PLANNING AND ZONING RECOMMENDATION On February 19th, 2019 the P&Z motion on a 5-1 vote, to approve PZ Resolution No. 4, Series 2019, recommending denial of the rezoning request to the City Council. MEMORANDUM Mayor Skadron and City Council Mike Kraemer, Senior Planner Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director March 25th, 2019 Reading: April 22nd, 2019 (public hearing) 465 and 557 North Mill Street Rezoning: Ordinance No. 4, Series 2019 PID#’s: 273707300048, 273707300013 The properties are located within the Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI) zone There are a variety of “Service Uses” and Commercial, and Industrial” uses The Applicant proposes to rezone the properties to the Mixed Use (MU) zone district which would allow for a variety of different uses e SCI zone district. Development, redevelopment, or a change in not proposed at this ECOMMENDATION: , 2019 the P&Z passed a 1 vote, to approve PZ Resolution No. 4, Series 2019, recommending denial of the STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council proposed rezoning following 2nd Reading hearing) set for April 22nd, 2019. Figure A. 465 North Mill Street, front façade Figure B. 465 North Mill Street, rear façade Figure C. 557 North Mill Street, front façade Series 2019 Staff recommends that the City Council deny the Reading (public Figure A. 465 North Mill Street, front façade Figure B. 465 North Mill Street, rear façade Figure C. 557 North Mill Street, front façade P101 VIII.a Page 2 of 6 LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval: Rezoning – pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310.060, Rezoning – Procedure for Amendment: 2 step review. The Planning and Zoning Commission is tasked with determining if the application meets the standards for an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, and to provide a recommendation to City Council. The City Council considers a rezoning request at a required 1st Reading and 2nd Reading. The purpose of the 1st Reading is to preliminarily consider the request and set a date for 2nd Reading. The 2nd Reading is a duly noticed public hearing. City Council is the final review authority on a rezoning matter. BACKGROUND: The project area includes two parcels within the SCI zone district located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Puppy Smith Street and N. Mill Street. The gross lot area for 465 N. Mill Street (Lot 1) is 46,353 sq. ft. The gross lot area for 557 N. Mill Street (Lot 2) is 6,301 sq. ft. Both lots contain a total of 52,654 sq. ft. The two lots are illustrated in Figure D. Figure D. Existing conditions survey. Lot 1 (465 N. Mill Street) in blue, Lot 2 (555/557 N. Mill St.) in light green Lot 1 is developed with a two-story, partially subgrade structure that includes a walk-out configuration on the rear façade as shown in Figure B. The structure on Lot 1 contains approximately 20,645 sq. ft. of Net Leasable Area. Lot 2 also has a two-story structure; however, the lower level is mostly subgrade. The structure on Lot 2 is smaller and contains approximately 5,981 sq. ft. of Floor Area and approximately 7,990 sq. ft. of Net Leasable Area. A variety of Service/Commercial/Industrial uses exist on the two lots, including the following types of business: sports equipment sales and service, auto and motorcycle repair and service, laundromat/dry cleaning, home contracting services, and an artist studio. A list of the existing businesses and uses can be found in Exhibit D, “Existing Use Table” to this memo. P102 VIII.a Page 3 of 6 Figure E. Project Location & Vicinity, the subject property is indicated by a white border Adjacent zone districts near the subject properties, shown in Figure E, include: SCI, Neighborhood Commercial (NC), Public/Planned Development (PUB/PD), and Park (P). Nearby zone districts include Mixed Use (MU), Academic (A), Affordable Housing/Planned Development (AH/PD), Medium-Density Residential (R-6), Moderate- Density Residential (R-15), Low-Density Residential (R-30). PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant proposes to rezone the subject properties, Lots 1 and 2, from Service Commercial Industrial (SCI) to Mixed Use (MU). At this time, no development is proposed on the properties. STAFF EVALUATION: The review criteria for rezoning considerations in Section 26.310.090 of the Land Use Code are attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. The review criteria for a rezoning request focuses on two primary areas. The first considers the potential impact of the request on the built and natural environment. The second considers the compatibility of the proposal to the surrounding existing land uses, neighborhood characteristics, harmony of the public interest, and the Land Use Code. Staff responses to applicable Land Use Code standards can be found in Exhibit A of this memo. For City Council consideration, Staff has provided the Land Use Code use and dimensional standards for the SCI zone district and the MU zone district which can be viewed as Exhibit B and Exhibit C, respectively. The Staff evaluation below weighs the proposal against applicable Land Use Code criteria and includes an analysis of the purpose/intent and allowed/prohibited uses in both the SCI zone district and the MU zone district. P103 VIII.a Page 4 of 6 Allowable Uses: · The subject properties currently contain uses such as a consignment resale sporting goods business, engine mechanic service, furniture fabrication/manufacturing, tire replacement/detailing, and a laundromat. A total of twenty-one (21) businesses operate on the subject properties, identified in Exhibit D, Existing Use Table. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.710.160: SCI Zone District and Land Use Code Section 26.104.110: SCI Use Category, all existing businesses operating on the subject properties are allowed uses and are conforming in the SCI zone district. · Certain existing uses on the subject properties are permitted in both the SCI zone district and the MU zone district. For example, “laundry and dry cleaning” and “light maintenance and repair” are allowed uses that overlap in both the SCI zone district and the MU zone district. If the rezoning request were approved, these uses would remain conforming. In contrast, some of the existing uses on the subject properties are specifically targeted as allowed in the SCI zone district while prohibited in the MU zone district. Examples of these uses are “manufacturing” and “heavy maintenance and repair”. Should the subject properties be rezoned to MU, existing manufacturing and heavy maintenance/repair businesses would become non-conforming. · While certain permitted uses have overlap between the two zone districts, in contrast, the MU zone district contains certain allowed uses that are prohibited in the SCI zone district. Examples of these uses include office, multi-family/single family/duplex residential, lodging, specialty retail uses, and restaurant/bar. Although mixed-use by name, the MU zone district states that residential and commercial uses cannot be combined in a single building. In actuality, commercial and residential uses are required to be standalone. Though no development plan or change of use request is proposed in association with this rezoning request, Staff is concerned of the possibility that certain allowed MU zone district uses may be more desirable and potentially displace existing SCI uses. This sentiment is similarly acknowledged in the 2018 “Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines” – River Approach Area, page 86. Displaced SCI uses would have limited ability to relocate due to the restricted amount of SCI zoned land with the City of Aspen. An analysis of existing SCI zoned lands is provided later in this memo. Purpose and Intent of the SCI zone district and the MU zone district: · Pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.710.160, the SCI zone district purpose clause states the following: The S/C/I zone supports Aspen Area Community Plan policies related to a sustainable, local serving economy and the preservation of a diversity of commercial opportunities for locals and visitors. In response to the decreased intensity of commercial uses in the zone and relative distance from the CC and C1 zones, both multi-modal and automobile parking improvements are appropriate on site in the S/C/I. In order to enhance the City’s commercial diversity, the zone allows for uses not found in other zones including light industrial, manufacturing, production, repair and similar service-related uses. The S/C/I zone is designed to provide commercial space to those uses not appropriate in other commercial zones, but which provide an essential or unique service to support the local economy. Flexibility and adaptability are important features of the zone to respond to changing commercial sector dynamics and meet the space needs of the City’s service, creative and production economies. P104 VIII.a Page 5 of 6 Light industrial, manufacturing, and repair uses are exclusive to the SCI zone district and provide unique services uses that support the local economy. In general, the existing uses identified in Attachment D are in concert with the stated SCI purpose and the subject properties are appropriately zoned SCI. · Though not a regulatory document, the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) provides aspirational guidance for long term goals of the Aspen community. The SCI purpose statement identifies an AACP goal to establish diverse commercial opportunities for locals and visitors which, in turn, encourages a balanced commercial mix that meets basic community needs. The current SCI zoning on the subject properties and existing uses accomplish this AACP goal. If approved, the proposed rezoning represents significant loss of SCI zoned lands within the City of Aspen. Eliminating SCI zoned lands is not consistent with the goals of AACP, as referenced in the SCI purpose statement. · Pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.710.180, the Mixed-Use zone district purpose clause states the following: “The Mixed Use (MU) zone serves as a transition from the more intense commercial areas of the CC and C-1 zones, and the residential and lodging zones surrounding Main Street. By allowing for a mix of commercial and residential uses and smaller-scale development, the Mixed Use zone reflects Aspen’s historic character and provides different economic and residential opportunities from more traditional commercial zones. Particularly along Main Street, the Mixed Use zone serves as a buffer from the traffic of Highway 82 while allowing for smaller scale commercial and residential opportunities. Buildings in the Mixed Use zone consist primarily of commercial, service and office uses on the ground floor, and residential and office uses on upper floors and off of the primary street frontage. Uses in the MU zone should not erode the character of the neighborhood or create excessive impacts to the surrounding residential and lodging zone. Standalone residential uses are permitted on properties as a reflection of the historic residential nature of the zone district.” The MU zone district purpose statement contains specific language regarding its appropriateness to enable commercial, service, and offices uses within buildings. The MU purpose statement does not identify light industrial, manufacturing, and repair uses. The intent and purpose of the SCI zone district and the MU zone district are not intended to be consistent or interchangeable. Current uses on the subject properties are unique to the SCI zone district and are inconsistent with the purpose of the MU zone district. The proposal to rezone the subject properties to MU represents a fundamental difference from the purpose and intent of the SCI zone district. Location and Surrounding Land Uses · The MU zone district principally encompasses properties along Main Street and its purpose statement acknowledges its appropriateness as a buffer from traffic along Hwy 82. The subject properties are not located within close vicinity to Main Street and are accessed off N. Mill Street. North Mill Street does not experience Hwy 82 traffic levels. · Surrounding businesses and uses include a grocery store, a post office, academic uses (Aspen Center for Environmental Studies), public uses (Sanitation District offices and housing), interior design and planning studios (this use is specifically limited to the Andrews-McFarlin Subdivision), and Rio Grande Park. None of the surrounding properties are zoned MU Zone District. Approval of the rezoning request would create an island of MU zoning in the neighborhood and potentially enable uses that are not compatible or transitional in nature with the immediate vicinity of the subject properties. P105 VIII.a Page 6 of 6 · The “Civic Center Master Plan”, which was adopted by City Council in 2006, is a regulatory document that contains a section relating to sustainable locally serving businesses. The Plan analyzed the subject area, envisioning a redevelopment scenario similar to the Obermeyer redevelopment, including renovation of SCI space, underground parking, pedestrian linkages, affordable housing, and aesthetic improvements. In contrast to the direction for affordable housing in this plan, allowed residential uses in the MU zone include single family residences, duplexes, and standalone multi-family units. Though the application does not include a development plan and is solely a request to rezone the subject properties, it should be noted that free market residential development is inconsistent with the direction of the Civic Center Master Plan. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HEARING: The City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) heard the rezoning proposal at a public hearing on February 19th, 2019. At the P&Z hearing, Staff provided background on the request and outlined the Staff recommendation. P&Z Commissioners requested clarifications on the proposal and asked questions of both the Applicant and Staff. Public comment was taken at this hearing. Draft meeting minutes can be viewed in Exhibit H. On a 5-1 vote, the P&Z passed a motion to approve PZ Resolution No. 4, Series 2019, recommending denial of the rezoning request to the City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As noted above, the review criteria for rezoning are attached as Exhibit A. Staff does not recommend the City Council approve the rezoning request. Staff finds the proposed rezoning does not comply with Land Use Code Section 26.310.060 review criteria “A”, which considers if the proposed rezoning is compatible with the surrounding zone districts and neighborhood character. Staff also finds the proposal does not comply with Land Use Code Section 26.310.060 review criteria “D” which requires that a rezoning be in harmony with the public interest and intent of the Land Use Code. Because the proposal does not meet these criteria, Staff does not support the proposed rezoning of the subject property. In addition, the proposal would: · Represent a fundamental change from the purpose and intent of SCI zoning. · Result in significant reduction of available SCI zoned area within the City of Aspen. Reducing SCI zoned lands is inconsistent with the AACP. · Create non-conforming uses on the subject properties. · Be inconsistent with the 2006 Civic Master Plan. Nonetheless, staff recommends that the City Council approve the ordinance on first reading and set the matter for 2nd Reading (public hearing) for April 22nd, 2019. EXHIBITS: APPLICATION MATERIALS: A. Review Criteria B. Land Use Code Section 26.710.160: SCI zone district C. Land Use Code Section 26.710.180: MU zone district D. Existing Business/Use Matrix E. Application F. Public Comment G. P&Z Resolution No. 4, Series 2019 (not recorded) H. February 19th, 2019 P&Z hearing minutes (draft) P106 VIII.a Page 1 of 4 ORDINANCE NO. 4 (SERIES OF 2019) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE REZONING OF PROPERTY COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 465 AND 557 N. MILL STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A; CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. PARCEL ID: 273707300048 and 273707300013 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has received an application from North Mill Street, LLC (Applicant), represented by Chris Bendon, BendonAdams, LLC, requesting to rezone properties located at 465 and 557 N. Mill Street (legally described in Exhibit A of this Ordinance) from the Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI) zone district to the Mixed Use (MU) zone district; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.310.060 of the Land Use Code, Rezoning shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the City Council, after receiving a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended denial of the application; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the rezoning proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation for the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 19th, 2019 the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 4, Series 2019, by a five to one (5-1) vote, recommending that the Aspen City Council deny the proposed Rezoning for 465 and 557 N. Mill Street; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission found that pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310.090(A) the rezoning proposal is not compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, when considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics; and, the Planning and Zoning Commission further found that the proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the goals and statements of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP), the 2006 Civic Center Master Plan, and the 2018 Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines – River Approach Area; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission further found that pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310.090(D), the proposed rezoning and subsequent reduction of SCI zoned land, which allows essential uses that provide basic community needs, is inconsistent with the community character, the public interest, and the intent of this Title. P107 VIII.a Page 2 of 4 WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council considered the rezoning request at 1st Reading on March 25th, 2019 and at 2nd Reading (duly noticed public hearing) on April 22nd, 2019; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the Rezoning request under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the rezoning proposal meets the applicable land use standards, and specifically, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310.090(A) the rezoning proposal is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, when considering existing land uses and neighborhood characteristics; and, WHEREAS, the City County further finds that pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310.090(D), the proposed rezoning is consistent with the community character, the public interest, and the intent of this Title. WHEREAS, the City Council further finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals and statements of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) and the 2006 Civic Center Master Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Rezoning Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Aspen City Council hereby approves the proposed Rezoning of property located at 465 and 557 N. Mill Street from the SCI zone district to the MU zone district. Amendments to the Official Zoning Map shall be made to reflect this approval. Section 2: 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 3: 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. P108 VIII.a Page 3 of 4 Section 4: A duly noticed public hearing on this Ordinance was held on the 22nd day of April, 2019 at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. FINALLY, adopted, passed, and approved by a _____ to ______ (_____-____) vote on this 22nd day of April, 2019. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: __________________________ ______________________________ James R. True, City Attorney Steven Skadron, Mayor Attest: _______________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk P109 VIII.a Ordinance 4, Series 2019 Exhibit A Legal Description Page 4 of 4 465 and 557 North Mill Street. “Parcel A” PID #2737-073-000-48 & “Parcel B” PID #2737-073-000-13, legally described as: PARCEL A: A tract of land being part of a tract previously described in Book 177 at Page 620 in the Northwest Quarter South Quarter Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at a point being 203.00 feet North 84°19' East from monument "0-64A" set by L.S. 2568, monument "0-6A" is 1124.96 feet South 39°58'22" East from the West quarter corner, Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian (1954 Brass Cap); thence North 84°19' East 95.00 feet; thence South 05°41' East 66.33 feet; thence South 84°19' West 95.00 feet; thence North 05°41 West 66.33 feet to the Point of Beginning. EXCEPTING therefrom parcels conveyed to the City of Aspen, a municipal corporation by deed recorded December 18, 1978 in Book 360 at Page 532 and 533. City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, Colorado PARCEL B: A tract of land situated in the Northwest ¼ of the Southwest ¼ of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., described as follows: Beginning at a point from whence the West ¼ corner of said Section 7 bears N 39°58'22" W 1124.96 feet, said point being the Southwesterly corner of tract of land described in Book 177 at Page 618; thence on a curve to the left having a radius of 668.00 feet a distance of 222.1 feet the chord of which bears S 25°40'02" E 221.1 feet, along the Northeasterly line of a tract of land described in Book 276 at Page 604; thence S 66°48'31" E 151 feet along the Northeasterly line of said tract of land described in Book 276 at Page 604 to a point on the Northwesterly line of tract of land described in Book 180 at Page 345; thence N 19°05'07" E 240.00 feet along said Northwesterly line to the most Northerly corner of said tract of land in Book 180 at Page 345; thence N 10°32'30" W 63.00 feet to the Southeasterly corner of said tract of land described in Book 177 at Page 618; thence N 84°19' W 5.00 feet; thence S 05°41' E 66.33 feet along the Easterly line of a tract of land described in Book 293 at Page 873; thence S 84°19' W 95.00 feet along the Southerly line of said tract of land described in Book 293 at Page 873; thence N 05°41' W 66.33 feet along the Westerly line of said tract of land described in Book 293 at Page 873 to a point on the Southerly line of said tract of land described in Book 117 at Page 618; thence S 84°19' W 203.00 feet along said Southerly line to the Place of Beginning. EXCEPTING therefrom that portion described in Deed to the City of Aspen recorded December 21, 1976 in Book 321 at Page 797, and also excepting therefrom that portion described in Deed to the City of Aspen recorded December 28, 1978 in Book 360 at Page 533, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, Colorado P110 VIII.a 1 Exhibit A Review Criteria 26.310.090. Rezoning - Standards of review. In reviewing an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Response: The applicant is proposing to change the underlying zoning from Service Commercial Industrial (SCI) to Mixed Use (MU). As shown on Figure E in the Staff Memo, the adjacent properties are SCI, Neighborhood Commercial (NC), Public/Planned Development (PUB/PD), and Park (P). Nearby zone districts include Mixed Use (MU), Academic (A), Affordable Housing/Planned Development (AH/PD), Medium-Density Residential (R-6), Moderate-Density Residential (R-15), Low-Density Residential (R-30). There is no MU zoning adjacent to the subject properties. A variety of “Service” and “Service Commercial Industrial” uses exist on the two lots, including the following types of businesses: sports equipment sales and service, auto and motorcycle repair and service, laundromat/dry cleaning, home contracting services, and an artist studio. A total of twenty- one (21) businesses are located on the subject properties. If the property were to be rezoned from SCI to MU, some uses and associated businesses would be considered non-conforming. Current uses and businesses on the subject property are outlined in Exhibit D. Existing Use Table. Surrounding businesses include Clark’s Market, the post office, Aspen Center for Environmental Studies, and Rio Grande Park. Pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.710.180, the Mixed-Use zone district purpose clause states the following: “The Mixed Use (MU) zone serves as a transition from the more intense commercial areas of the CC and C-1 zones, and the residential and lodging zones surrounding Main Street.” The CC and C-1 zone districts and residential and lodging zone districts surrounding Main Street are not located adjacent to the subject properties. Therefore, the subject properties would not quality as being “transitional” and the proposed rezoning would be inconsistent with the MU zone district purpose statement. The rezoning of the subject property to MU zoning is not compatible with surrounding zone districts and uses, when considering existing land uses and neighborhood characteristics. Staff finds that this criterion is not met. B. 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 Response: No development is proposed at this time. Rezoning from SCI to MU would reduce the maximum height and maximum floor area for the subject properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P111 VIII.a 2 C. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Response: Staff does not anticipate any significant adverse impacts to the natural environment as a result of this proposal. As mentioned in criterion B, there is no development proposed at this time, and rezoning to the MU zone district represents a reduction of maximum allowed floor area and height. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City and in harmony with the public interest and the intent of this Title. Staff response: The rezoning of the project area to the MU zone district would reduce the available SCI zoned land, and in addition, represents a loss of land deemed appropriate for Service Commercial and Industrial zoning. The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) speaks to preservation of commercial diversity in the following standards: V.1 Encourage a commercial mix that is balanced, diverse and vital and meets the needs of year-round residents and visitors. V.2 Facilitate the sustainability of essential businesses that provide basic community needs. The rezoning of this property would significantly reduce the available land for SCI uses. These uses include automotive repair, manufacturing/fabrication, and other uses that provide essential services to the community. A reduction in these uses would result in a loss of basic community needs. Rezoning the properties to the MU zone district has the potential to displace SCI uses with possibility more desirable allowed uses. Additionally, this area is subject to the 2006 Civic Master Plan, which is a regulatory document. Section One of the Civic Master Plan focuses on sustaining locally serving businesses that have slowly moved from Aspen to the Aspen Airport Business Center and further down valley. The subject properties include several non-retail, service-oriented businesses owned and patronized by locals. The Plan envisioned that redevelopment of the project area would emulate the Obermeyer development. Specifically, the Plan envisioned redevelopment would serve as a renovation of SCI space, provide underground parking, create pedestrian linkages, develop affordable housing, and aesthetically improve the area with architecture that reflects the industrial heritage of the area while integrating the Roaring Fork River area in design elements and site planning. While no development is proposed at this time, rezoning the property from SCI to MU would create a number of non-conforming uses and structures on both Lots 1 and 2. While it appears there would not be any non-conforming floor area issues, a rezoning would create setback encroachments as shown in Figure 1. The Applicant has indicated that if the rezoning request is successful, portions of the existing building within the new setbacks would be demolished so that setback compliance is achieved. Table 1. Dimensional Requirements SCI MU Subject Area1 Maximum Floor Area 118,471.5 sq. ft. 52,654 sq. ft./78,981 sq. ft.2 Not provided Setback, front yard No requirement 10 feet/5 feet3 No requirement Setback, side yard No requirement 5 Feet No requirement Setback, rear yard No Requirement 5 Feet No requirement P112 VIII.a 3 Maximum height 35 feet 28 feet Not provided 1 The analysis was conducted on the aggregate of the two parcels to simplify the discussion 2 Cumulative FAR of 1:1 for all uses is allowed by right, and a FAR of 1:5 may be established by Special Review. 3 May be reduced to five (5) feet by Special Review Figure 1. Setback encroachment locations (highlighted in orange) The proposed amendment is inconsistent with and incompatible with the community character as envisioned by community wide planning, is not in concert with the public interest and intent of the Land Use Code, nor is it aligned with the aspirations of the AACP. Furthermore, the Civic Master Plan, which was adopted by the Aspen City Council in December of 2006 and is a regulatory document, identifies the project area as SCI, and relevant core principals including “affordable commercial space (that) ensures the viability of civic functions and the viability of town”. Rezoning this area from SCI to MU would further deplete service, commercial, and industrial zoned commercial land within the City of Aspen. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. P113 VIII.a City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 700, SCI zone Page 1 26.710.160 Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I). A.Purpose. The S/C/I zone supports Aspen Area Community Plan policies related to a sustainable, local serving economy and the preservation of a diversity of commercial opportunities for locals and visitors. In response to the decreased intensity of commercial uses in the zone and relative distance from the CC and C1 zones, both multi-modal and automobile parking improvements are appropriate on site in the S/C/I. In order to enhance the City’s commercial diversity, the zone allows for uses not found in other zones including light industrial, manufacturing, production, repair and similar service-related uses. The S/C/I zone is designed to provide commercial space to those uses not appropriate in other commercial zones, but which provide an essential or unique service to support the local economy. Flexibility and adaptability are important features of the zone to respond to changing commercial sector dynamics and meet the space needs of the City’s service, creative and production economies. B.Permitted Uses. 1.The following uses may have, in combination, a limited percent of the floor area, devoted to retail sales, showroom, or customer reception, and such uses shall be ancillary to the primary commercial use. This floor area percentage may be increased through Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.430.050, and according to the standards of Section 26.710.160(E)1. Where retail sales are allowed, this shall be limited to General Retail uses and may include formula uses that fall in the General Retail category. % retail sales, showroom, or customer reception (maximum – net leasable area) Uses include the manufacturing, repair, customization, servicing, alteration, detailing, rental or sale of consumer goods, such as: 100% •Vehicle sales. •Building materials, components, hardware, fixtures, interior finishes and equipment. •Fabric and sewing supply. •Household appliances such as ranges, refrigerators, dishwashers, etc. •Outdoor recreational items, which may be in combination with a service use related to guiding or touring. 25% •Animal boarding facility. •Animal grooming establishment. •Artist studio. •Brewery and brewing supply. •Coffee roasting and supply. •Commercial dry cleaning. •Commercial Kitchen or Bakery. •Design Studio (limited to the Andrews-McFarlin Subdivision). •Laundromat. Exhibit B P114 VIII.a City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 700, SCI zone Page 2 % retail sales, showroom, or customer reception (maximum – net leasable area) Uses include the manufacturing, repair, customization, servicing, alteration, detailing, rental or sale of consumer goods, such as: • Locksmith. • Marijuana Cultivation Facility, Marijuana Product Manufacturing Facility, or Marijuana Testing Facility. • Consumer electronics service and repair. • Post Office branch. • Printing and copy center. • Shipping, packing and receiving services. • Veterinary clinic. 10% • Automobile washing facility. • Building/landscape maintenance facility. • Warehousing and storage. 2. Primary Care Physician’s Office Uses permitted: a. On Upper Floors, pursuant to Section 26.710.160 (D)11(b). b. Limited to a cap of 3,500 square feet at the Obermeyer Place PD, upon execution of an Insubstantial PD Amendment. 3. Permitted Accessory Uses: a) Service yard accessory to a permitted use. b) Sales and rental accessory and incidental to a permitted use. c) Accessory buildings and uses. d) Home occupations and Vacation Rentals: Home Occupations and Vacation Rentals are permitted only in legally established residential units. e) Offices, accessory to a permitted or conditional use, may occupy up to 10% of a commercial unit. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Service/Commercial/ Industrial (SCI) zone district, subject to the procedures established in Chapter 26.425.050 Procedures for Review, and the standards established in Section 26.710.160(F). The following Conditional uses shall not be subject to Section 26.425.045, Standards applicable to formula uses; exemptions; determination of formula uses. 1. Affordable Housing Units: Affordable housing is permitted as a conditional use where accessory to a commercial use on the property or required for on-site affordable housing mitigation requirements. See 26.710.160.D.11 for affordable housing Floor Area Ratio requirements. Affordable housing created pursuant to this subsection is not eligible to be used for the creation of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, unless for a fraction of a unit. P115 VIII.a City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 700, SCI zone Page 3 2. Free-Market Residential Units: No new Free-Market Residential Units may be established. Free-Market Residential units are permitted on any level if they were legally established (having received a Certificate of Occupancy, Development Order, or applied for a Development Order) prior to Ordinance 29, Series 2016. 3. Consignment retail establishment. 4. Commercial Parking Facility, pursuant to Section 26.515. 5. Gasoline service station. 6. Grocery store. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Service/Commercial/ Industrial (SCI) zone district. The dimensional standards and allotments provided in this section for commercial and mixed-use developments are the maximum allowable for the zone and may not be achieved for all developments. Site constraints, historic resources, on-site mitigation and replacement requirements, and other factors may prevent development from achieving some or all of the maximum allowable dimensional standards. 1. Minimum Gross Lot Area (square feet): 3,000 2. Minimum Net Lot Area per dwelling unit (square feet): No requirement. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): No requirement. 4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): No requirement. 5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): No requirement. 6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet): No requirement. 7. Minimum Utility/Trash/Recycle area: Pursuant to Chapter 12.06. 8. Maximum height: Thirty-five (35) feet. 9. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (feet): No Requirement. 10. Pedestrian Amenity Space: Pursuant to Section 26.412. 11. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The following FAR schedule applies to uses cumulatively up to a total maximum FAR of 2.25:1. Achieving the maximum floor area ratio is subject to compliance with applicable design standards, view plane requirements, pedestrian amenity requirements and other dimensional standards. Accordingly, the maximum FAR is not an entitlement and is not achievable in all situations. a. Commercial Uses: 2.25:1. P116 VIII.a City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 700, SCI zone Page 4 b. Primary Care Physician’s Office uses: .25:1 FAR, only if a minimum of .75:1 FAR of Commercial uses, listed in Section 26.710.160(B)1-3, exist on the same parcel. c. Affordable Multi-Family Housing: Greater of existing FAR or .5:1. d. Free-Market Multi-Family Housing: Limited to the existing free-market multi- family FAR. No expansion to FAR shall be permitted except at-grade patios, and decks (other than roof-top decks), balconies, exterior stairways, trellis, and other similar features up to 15% of the total free-market residential floor area. Any subsequent reduction in floor area occupied by such residential use shall be deemed a new limitation and the use shall not thereafter be enlarged to occupy a greater floor area. Free-market residential units shall not be able to utilize any exemptions to floor area outlined in Section 26.575.020(D), Measuring Floor Area, except as noted above. 12. Maximum multi-family residential dwelling unit size (square feet): a) Category 1-7 Affordable multi-family housing: No limitation. b) Resident Occupied Affordable multi-family housing: Individual units shall be limited to 2,000 sq. ft. of net livable area. c) Free-Market multi-family housing: Individual units shall be limited to 2,000 sq. ft. of net livable area. Combination of Free-Market residential units is permitted, but subject to the net livable size limitations herein, as well as other provisions of this title. d) Expansions Allowed: Notwithstanding the above, individual multi-family unit sizes may be increased by extinguishing Historic Transferable Development Right Certificates (“certificate” or “certificates”), subject to the following: 1) The transfer ratio is 500 sq. ft. of net livable area for each certificate that is extinguished. 2) The additional square footage accrued may be applied to multiple units. However, the maximum individual unit size attainable by transferring development rights is 2,500 sq. ft. of net livable area (i.e., no more than 500 additional square feet may be applied per unit). 3) This incentive applies only to individual unit size. Transferring development rights does not allow an increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the lot or the use. E. Special Review Standards. Whenever the dimensional standards of a proposed development within the SCI Zone District are subject to Special Review, the development application shall be processed as a Special Review, pursuant to Section 26.430.050. The following additional criteria apply: P117 VIII.a City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 700, SCI zone Page 5 1. To increase the allowable percentage of interior space assigned to retail, showroom, or customer reception area, the applicant shall demonstrate the need and appropriateness for such additional space and shall demonstrate consistency with the purpose of the SCI Zone District. 2. The additional approved percentage for a specific use shall be limited to that use and not applicable to subsequent uses in the same space. F. Conditional Use Review Standards. 1. Retail, Showroom or Customer Reception Area. In addition to meeting the standards in Chapter 26.425, Conditional Use, the following Standards shall be met: a. For consignment retail establishment, commercial parking facility (pursuant to Chapter 26.575), and gasoline service station, the Commission shall establish the appropriate amount of floor area to be devoted to retail sales, showroom, or customer reception as a condition of conditional use review. b. To establish the allowable percentage of interior space assigned to retail, showroom, or customer reception area, the applicant shall demonstrate the need and appropriateness for the space and shall demonstrate consistency with the purpose of the SCI Zone District. The approved percentage for a specific use is limited to that use and not applicable to subsequent uses in the same space. 2. Multi-Family Housing. In addition to meeting the standards in Chapter 26.425, Conditional Use, the following Standards shall be met. a. The applicant must demonstrate that the residential use and individual units are substantially removed and physically separated from Commercial Uses on the same parcel, to the extent practicable, so as to isolate residential uses from commercial impacts and to adequately provide for on-loading, off-loading, circulation and parking for commercial uses. G. Compliance with City of Aspen Charter. Any property located east of Castle Creek that was in the Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I) zone district on January 1, 2015, is subject to the provisions of Article XIII Section 13.14, Voter authorization of certain land use approvals, of the City of Aspen Charter. (Ord. No. 2-1999, §1; Ord. No. 22-2005, §1; Ord. No. 4-2008; Ord. No. 27-2010, §4; Ord. No. 39-2013, §3; Ord. No. 20-2015, §4; Ord. No. 29, 2016, §3; Ord. No. 6, 2017, §4-5) P118 VIII.a City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 700, MU zone Page 1 26.710.180 Mixed-Use (MU). A.Purpose. The Mixed Use (MU) zone serves as a transition from the more intense commercial areas of the CC and C-1 zones, and the residential and lodging zones surrounding Main Street. By allowing for a mix of commercial and residential uses and smaller-scale development, the Mixed Use zone reflects Aspen’s historic character and provides different economic and residential opportunities from more traditional commercial zones. Particularly along Main Street, the Mixed Use zone serves as a buffer from the traffic of Highway 82 while allowing for smaller scale commercial and residential opportunities. Buildings in the Mixed Use zone consist primarily of commercial, service and office uses on the ground floor, and residential and office uses on upper floors and off of the primary street frontage. Uses in the MU zone should not erode the character of the neighborhood or create excessive impacts to the surrounding residential and lodging zone. Standalone residential uses are permitted on properties as a reflection of the historic residential nature of the zone district. B.Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Mixed-Use (MU) Zone District: 1.On historic landmark properties: Bed and breakfast. 2.General retail uses. 3.Specialty retail uses. 4.Restaurant, bar and entertainment uses. 5.Service uses. 6.Office uses. 7.Lodging. 8.Arts, cultural, civic and community uses. 9.Public uses. 10.Recreational uses. 11.Academic uses. 12.Affordable multi-family residential. 13.Free-market multi-family housing is permitted in a mixed use building if the housing was legally established (having received a Certificate of Occupancy, Development Order, or applied for a Development Order) prior to Ordinance 29, Series 2016. No new Free-Market Residential Units may be established in mixed-use buildings. 14.Free-market multi-family residential when a stand-alone use, or in conjunction with affordable multi-family residential. 15.Single-family residence, Duplex residence, or Two (2) detached single-family residences. Accessory dwelling unit in a separate building accessed off the rear of a lot as an accessory use. 16.Home occupations. Exhibit C P119 VIII.a City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 700, MU zone Page 2 17. Accessory uses and structures. 18. Storage accessory to a permitted use. 19. Vacation rentals. Pursuant to Section 26.575.220 20. Formula uses, except in the Main Street Historic District (Ord. No. 6, 2017) C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Mixed-Use (MU) Zone District, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425: 1. Commercial parking facility, pursuant to Chapter 26.515. 2. Automobile showroom and dealership. 3. Formula uses in the Main Street Historic District, subject to the provisions contained in Section 26.425.045. 4. Lodge, Boutique D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Mixed-Use (MU) Zone District. The dimensional standards and allotments provided in this section for commercial and mixed-use developments are the maximum allowable for the zone and may not be achieved for all developments. Site constraints, historic resources, on-site mitigation and replacement requirements, and other factors may prevent development from achieving some or all of the maximu m allowable dimensional standards. 1. Minimum Gross Lot Area (square feet): 3,000. 2. Minimum Net Lot Area per dwelling unit (square feet): a. Detached residential dwellings: 4,500. 3,000 for historic landmark properties. b. Duplex dwellings (square feet): 4,500. 3,000 for historic landmark properties. c. All other uses: Not applicable. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): 30. 4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): 10, which may be reduced to 5, pursuant to Special Review, Chapter 26.430. 5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): 5. 6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet): 5. 7. Minimum utility/trash/recycle area: Pursuant to Chapter 12.06. 8. Maximum height: a. Detached residential and duplex dwellings: 25 feet. b. All other uses: 28 feet. P120 VIII.a City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 700, MU zone Page 3 9. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (feet): 10. 10. Pedestrian amenity space: Pursuant to Section 26.412. 11. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): a. The following FAR schedule applies to uses cumulatively and individually when part of a commercial, lodging, or mixed-use development, as follows: Use Maximum (allowed by right) Maximum by special review (see Subsection 26.430.040.A) Main Street Historic District All Other Locations Cumulative total of all uses 1:1 1.25:1 1.5:1 Commercial 1:1 1.25:1 1.5:1 Civic 1:1 1.25:1 1.5:1 Lodging 0.75:1 1:1 1:1 Affordable Housing No limitation other than cumulative total of all uses b. The following FAR schedule applies to affordable housing and free-market residential uses when developed as the only use of the parcel: i. Affordable Housing, multi-family housing: Limited to cumulative total outlined in Section 26.710.180.11.a, above. ii. Free-market, affordable housing: 0.5:1, which may be increased to 0.75:1 if affordable housing floor area equal to 100% of the free-market residential floor area is developed on the same parcel. c. The following FAR schedule applies to single-family and duplex uses when developed as the only use of the parcel: i. Detached residential and duplex dwellings established prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2005: 100% of the allowable floor area of an equivalent-sized lot located in the R-6 Zone District. (See R-6 Zone District.) Receipt of a development order shall constitute the date the use was established. Replacement after demolition shall not effect a new establishment date for the purposes of this Section. City historic transferable development rights shall not permit additional floor area for detached residential and duplex dwellings. ii. Detached residential and duplex dwellings established after the adoption of Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2005: 80% of the allowable floor area of an equivalent-sized lot located in the R-6 Zone District. (See R-6 Zone District.) City historic transferable development rights shall not permit additional floor area for detached residential and duplex dwellings. 12. Maximum multi-family residential dwelling unit size (square feet): P121 VIII.a City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 700, MU zone Page 4 a) Category 1-7 Affordable multi-family housing: No limitation. b) Resident Occupied Affordable multi-family housing: Individual units shall be limited to 2,000 sq. ft. of net livable area. c) Free-Market multi-family housing: Individual units shall be limited to 2,000 sq. ft. of net livable area. Combination of Free-Market residential units is permitted, but subject to the net livable size limitations herein, as well as other provisions of this title. d) Expansions Allowed: Notwithstanding the above, individual multi-family unit sizes may be increased by extinguishing Historic Transferable Development Right Certificates (“certificate” or “certificates”), subject to the following: 1) The transfer ratio is 500 sq. ft. of net livable area for each certificate that is extinguished. 2) The additional square footage accrued may be applied to multiple units. However, the maximum individual unit size attainable by transferring development rights is 2,500 sq. ft. of net livable area (i.e., no more than 500 additional square feet may be applied per unit). 3) This incentive applies only to individual unit size. Transferring development rights does not allow an increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the lot or the use. 13. Commercial/residential ratio: When development includes mixed-uses, the total residential net livable area shall be no greater than 150% the total commercial net leasable and lodging net livable area located on the same parcel. E. Compliance with City of Aspen Charter. Any property located east of Castle Creek that was in the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district on January 1, 2015, is subject to the provisions of Article XIII Section 13.14, Voter authorization of certain land use approvals, of the City of Aspen Charter. (Ord. No. 56-2000, §7 [part]; Ord. No. 25-2001, §5 [part]; Ord. 1-2002, §20; Ord. No. 7- 2005, §1 [part]; Ord. No. 12-2006, 13; Ord. No. 11, 2007; Ord. No. 27-2010, §4; Ord. No.34- 2011, §16; Ord. No. 17-2014, §2; Ord. No. 20-2015, §6; Ord. No. 29, 2016, §5; Ord. No. 6, 2017, Ord. No. 23, 2017) P122 VIII.a Exhibit D Existing Businesses/Use Table 557 North Mill Street Business Name Description General Service Foundation Human Rights Organization Lux Aspen Property Management and concierge Service Athen Builders LLC General contracting A2 Associates LLC Construction and Property Management Unknown tenant Unknown use 465 North Mill Street Business Name Description Aspen Velo Bike Shop rental/repair Walter’s Carpets Carpet installation and repair Endless Pawsibilties Dog Training Aspen Laundry Laundromat and green dry cleaner MPS (Millennium Pack and Ship) Packing and shipping Aspen Hatter Custom hat fabrication and sales Aspen Motorworx Motorcycle and snowmobile repair Aspen Tire & Detail Automobile service Anna Tazebenski Artist studio John Francis Furniture fabrication studio Gorsuch Ski Service Ski services Shelly Hamill, Artist Artist studio Lift Up Non-profit, humanitarian assistance The FJ Company Automobile showroom and sales We Cycle Public bicycle rental Replay Sports Sports equipment consignment and repair Reeds Luggage Repair Travel bag repair 1 vacant space for lease P123 VIII.a 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM July 12, 2017 Updated January 2, 2019 Ms. Jessica Garrow, AICP Community Development Director City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Rezone request for 465 and 557 North Mill Street Ms. Garrow: Please accept this application for a rezone of the properties located at 465 and 557 North Mill Street. The properties are currently zoned Service, Commercial, Industrial (SCI). The proposal is to rezone the properties to Mixed Use (MU). Both properties are owned by North Mill Street LLC. 465 North Mill Street (parcel ID# 2737-073-000-48) is 46,535 sf in size and 43,544 sf with slope reduction using predevelopment topography. The property comprises one large building of about 20,645 sf of net leasable area. The lower level is partially subgrade, meaning a portion of the entire lower level does not count toward floor area. The building (shown below) contains Service and Commercial Uses as described in the City of Aspen Land Use Code. Figure 1: 465 N. Mill Street, front façade. Figure 2: 465 N. Mill Street, rear façade. Exhibit E P124 VIII.a 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM 557 North Mill Street (parcel ID# 2737-073-000-13) is 6,301 sf in size and comprises one building of about 7,990 sf of net leasable area and 5,081 sf of Floor Area. The lower level is partially subgrade meaning a portion of the lower level does not count toward floor area. The building (shown below) contains Service and Commercial Uses as well. Background: Both 465 North Mill Street and 557 North Mill Street are zoned Service Commercial Industrial Zone District (SCI). City Council Ordinance 11 of 1975 established a new set of zone districts including SCI. These were located north of Main Street as shown in Figure 4. A review of uses in the SCI Zone District since 1970 show a clear trend away from industrial/light industrial uses, and toward more office-type uses, specifically in the area of architecture. The door was first inched open by adding “Artist’s Studio,” and then burst open when architecture was interpreted to fall under that use. More recently the use was expanded to permit “design studios” although the difference between a design studio other types of professional offices is slight. Figure 3: 557 N. Mill Street, front façade. P125 VIII.a 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM = SCI Zone District = Subject properties (zoned SCI) Obermeyer Place was developed in 2005 and zoned both SCI and Neighborhood Commercial. Several of the businesses that were temporarily relocated during construction to the Airport Business Center found they liked their alternate location better, found it easier to access, easier to retain employees, easier for their clients, etc. Some found that the market for their product/service was so marginal that closing shop was the best outcome. The spaces within Obermeyer Place zoned Neighborhood Commercial have done well. These spaces house professional offices – Obermeyer Asset, Studio B Architects, Michael Sailor Insurance. There are SCI spaces in Obermeyer that have had no or minimal occupancy since the project was completed in 2005. The two Mill Street buildings along the river (Andrews McFarlin) have enjoyed stable occupancy. Other than the Lighting Studio these building house professional offices that fit within the design studio moniker. The southern building is condominiumized and a few of the units are residential, initially approved under the artist studio provision. There are spaces in these Mill Street buildings that have not housed a traditional SCI use in decades. The temporary location of the Jewish Community Center, for example, utilized a space that had not contained a traditional SCI use since the mid 1970s. Figure 4: 1975 Zone District Map. P126 VIII.a 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM Review Standards: 26.310.090 Rezoning – Standards of Review. In reviewing an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone district and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. The request to rezone 465 and 557 North Mill Street to Mixed Use is consistent with surrounding land uses and neighborhood characteristics. The Mixed Use Zone District is located within the vicinity of the subject properties as shown below. Figure 5: Map of Mixed Use Zone District (blue) and subject properties (white). Surrounding land uses include residential (yellow is R-6 medium density residential Zone District), commercial, retail, office, service and civic uses. The following graphic shows the following properties and uses: a. The Mill Building. Mixed Use Zone District. Three story building with office use, free market residential use, lodging use and affordable housing use. Currently houses: Aspen Building and Engineering Departments, affordable housing residents, free market residents. P127 VIII.a 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM b. North Mill Station. Neighborhood Commercial Zone District with Planned Development Overlay. Two story building with retail use, office use, and deed restricted affordable housing use. Currently houses: Clarks Market, Bangkok Happy Bowl, Real Estate Offices, residents, etc. c. 414 North Mill Street (Andrews-McFarlin Subdivision). Service, Commercial, Industrial Zone District. Two story building with commercial and office uses. Currently houses: The Lighting Studio, graphic design office, architecture office, etc. d. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. Public Zone District with Planned Development Overlay. Mix of ACSD office and large garages for operations, and residential use. e. United States Post Office. Service, Commercial, Industrial Zone District with Planned Development Overlay. One story building housing Aspen Post Office. f. 410-412 North Mill Street (Andrews-McFarlin Subdivision). Service, Commercial, Industrial Zone District. Two story building with office uses. Currently houses: land planning office, architecture office, etc. g. Aspen Center for Environmental Studies. Academic Zone District with Planned Development Overlay. Mix of small buildings for non-profit use, and residential use. h. Westend Neighborhood. R-6 Medium Density Residential Zone District. Primarily single family and duplex residences. P128 VIII.a 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM The proposed Mixed Use Zone District permits office, commercial, residential service, civic, and public uses which are consistent with the existing uses in the neighborhood as shown above. The Mixed Use Zone District is located at the top of Mill Street behind the Hotel Jerome and behind the Pitkin County library. The Mixed Use Zone District was recently amended to prohibit residential and commercial uses combined on one property. Residential, commercial, and lodging uses are permitted in the Mixed Use Zone District; however commercial and residential uses must be on separate parcels. Permitted residential uses include single family, duplex, or multi- family residential. Free market residential and affordable housing can be combined on one parcel or within one building. Figure 6: Zone District Map. Black star indicates subject properties. P129 VIII.a 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM Allowed commercial uses include formula retail, services uses, both general and specialty retail uses, in addition to service and office uses. The existing uses in 465 – 557 North Mill Street are compatible with the proposed Mixed Use Zone District. A comparison of Zone District dimensional requirements is shown below. Table 1: Dimensional comparisons for 465 and 557 North Mill Street SCI Requirements MU Requirements 465 N. Mill St. 557 N. Mill St. Minimum lot size 3,000 sf 3,000 sf 46,535 sf (43,544 sf with slope reduction) 6,301 sf (no slope reduction) Net lot area per dwelling unit No requirement 4,500 sf single family/duplex 4,500 sf single family/duplex 4,500 sf single family/duplex Front yard setback No requirement 5 - 10 ft. 31.7 ft. 11.2 ft. Rear yard setback No requirement 5 ft. Greater than 5 ft. 0 ft. Side yard setback No requirement 5 ft. 18.4 ft. east 3.7 ft. west 4.6 ft. north 11.4 ft. south Maximum height 35 ft. 25 ft. single family/duplex 28 ft. all other uses Less than 28 ft. Less than 28 ft. FAR 2.25:1 MAX 80% of allowable in R6 – single family/duplex 1:1 to 1.5:1 MAX all other uses Less than 1:1 5,081 sf About 0.81:1 Maximum multi-family residential unit size 2,000 sf net livable 2,000 sf net livable n/a n/a Both properties have a few non-conforming setbacks. The applicant proposes to meet required Mixed Use Zone District setbacks within 30 days of adoption of an ordinance to rezone the properties by demolishing the non-conforming portions of the buildings. P130 VIII.a 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM B. 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. The proposed amendment to rezone from SCI to MU would not result in additional demands on public facilities. Both 465 and 557 North Mill Street are already developed. The proposed amendment does not include a redevelopment for these properties. Any redevelopment would be required to meet the Aspen Municipal Code in place at the time of land use application or building permit application. C. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. The dimensional requirements in the proposed MU Zone District are significantly less than the dimensional requirements in the existing SCI Zone District, which will positively impact the natural environment with smaller development and defined setbacks. Adopted stream margin review requirements which protect this Environmentally Sensitive Area are not changed with the proposed rezoning. The proposed uses are similar to the allowed uses in the SCI Zone District with a few key distinctions. The SCI Zone District encourages “light industrial, manufacturing, production, repair and similar service-related uses.” The proposed MU zone district encourages “a mix of commercial and residential uses and smaller-scale development.” These less intense uses will positively impact the natural environment with less noise and traffic. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City and in harmony with the public interest and the intent of this Title. A rezone to Mixed Use is consistent with community character in the City that encourages transitional zones between more intense commercial areas and less intense residential areas. The proposed Mixed Use Zone will enable 465 and 557 North Mill Street to honor this transition into the surrounding residential, public and academic uses. Promoting a smoother transition between commercial and residential uses, and between City and County boundaries located within the vicinity of Red Mountain Road, is consistent with 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan Policy III.3: Ensure City and County codes are consistent in the vicinity of City/County boundaries to prevent shifts in the character of neighborhoods, and encourage smother cross-boundary transitions regarding house size and density. In addition, the rezone to Mixed Use better respects the natural environment through less intense uses than currently allowed in the Service Commercial Industrial Zone District. The 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan adopted the philosophy that “as stewards of our P131 VIII.a 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM environment and resources, it is our responsibility to balance human activity and the health of our natural environment. This ethic is our defining characteristic.” Reducing noise and environmental impacts from light industrial, manufacturing, and repairs adjacent to riparian wetlands and the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies is aligned with adopted community philosophy toward the environment. The Mixed Use Zone District lowers the allowed height for these parcel by 7 to 10 feet which is aligned with 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan Policy I.6: Establish lower maximum building heights to maintain Aspen’s small town character. Lower height, floor area, and increased setbacks is in harmony with Aspen’s small town character. The proposal to rezone 465 and 557 N. Mill Street from SCI to Mixed Use meets the requirements of the Aspen Land Use Code as addressed above. Feel free to contact us with any questions or additional information you may need to process this request. Sincerely, Sara Adams, AICP BendonAdams LLC sara@bendonadams.com 970-925-2855 Exhibits: 1 – Land Use Application Form 2 – Agreement to Pay 3 – Authorization to Represent 4 – Proof of Ownership 5 – HOA form 6 – Pre-application Summary 7 – Survey 8 – Existing conditions for 465 and 557 N. Mill P132 VIII.a CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT March, 2016 City of Apen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5050 ATTACHMENT 2 – LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Location:_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) APPLICANT: Name: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone #: REPRESENTIVATIVE: Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Address:________________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone#: TYPE OF APPLICATION: (Please check all that apply): EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) PROPOSAL: (Description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ ______________ Pre-Application Conference Summary Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements – including Written Responses to Review Standards 3-D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5” X 11” must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model. GMQS Exemption Conceptual PUD Temporary Use GMQS Allotment Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) Special Review Subdivision Conceptual SPA ESA – 8040 Greenline, Stream Subdivision Exemption (includes Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, Condominiumization) Mountain View Plane Final SPA (&SPA Commercial Design Review Lot Split Amendment) Residential Design Variance Lot Line Adjustment Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion Conditional Use Other: 465 and 557 North Mill Street 465 and 557 North Mill Street 2737-073-000-48 and 2737-073-000-13 North Mill Street LLC 2001 N. Halsted #304; Chicago, IL 60614 970-925-2855 BendonAdams LLC 300 So. Spring St., #202, Aspen CO 81611 970-925-2855 REZONE Commercial and service uses exist on both properties. Currently zoned Service, Commercial, Industrial. Proposal to rezone property from Service, Commercial, Industrial Zone District to Mixed Use Zone District. 7800 Exhibit 1 P133 VIII.a CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT March, 2016 City of Apen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5050 ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: ______________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: ______________________________________________________________________________ Location: ______________________________________________________________________________ Zone District: ______________________________________________________________________________ Lot Size: _______________________________________________________________________________ Lot Area: _______________________________________________________________________________ (For the purpose of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high-water mark, easement, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _________________________________ Number of residential units: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _________________________________ Number of bedrooms: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _________________________________ Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): ______________ DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: _____________ Allowable: ___________Proposed ____________ Principal bldg. height: Existing: _____________ Allowable: ___________Proposed____________ Access. Bldg. height: Existing: _____________ Allowable: __________ Proposed_____________ On-Site parking: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed_____________ % Site coverage: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed_____________ % Open Space: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed_____________ Front Setback: Existing: _____________ Required ____________Proposed _____________ Rear Setback: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed _____________ Combined F/F: Existing: _____________ Required ___________ Proposed _____________ Side Setback: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed _____________ Side Setback: Existing: _____________ Required ___________ Proposed _____________ Combined Sides: Existing: _____________ Required ___________ Proposed _____________ Distance between Bldgs. Existing: _____________ Required: ___________ Proposed _____________ Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed: _____________ Existing non-conformities or encroachments: __________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ Variations requested: _____________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 465 and 557 N. Mill Street Rezone to Mixed Use North Mill Street LLC 465 and 557 N. Mill Street SCI 46,535 sf - 465 N. Mill Street AND 6,301 SF - 557 N. Mill Street 43,544 sf with slope reduction - 465 N. Mill Street AND 6,301 SF - 557 N. Mill Street 20,645 sf - 465 N. Mill 7,990 sf - 557 N. Mill no change n/a n/a PLEASE REFER TO TABLE 1 IN APPLICATION FOR DIMENSIONS setbacks, floor area P134 VIII.a Exhibit 2P135VIII.a Exhibit 3P136VIII.a Exhibit 4 P137 VIII.a P138 VIII.a P139 VIII.a P140 VIII.a Exhibit 5P141VIII.a ASLU 465 &557 N. Mill St. Rezoning Parcel ID Nos. 273707300048 & 273707300013 1 CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Jennifer Phelan DATE: 5/12/17 PROJECT: 465 & 557 N. Mill Street REPRESENTATIVE: Sara Adams DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located within the Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI) zone district. The owner is interested in rezoning the property to Mixed Use (MU). Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience: Land Use App: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/businessnav/ApprovaltoDevelop/Land%20Use%20Appl ication%20Form.pdf Land Use Code: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Title-26- Land-Use-Code/ Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.310 Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map (Rezoning) 26.310.060 Rezoning – Procedure for amendment 26.310.080 Rezoning – Application Contents 26.310.090 Rezoning – Standards of Review 26.710.160 Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I) 26.710.180 Mixed-Use (MU) Review by: Staff for completeness P&Z and City Council Public Hearing: Planning & Zoning, City Council Planning Fees: $7,800.00 deposit for 24 hours of staff time (additional planning hours are billed at a rate of $325/hour). Total Deposit: $7,800.00 Please submit the completed application to the Community Development Office on the Third Floor of City Hall: Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement. Pre-application Conference Summary (this document). Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the Exhibit 6P142 VIII.a 2 State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application. Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. A site improvement survey certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state, showing the current status of the parcel including the current topography and vegetation. (This requirement or any part thereof may be waived by the Community Development Director if the project is determined not to warrant a survey document.) HOA Compliance form (Attached) A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application and relevant land use approvals associated with the property. An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. 1 Complete Copy of all application materials. If the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted: Total deposit for review of the application. a digital copy of all application materials provided in pdf file format. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. P143 VIII.a C:\General CADD 12\Gxd\4014CF.gxd -- 06/12/2017 -- 10:37 AM -- Scale 1 : 240.000000 Exhibit 7 P144VIII.a 465 Upper LevelExhibit 8P145VIII.a 465 Lower LevelP146VIII.a 557 Upper LevelP147VIII.a 557 Lower LevelP148VIII.a DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS ASPEN, CO557 N. MILL STREETMTE 1704 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PROJECT INFORMATION 1.2 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 07/08/2017FAR SUMMARY 1. The Contract Documents include: (1) general notes; (2) architectural, mechanical, and structural drawings. All additional specifications, details, drawings, clarifications, or changes shall automatically become part of the Contract Documents. Any discrepancy between any components of any of the drawings shall be reported to the Architect immediately for clarification. 2. Alius Design Corps, LLC, shall not be liable in any way for problems which arise from failure, by any third party or any party to this Contract, to follow the design plans. The Contractor shall obtain and/or request guidance of Alius Design Corp., with respect to any errors, omissions, inconsistencies, or conflicts or unclear information which may be discovered or alleged. 3. The Plans and Specifications are the intellectual and other property of the Architect and shall not beused without the permission of same. 4. All work shall comply with all state and local codes, ordinances, rules, regulations and laws of building officials or authorities having jurisdiction. All work shall be performed to the highest standards or craftsmanship by all tradesman. Alius Design Corps, LLC., shall not be responsible for overseeing third party work, nor shall Alius Design Corps, LLC., be liable for any errors or omissions of third parties who perform work on the Project. 5. The Contract Documents represent the finished structure. They do not indicate the method of construction. The Contractor shall provide all measures necessary to protect the structure during construction. Observation visits to the site by the Structural Engineer or Architect shall not include inspection of the ____________, nor will the architect or structural engineer be responsible for the contractor's means, methods, techniques, sequences for procedure of construction, or the safety precautions and the techniques, sequences for procedure of construction, or any safety precautions. The Contractor and not the Architect shall be responsible for all Federal and OSHA regulations. 6. THE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE SCALED. Written dimensions must be used. In the event of a discrepancy in dimensions, the Architect should be timely notified for clarification. All dimensions on the drawings shall be verified against the existing conditions. All dimensions are to rough framing or face of concrete unless noted otherwise. 7. The Construction Documents are intended to include all labor, materials, equipment, and services required to complete all work described herein. It is the responsibility of the Contractor to bring to the attention of the Architect any conditions which will not permit construction according to these Construction Documents. 8. The Building Inspector shall be notified by the Contractor if there is need of an inspection as required by the I.R.C., or by any local code or ordinance. 9. LOT STAKED: The Contractor shall arrange for the building to be located and staked after demolition or site clearing, to be approved by the Architect. The Contractor shall review the lot staking and verify, to the best of his ability, its accuracy. The Contractor shall also check the grade where it meets the building to evaluate the consistency with the drawings during excavation. All work to be done by a certified surveyor. 10. RECORD DRAWINGS: Contractor shall maintain a complete set of blue/black-line prints of contract drawings and shop drawings for record mark-up purposes throughout the Contract time. Mark-up drawings during course of the work shall show changes and actual installation conditions, sufficient to form a complete record for Owner's purposes. 11. SOILS AND CONCRETE: The General Contractor shall arrange for a visual site inspection at the completion of excavation by a soils engineer, and the required concrete testing prior to any foundation work. 12. Property lines, utilities and topography shown is representative of information taken from a survey. Contractor shall notify Architect of any discrepancy or variation between the Drawings and actual site conditions. ABREVIATIONS A.F.F. ABOVE FINISH FLOOR ADJ. ADJUSTABLE ALT. ALTERNATE A.B. ANCHOR BOLTS & AND ARCH. ARCHITECTURAL @ AT BM. BEAM BM. PKT. BEAM POCKET BRG. BEARING BLK’G. BLOCKING BOT. BOTTOM BLDG. BUILDING B.O. BY OWNER CLG. CEILING CL. CENTER LINE CLR. CLEAR COL. COLUMN CONC. CONCRETE CONN. CONNECTION CONT. CONTINUOUS DTL. DETAILS DWL. DOWEL E.W. EACH WAY ELEV. ELEVATION EXISTG EXISTING EXT. EXTERIOR FLR. FLOOR FTG. FOOTING FND. FOUNDATION GA. GAUGE G.L. GLU-LAM G.W.B. GYPSUM WALL BOARD HORIZ. HORIZONTAL INFO. INFORMATION INSUL. INSULATION JST. JOIST N.I.C. NOT IN CONTRACT O.C. ON CENTER OPP. OPPOSITE PERF. PERFORATED PL. PLATE PLY. PLYWOOD PROP. LINE PROPERTY LINE REINF. REINFORCEMENT REQ. REQUIRED REV. REVISED SIM. SIMILAR S.F. SQUARE FEET STD. STANDARD THK. THICK T.P. TOP OF PLATE T.L. TOP OF LEDGE T.W. TOP OF WALL TOT. TOTAL TYP. TYPICAL U.N.O. UNLESS NOTED UTHERWISE V.I.F. VERIFY IN FIELD 033 LBB PROJECT INFORMATION PARCEL ID ............................................................................................................................................................................. 273707300013 LOT SIZE ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 6,301 sq.ft. ZONING .................................................................................................................................................................................................... CSI USE .............................................................................................................................................................................................UNKNOWN CONSTRUCTION TYPE ..............................................................................................................................................................UNKNOWN GENERAL RENOVATION NOTES 1.0 All existing conditions must be verified by the contractor in the field. Unknown and varied conditions may be found. Notify the structural engineer and/or architect of any structural or architectural conditions found to vary from that indicated from the drawings. Design revisions may be required, and are to be expected as a process of remodel work. 2.0 All new work, details, surfaces, or finishes shall match adjacent existing surfaces unless noted or directed otherwise by the owner or interior designer. Contractor to verify with architect any conflict between existing and new conditions. 3.0 All electrical modifications and/or additions to be as directed by owner/lighting designer during construction. Contractor/lighting designer to verify electrical capacity and review new designs or alterations with architect, prior to implementation. 4.0 All interior electrical fixtures, plumbing fixtures and trim, cabinet design, and other finishes to be at the directive of the owner or interior designer unless noted otherwise in the drawings. Contractor to provide all necessary prep work for installation of any materials as required. 5.0 Structural engineering – if any modifications to the existing structural system are deemed necessary beyond these shown in the drawings, all existing conditions are to be verified in the field by a registered structural engineer before proceeding. The architect will not be responsible for any structural modifications not verified or approved by a structural engineer. 6.0 Contractor will verify and coordinate all openings through floors, ceilings, and walls with all architectural, structural, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical design and construction. ARCHITECTURAL 1.1 PROJECT INFORMATION 1.2 FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 3.1 LOWER LEVEL PLAN 3.2 MAIN LEVEL PLAN 4.1 NORTH AND EAST ELEVATIONS 4.2 SOUTH AND WEST ELEVATIONS 5.1A 557 MILL STREET REFERENCE GRID LINE SPOT ELEVATION WINDOW MARK DOOR MARK ROOM NUMBER DRAWING REVISION ASSEMBLY DETAIL CUT SECTION CUT EXTERIOR ELEVATION DETAIL CALLOUT INTERIOR ELEVATION ROOM 100 F11 1 T. O. RIDGE BEAM 123'-6 1/2" 4.4 1 1 7.1 8.1 1 2 3 4 SYMBOL & MATERIAL LEGEND PROJECT INFORMATION DRAWING INDEX PROJECT DIRECTORY CONSTRUCTION NOTES ABBREVIATIONS FLOOR AREA SUMMARY 07.08.2017GENERAL NOTES VICINITY MAP 8 P149VIII.a DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS ASPEN, CO557 N. MILL STREETMTE 1704 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 1.3 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 07/08/2017FAR SUMMARY 428 sq ft 711 sq ft 428 sq ft 335 sq ft 137 sq ft 93 sq ft 291 sq ft 78'-8" 78'-8"47'-4"47'-4" 78'-8" 47'-4" WALL #001 WALL #002 WALL #003 WALL #004 WALL #001 WALL #002 WALL #003 WALL #004 3,893 sq ft 711 sq ft 401 sq ft 311 sq ft 3,893 sq ft Main Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)3893 Main Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)3893.00 Front Porch Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Deck Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Deck/Porch Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Total Exisiting Floor Area Calcuations Subgrade Floor Area (Sq Ft)1187.72 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)3893.00 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Total Exisiting Floor Area (Sq Ft)5,080.72 Floor Area Calculations 557 N. MILL STREET Existing Main Level Floor Area Calculations Existing Deck/Porch Floor Area Calculations Lower Level Wall Label Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft) 1 711.00 311.00 2 428.00 93.00 3 711.00 0.00 4 428.00 291.00 Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft)2,278.00 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)695 % of Exosed Wall (Exposed / Total)30.51% Lower Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)3893.00 Lower Leve Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)1187.72 (3893*30.51%) Subgrade Floor Area (Sq Ft)1187.72 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)3893.00 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 N/A Total Existing Floor Area (Sq Ft)5,080.72 Total Existing Floor Area Calculations Floor Area Calculations 557 N. MILL STREET Existing Lower Level Wall Calculations Existing Lower Level Floor Area Calculations 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 FIRST FLOOR AREA P150VIII.a DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS ASPEN, CO557 N. MILL STREETMTE 1704 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED LOWER LEVEL PLAN 3.1 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 07/08/2017FAR SUMMARY A A B B 2 2 1 1 80'-0"48'-8"INTERIOR DEMISING WALLS NOT DOCUMENTED A5.1 A5.1 D5.1D5.1 24.1 14.1 24.2 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 LOWER LEVEL PLAN P151VIII.a DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS ASPEN, CO557 N. MILL STREETMTE 1704 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED MAIN LEVEL PLAN 3.2 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 07/08/2017FAR SUMMARY A A B B 2 2 1 1 80'-0"48'-8"48'-8"80'-0" A5.1 A5.1 D5.1D5.1 24.1 14.1 24.2 INTERIOR DEMISING WALLS NOT DOCUMENTED 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL PLAN P152VIII.a DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS ASPEN, CO557 N. MILL STREETMTE 1704 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NORTH & EAST ELEVATIONS 4.1 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 07/08/2017FAR SUMMARY B A 89'-111/2" 100'-0" 110'-0" LINE OF EXIST. GRADE MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY LOWER LEVEL T.O. PLY ROOF T.O. PLY 2 1 89'-111/2" 100'-0" 110'-0" SHED ROOF ENCLOSURE OVER STAIR LINE OF EXIST. GRADE MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY LOWER LEVEL T.O. PLY ROOF T.O. PLY 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 EAST ELEVATION 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION P153VIII.a DESIGN CORPS ALIUS DESIGN CORPS ALIUS ASPEN, CO557 N. MILL STREETMTE 1704 ISSUE PROJECT No: DRAWN BY: DRAWING SET COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SOUTH & WEST ELEVATIONS 4.2 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 07/08/2017FAR SUMMARY A B 89'-111/2" 100'-0" 110'-0" LINE OF EXIST. GRADE LINE OF STAIR BEYOND MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY LOWER LEVEL T.O. PLY ROOF T.O. PLY 1 2 89'-111/2" 100'-0" 110'-0" LINE OF EXIST. GRADE MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY LOWER LEVEL T.O. PLY ROOF T.O. PLY 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 WEST ELEVATION 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 SOUTH ELEVATION P154VIII.a Exhibit F P155 VIII.a Page 1 of 4 RESOLUTION NO. 4 (SERIES OF 2019) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PROVIDING A RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL TO CITY COUNCIL FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 465 AND 557 N. MILL STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A; CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. PARCEL ID: 273707300048 and 273707300013 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has received an application from North Mill Street, LLC (Applicant), represented by Chris Bendon, BendonAdams, LLC, requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission provide a recommendation to the City Council for a Rezoning of property located at 465 and 557 N. Mill Street (legally described in Exhibit A of this Resolution) from the Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI) zone district to the Mixed Use (MU) zone district; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.310.060 of the Land Use Code, Rezoning shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the City Council, after receiving a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended denial of the application; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the zoning proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation for the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 19th, 2019 the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 4, Series 2019, by a 5 to 1 (5-1) vote, recommending the Aspen City Council deny the proposed Rezoning of 465 and 557 N. Mill Street; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310.090(A) the rezoning proposal is not compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, when considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics; and, the Planning and Zoning Commission further finds that the proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the goals and statements of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP), the 2006 Civic Center Master Plan, and the 2018 Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines – River Approach Area; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission further finds that pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310.090(D), the proposed rezoning and subsequent reduction of SCI zoned Exhibit G P156 VIII.a Page 2 of 4 land, which allows essential uses that provide basic community needs, is inconsistent with the community character, the public interest, and the intent of this Title. WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to the Aspen City Council to deny the proposed Rezoning request, pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, for 465 and 557 N. Mill Street, as listed below. Section 1: Rezoning Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends the City Council deny the proposed Rezoning of 465 and 557 N. Mill Street to the Mixed Use zone district because the proposal does not comply with the applicable review criteria. Section 2: 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 3: 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. P157 VIII.a Page 3 of 4 APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 19TH day of February, 2019. ______________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: _______________________________ _______________________________ James R. True, City Attorney Janine Stickle, Records Manager P158 VIII.a Resolution __, Series 2019 Exhibit A Legal Description Page 4 of 4 465 and 557 North Mill Street. “Parcel A” PID #2737-073-000-48 & “Parcel B” PID #2737-073-000-13, legally described as: PARCEL A: A tract of land being part of a tract previously described in Book 177 at Page 620 in the Northwest Quarter South Quarter Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at a point being 203.00 feet North 84°19' East from monument "0-64A" set by L.S. 2568, monument "0-6A" is 1124.96 feet South 39°58'22" East from the West quarter corner, Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian (1954 Brass Cap); thence North 84°19' East 95.00 feet; thence South 05°41' East 66.33 feet; thence South 84°19' West 95.00 feet; thence North 05°41 West 66.33 feet to the Point of Beginning. EXCEPTING therefrom parcels conveyed to the City of Aspen, a municipal corporation by deed recorded December 18, 1978 in Book 360 at Page 532 and 533. City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, Colorado PARCEL B: A tract of land situated in the Northwest ¼ of the Southwest ¼ of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., described as follows: Beginning at a point from whence the West ¼ corner of said Section 7 bears N 39°58'22" W 1124.96 feet, said point being the Southwesterly corner of tract of land described in Book 177 at Page 618; thence on a curve to the left having a radius of 668.00 feet a distance of 222.1 feet the chord of which bears S 25°40'02" E 221.1 feet, along the Northeasterly line of a tract of land described in Book 276 at Page 604; thence S 66°48'31" E 151 feet along the Northeasterly line of said tract of land described in Book 276 at Page 604 to a point on the Northwesterly line of tract of land described in Book 180 at Page 345; thence N 19°05'07" E 240.00 feet along said Northwesterly line to the most Northerly corner of said tract of land in Book 180 at Page 345; thence N 10°32'30" W 63.00 feet to the Southeasterly corner of said tract of land described in Book 177 at Page 618; thence N 84°19' W 5.00 feet; thence S 05°41' E 66.33 feet along the Easterly line of a tract of land described in Book 293 at Page 873; thence S 84°19' W 95.00 feet along the Southerly line of said tract of land described in Book 293 at Page 873; thence N 05°41' W 66.33 feet along the Westerly line of said tract of land described in Book 293 at Page 873 to a point on the Southerly line of said tract of land described in Book 117 at Page 618; thence S 84°19' W 203.00 feet along said Southerly line to the Place of Beginning. EXCEPTING therefrom that portion described in Deed to the City of Aspen recorded December 21, 1976 in Book 321 at Page 797, and also excepting therefrom that portion described in Deed to the City of Aspen recorded December 28, 1978 in Book 360 at Page 533, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, Colorado P159 VIII.a Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2019 1 Staff Comments ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Commission Comments ................................................................................................................................ 2 Minutes ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Public Comment not on the Agenda ............................................................................................................. 2 LOT 4 RANGER STATION SUBDIVISION – Design Variations ............................................................. 2 465 &557 NORTH MILL STREET REZONING ........................................................................................ 4 Exhibit HP160 VIII.a Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2019 2 At 4:30 p.m.; Teraissa McGovern called the regular meeting to order with Commission Members Spencer McKnight, Teraissa McGovern, Rally Dupps, Ryan Walterscheid, Skippy Mesirow and Ruth Carver present. Also present were Andrea Bryan, Jim True and Linda Manning. Staff Comments Jennifer Phelan said the state conference is in Snowmass Village this fall. There is a Commissioner track. She wants to see if anyone has ideas for topics you would like to learn more about. She will send out an email. The conference is at the end of September. Commission Comments None. Minutes Mr. Dupps moved to approve the minutes from February 5, 2019; seconded by Ms. McGovern. All in favor, motion carried. Public Comment not on the Agenda None. LOT 4 RANGER STATION SUBDIVISION – Design Variations Kevin Rayes, community development, stated this a residential design standard, RDS, variation request for Lot 4. The property is located in the R6 zone. It is 11,655 square foot and located within the infill area. On the northern part of the lot there is a 20 foot access easement. Since the lot is greater than 9,000 square foot it allows for the development of a single family and duplex or two detached duplexes. The proposal is for two detached houses with a 10 foot separation. Unit A is proposed to face 8th Street. Unit B is proposed to face the easement to the north. He showed renderings. He showed the site plan with the setbacks. Unit A complies with all the RDS. Unit B is requesting seven variations including building orientation, articulation of building mass, build to requirement, one story element, entry connection, entry porch and principle window. For building orientation, unit B is proposed to face the easement and the orientation standard states the front façade shall be parallel to the street. On a corner lot both facades shall be parallel to the streets. It does not comply. The orientation requirement is the most important request. All others are contingent upon this one. Next is the build to requirement, based on orientation of B - 60% of the front façade shall be within 5 feet of the minimum setback. None of front façade is within. Articulation of building mass. No greater than 50 feet in depth of front façade to rear wall. If we were to orientate to 8th Street it would be just over 61 feet and not comply. The last variations are related to aesthetes. Unit B incorporates all of these attributes. Since all are orientated towards the easement they would require variations. In order to grant a variation from a RDS, there are two criteria. They need to demonstrate that the variation would provide an alternate design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent standard as well as the general intent statement and be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraint. Staff finds the lot does have an unusual site specific constraint. In R6 a traditional lot was 30 by 100 feet, now it is 60 by 100. A lot with this dimension would allow for the construction of a single family house. Some lots are even larger allowing for two single family homes. These lots do not mimic typical lots. This lot has an abnormal configuration of 70 by 143. It is more narrow from the street than a typical lot. The minimum side yard setback is 15 feet and 10 between the dwellings. Side by side construction would be 30 feet total, very narrow. The proposal to orientate front to back is more P161 VIII.a Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2019 3 consistent with how the lot is configured. This would qualify for a site specific constraint. Staff recommends approval of all the variations. Mr. Walterscheid asked would you consider we look at the alley easement like a street. Ms. Phelan replied yes. If you read our definition of alley it would fall under alley as a secondary access. Mr. Dupps said we recently we looked at Lot 3. Staff memo was not in support. I’m imagining all lots will be coming before us at some point. Ms. Phelan said there are three permits in. Lots 1 and 2 have not come in for variations. They also follow the traditional townsite plotting. Mr. Dupps said it seems like they have specific needs and wants. Staff did not support Lot 3 but supports this. Isn’t this a similar situation. People knew buying the lot it wouldn’t support a duplex. Ms. Phelan said it goes to the lot width. Right now, it is 70 feet wide. If it was more traditional it would be 100 feet wide. Mr. McKnight asked how comfortable are you with the easement as a street. Ms. Phelan said we have another lot by the Mortiz like this and on Francis Street as well. It is not unheard of but not super common. Applicant Stan Clausson, representing the owners, said the land use code treats duplexes and two single family homes as the same. The RDS would say if this were a duplex only one unit would need to meet the RDS. No variations are requested for unit A. We looked at having the units side by side and a connected duplex. It made sense to have the homes front to back as separate residences. For articulation of building mass unit A meets that. Unit B meets it for maximum side wall depth in relationship to the access easement. When it comes to the build to requirement, unit A meets it and unit B meets it with respect to the access easement. When it comes to the one story element, there are those in both consisting of an inset porch. The inset is related to the access easement. The intent of the RDS is to ensure a strong connection between residences and street. Buildings provide articulation, preserve historic neighborhoods scale and character and encourage physical and visual relationships to the streets and residential structures. We think that this is the best solution for the site. It does reduce the perceived mass relative to a duplex. Joseph Spears S2 Architects, said the alley will feel like a secondary street. Ms. McGovern asked why does the RDS treat detached single family differently. Ms. Phelan stated she is not sure. Mr. McKnight opened the public comment. 1. Elise Elliott, 610 north street, asked are you planning on paving the alley or will the city. Ms. Phelan said the alley belongs to the homeowners. It is a private alley with minimum improvement standards that have been worked out with engineers 2. Chris Bendon, neighbor. I support this. It is great architecture. This is terrific. You should approve it as is. Mr. McKnight closed the public comment. Ms. Carver said she has no problem with this. She questioned who will plow the snow. Mr. Dupps said he thinks it is fantastic. The architecture is beautiful. Lot 3 came here and we said no. It had existing site conditions. Is this different. He wants to know if this is different. Ms. McGovern said the increased lot size for Lot 3 could have had a design that met the RDS. The maximum side wall dept, the house looked giant. I don’t think this one is depending much on the site specific except it is much more narrow. It would look really silly with two buildings next to each other. Mr. Mesirow moved to approve Resolution #3, Series of 2019 approving design variations for Lot 3 Ranger Station Subdivision; seconded by Ms. Carver. Roll call vote. Commissioner Carver, yes; Mesirow, yes; Walterscheid, yes; Dupps, yes; McGovern, yes; McKnight, yes. Motion carried. P162 VIII.a Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2019 4 465 &557 NORTH MILL STREET REZONING Mr. McKnight said he has retained legal services from the legal advisor in the past. It will not affect me. Mike Kraemer, community development, said this is a rezoning from SCI to MU. It is only a rezoning application. There is no development or change of use. The process is two step. First is a P&Z recommendation. The second step is City Council. This is a public hearing. Lot 1 is 1.06 acres. It is currently developed with a 20,645 square foot structure. Lot 2 is .145 acres with 7,990 square foot development. There are approximately 21 existing businesses on the property. All are conforming in the SCI zone. The purpose of SCI is to allow for uses not found in other zones including light industrial, manufacturing, production, repair and similar services. This zone allows for heavy maintenance repair. The purpose of MU is to allow for a mix of residential and commercial and provide different economic and residential opportunism for more traditional commercial zones. It is a transition from more intense commercial areas of the CC and C1 zones and residential and lodging zones surrounding Main Street. The purpose of the SCI zone district and MU zone district are not the same and are not intended to be interchangeable. MU zone does not exist near the subject properties and rezoning these properties would create an island of MU zoning in this area. There are some overlap uses between SCI and MU. Service uses is an allowed use in the MU zone district and that includes the ability to have a laundry and dry cleaning service on the property. SCI specifically allows manufacturing and heavy maintenance repair. MU does not allow these uses. MU allows office, multi family, single family duplex, specialty retail and lodging. SCI does not. There is an overall concern from staff that certain allowed MU zone district uses may be more desirable and potentially displace existing SCI uses. This is a statement that is reiterated in the 2018 commercial design guidelines. The 2006 civic master plan contemplates SCI space renovation for underground parking, pedestrian linkages, affordable housing and aesthetic improvements. The MU zone district proposal for the rezoning does not contemplate a redevelop plan. MU allows for alternative uses that may not be consistent with this plan. Today, staff feels that existing SCI zoning is consistent with the 2012 AACP. It is not a regulatory document but encourages a balanced commercial mix. SCI zoned lands are limited and loss of the zoning is inconsistent with the AACP. Subject properties are within the 2018 commercial design guidelines river approach area. The MU zoning is not compatible with this character area. Staff recommends denial based on 26.310.90A - proposed rezoning is not compatible with the surrounding zone district and land uses. It does not comply with LUC 26.310.090D -proposed rezoning is inconsistent and not compatible with the character of the city and in harmony of the public interest and intent of this title. We are also asking P&Z to consider that this would represents a fundamental change from the purpose and intent of the SCI zone district. This proposal represents a significant reduction of available SCI zoned area within the City of Aspen. It creates non conforming uses on subject properties and in not in context with the river approach character area. The proposal is inconsistent with the 2006 civic master plan. Mr. Mesirow asked if it were to happen what would happen to existing business that become non conforming. Mr. Kraemer replied they would be legal non-conforming. Ms. McGovern said the other SCI zone has uses that are not consistent with current zoning. Did it change. Are they site specific. Ms. Phelan replied this was before both of us. When Obermeyer was first looked at there were a number of uses that were there. A certain number of non conforming uses were allowed to go back in. There is also NC in there. At one point free market was a conditional use there as well. Applicant P163 VIII.a Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2019 5 Chris Bendon, representing North Mill Street LLC, owned by Mark Hunt. Mr. Bendon stated this will provide parity with other SCI properties. There are five properties in Aspen zoned SCI. Andrews McFarlin, across the street, USPS and Obermeyer place and the lumber yard. Mr. Bendon reviewed these properties. We’ve looked at the surrounding area. There is office, residential, non profit, ci vic, retail, restaurant. We’ve looked at several options to have some parity with other SCI, R6 and R30. They do not allow for a mix of uses. There is RMF in the area. It doesn’t allow for a mix of uses, specifically commercial. We looked at NC. The types of commercial allowed are more viable. Both the residential allowances are not there. MU provides for a better array of commercial uses and allows for some degree of residential development. This is the closest we thought to other SCI and the civic master plan. For criteria, there are four of them. Is the amendment compatible with the surrounding zoning. We think you can make a positive finding of this. Specifically, the river approach area. We see this as architectural style, persuasion of building development, not uses. The second deals with demands on public facilities. Staff found in favor of this. Once again, this deals with development. We see nothing that would change the demand on this. Third is adverse impact on the natural environment. We don’t see any measurable difference on this. Staff didn’t either. Lastly is if the proposal is consistent with community character and in harmony with the public interest. Staff found against this. We think you can make a positive finding. It asks for a great degree of latitude. The criteria is broad in its approach. We are requesting the MU zone because we think it brings the property in closest proximity to comparable SCI properties. It provides for mix of uses. It provides for an array of commercial uses that are up to today’s market and provides for viable residential uses. Mr. Dupps asked why. Chris Bryan, legal counsel, asked why did the city downzone SCI and only effect this property. That made it more restrictive as to what could be done here. Ordinance 29 only affected this property, not the other SCI properties Chris mentioned. The rezoning would be more suitable in light of the downzoning that occurred. Just because those uses are there now doesn’t mean they will remain there. Ms. McGovern said even if it makes the uses non conforming. Did the property owner purchase this after the downzoning occured. Mr. Bryan replied after the downzoning occurred. There was a legal challenge predating that. Ms. McGovern asked why are offices allowed on Andrews Mcfarlan and Obermeyer. Ms. Phelan said there are certain uses permitted. Mr. Bendon said there were spaces that were added in to the development. Ms. Phelan said she is not sure about Andrews Mcfarlan. Design studio is a term in the code. Mr. Mesirow said harmony with public interest would prohibit some things the community wants. One outcome could be in harmony and one in not. How are we to look at this without knowing what the future is. Mr. Bendon replied it asks you to make a judgement. The answer is not embedded in the question. We think you can make a positive finding just looking at the two zone districts. Mr. McKnight opened the public comment. 1. Elyse Elliott, 610 W North St. I urge you to deny the request. I’m concerned about the neighborhood. I believe the small businesses in these buildings are essential to the community. If they leave there is no other place they can move. Every town needs a laundromat. Where are you going to take your scooter if it needs maintenance. Though not everybody uses these businesses they are essential to a community. The MU zone will allow for housing. We don’t need any high end town homes. The affordable housing units are not worth the trade offs. 2. Toni Kronberg said she supports the rezoning. While some of the businesses may become non conforming they will still be allowed. Those two lots can definitely be improved. MU gives so much more opportunity. Nothing is here forever. Think about how limiting the SCI really is. Mr. McKnight closed the public comment. Mr. Mesirow said if it were to be changed and the applicant came forward with a new development could an existing business stay under a new development. Ms. Phelan said the non conforming section says if a same type of use went in within a certain time frame the non conforming could stay. With a redevelopment it would be pretty tricky with the time frame for a non conforming to come back in. P164 VIII.a Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2019 6 Mr. Waltersheid said in the MU along Main Street there are two gas stations and a car wash, are those non conforming in the MU currently. Ms. Phelan replied they might be a service use. Ms. Carver said she lives in a MU district. My neighborhood looks nothing like SCI. My problem with this is we have no idea what will happen. There could be private homes, a row of townhouses. There could be anything. Yes, I agree the neighborhood needs to be improved. I trust Mark Hunt would do that. I think MU would displace that type of neighborhood. It is a service neighborhood and a lot of those businesses are important to our neighborhood. I would rather see a plan and the rezoning with it. It is so open and something I cannot agree with at this point in time. Ms. McGovern said MU specifically says transition area between CC and C1. This would create an island. The uses allowed in MU are different enough that it isn’t consistent with the neighborhood. SCI specifically says to support locally serving businesses. MU doesn’t say that anywhere. I would be concerned approving a rezone on this side of the round about getting rid of the uses that are there. It is important to have these services. Mr. Mesirow said he is not supportive either. Given the change will have loses for the community with businesses that will not land anywhere. He would like to see a plan. I have misgivings with SCI too. Mr. Walterscheid said he is more on the fence. MU is between CC, C, the residential and lodging. If the site is going to be developed you will need free market surrounding it. I think this is an island anyway. The stuff going on around it falls in MU. I don’t think you will see a redevelopment unless there are assurances. If it stays as SCI I don’t think you will see redevelopment. There is MU going up Mill Street. I don’t see it as an outrageous ask. They will have to come in for an approval to have anything built. Mr. Dupps said I appreciate what Ryan is saying. My problem is I just don’t see enough information. If we had a building or a use I could respond. It is too broad for me at this time to vote in favor. Mr. McKnight said making these changes goes in the face of the AACP. This is the last spot in town providing services. I will be a no as well. Ms. McGovern moved to recommend denial of Resolution #4, Series of 2018 for the rezoning of 465 and 557 North Mill Street; seconded by Mr. Mesirow. Roll call vote. Commissioners Dupps, yes; McGovern, yes; Mesirow, yes; Carver, yes; Walterscheid, no; McKnight, yes. Motion carried. At 6:00 p.m. Ms. Carver moved to adjourn; seconded by Ms. McGovern. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning City Clerk P165 VIII.a MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council FROM: Ben Anderson, Planner II THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director RE: 8040 Greenline review, Variances to Setback and Floor Area 660 S. Galena Street, Resolution No. 36, Series of 2019 MEETING DATE: March 25, 2019 APPLICANT: Patrick Smith, Manager Westpac Aspen Investments, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Chris Bendon BendonAdams, LLC LOCATION: 660 S. Galena St. Lot 2, Tipple Woods Subdivision CURRENT ZONING: Lodge (L) Zone District; the home is a single-family residence, a non-conforming use in the zone district. SUMMARY: The Applicant is proposing an exterior remodel of the home that includes the addition of an accessibility (ADA) ramp. The location of the residence requires 8040 Greenline Review. Variances to setback and floor area are required to accommodate the access ramp. Figure 1. Location of 660 S. Galena St. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council approve the proposed project by approving Resolution No. 36, Series of 2019, subject to conditions. 660 S. Galena The Residences at Little Nell Gondola Plaza P166 IX.a Page 2 of 5 660 S. Galena Street Resolution No. 36, Series of 2019 LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting approval of the following Land Use approvals by City Council: • Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) 8040 Greenline Review (26.435.030) Required of projects in the 8040 Greenline Review Area with the purpose of reducing impacts of development in this area. • Variances to Setbacks and Floor Area (26.314) Dimensional variances can be granted due to special circumstances or conditions –where literal interpretation of the code would result in undue and unnecessary hardship. Variances to Floor Area can only be granted by City Council. LOCATION/BACKGROUND: The property is located just uphill of The Residences at Little Nell to the west of the Little Nell ski run. The home is one of three, single-family residences that resulted from the Tipple Woods Subdivision. Subsequent changes to the Lodge (L) Zone District have removed single-family homes as a permitted use. The non-conforming nature of the residence is an important aspect of this application. Also important is the condition that 660 S. Galena has no direct access from a public right- of-way. The only access to the property is through a pedestrian causeway attached to The Residences at Little Nell. An easement agreement between Lot 2, Westpac Aspen Investments, LLC and The Residences at Little Nell (Reception No. 510204) provides direction to this arrangement. CURRENT REQUEST: The applicant is proposing an extensive remodel of the residence. This includes a recladding of the exterior to include new fenestration, siding, roofing, and trim elements; and work to stabilize portions of the foundation. An important element of the proposal is the addition of an accessibility bridge to provide ADA access from the causeway to the front porch of 660 S. Galena. All the exterior elements of the remodel are subject to 8040 Greenline review, but the addition of the access bridge requires Variances to Setback and to Floor Area to accommodate the proposal. STAFF DISCUSSION: 8040 Greenline City of Aspen Engineering and Parks Departments have reviewed the proposed project for any negative impacts to the site. No serious concerns were identified in their referral comments and two proposed conditions of approval (related to stormwater management, and trees) resulted from these comments. Except for the work to the foundation, most of the work is cosmetic in nature, and any potential impacts can be mitigated with the Construction Management Plan submitted during building permit. Community Development staff concur with the assessment of Parks and Engineering and likewise have found to the 8040 Greenline Review standards are met (See Exhibit A for Review Criteria and specific Staff Findings). Variances Setback The front yard of the property is defined by steep grades as it interacts with the existing bridge connecting the property to The Residences at Little Nell. The proposed addition of the accessibility (ADA) bridge requires spanning these steep grades. The variance request does not change the P167 IX.a Page 3 of 5 660 S. Galena Street Resolution No. 36, Series of 2019 setback, but instead would allow structures taller than what is allowed by code in a setback. The code permits structures of no more than 30” above or below grade. The proposed bridge would result in a structure in the setback that would be nearly 8 feet tall from grade and require footings that are perhaps deeper than 30” below grade. Floor Area Because 660 S. Galena is a non-conforming use (single-family house in the Lodge Zone District), its allowable floor area is not dependent on lot size, but instead is based on existing floor area. As such, it cannot be expanded. The proposed addition of the access bridge would add approximately 420 square feet of additional area that is defined as “deck” in the Land Use Code. Per the code, properties get a 15% exemption of the property’s allowable floor area for deck and other similar exterior areas. The addition of the new bridge would add area beyond the 15% exemption and increase the net floor area of the residence by 360 square feet. Figure 2. Site Plan with proposed access bridge. To grant a variance, the following three circumstances must exist: 1) The grant of the variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of this Title and the Municipal Code; and, 2) The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and, P168 IX.a Page 4 of 5 660 S. Galena Street Resolution No. 36, Series of 2019 3) Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title will deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience. If these three circumstances are all present, one of these two conditions must also apply: 1) special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building, or structure, which are not applicable to other parcel, structures or buildings in the same zone district, and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or, 2) granting the variance will not confer the applicant any special privilege denied by the terms of this Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or structures in the same zone district. Staff finds that the unique site conditions (absence of direct access to right-of-way, access through The Residences at Little Nell, steep grades, and status as a non-conforming use), combined with the nature of the proposed project (providing ADA access to a residence) meet the standards and criteria for granting a Variance and recommends approval (See Exhibit A for Review Criteria and specific staff findings). Conditions of approval have been proposed that limit the variances to the minimum necessary for the construction of the access bridge and to limit the variances to this specific purpose. Figure 3. Elevation of proposed access bridge (identified in blue) 660 S. Galena Bridge to RLN P169 IX.a Page 5 of 5 660 S. Galena Street Resolution No. 36, Series of 2019 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request, subject to the following conditions: 1) The approved variance to floor area is solely for the addition of the access ramp. If the approved ramp is not built, or the ramp is removed in the future, the additional floor area may not be converted or transferred to any other interior or exterior location on the property. 2) The approved variance to setbacks is limited to that necessary for the access ramp. No other variances to improvements in the setbacks are approved. 3) Minor additions to the area (up to 10% more than approved total) and to the height from grade of the access ramp may be approved during building permit review only to accommodate technical necessities or building code compliance. 4) Urban Runoff Management Plan requirements will need to be submitted at time of building permit. 5) The applicant shall work with the City of Aspen Parks Department to minimize the impact to existing trees. A tree permit will be required for removal of any code sized trees. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution No. 36, Series of 2019 to allow for the proposed exterior improvements, including an access ramp at 660 S. Galena, subject to conditions.” Attachments: Exhibit A – Staff Findings (8040 Greenline and Variances) Exhibit B – Drawings of proposed improvements Exhibit C – Application Exhibit D – Public Notice Affidavits P170 IX.a Page 1 of 3 660 S. Galena Street; Resolution No. 36, Series of 2019 RESOLUTION NO. 36 (SERIES OF 2019) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR SETBACKS AND FLOOR AREA AT A PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 660 S. GALENA STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 2, TIPPLE WOODS SUBDIVISION, RECORDED MAY 17, 2005 IN PLAT BOOK 73 AT PAGE 19 AS RECEPTION NO. 510204, CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-182-96-003 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received a land use application from; Patrick Smith, Manager, Westpac Aspen Investments, LLC, represented by Chris Bendon of BendonAdams, LLC to allow the construction of an accessible walkway and other improvements for a residence at 660 S. Galena Street, Tipple Woods Subdivision, Lot 2; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the Land Use Code, the proposed improvements require the following reviews by City Council: · 8040 Greenline Review (Section 26.435.030) · Variances to Setbacks and Floor Area (Chapter 26.314); and, WHEREAS, 660 S. Galena Street is a single-family residence in the Lodge (L) Zone District, a non-conforming use; and, WHEREAS, single-family homes in the Lodge (L) Zone District are exempt from the provisions of Referendum No. 1; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Parks and Engineering Departments have reviewed the application and provided referral comments; and, WHEREAS, Community Development Staff has reviewed the application subject to the applicable review criteria and provided a recommendation of approval; and, WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the application and considered the proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, The City Council considered the application during public hearing at a regular scheduled meeting on March 25, 2019 and by an X to X (X - X) vote approves Resolution No 36, Series of 2019, subject to conditions; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety and welfare. P171 IX.a Page 2 of 3 660 S. Galena Street; Resolution No. 36, Series of 2019 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves 8040 Greenline Review and Variances to setbacks and floor area to allow the construction of an accessibility ramp and exterior improvements, including stabilization to the foundation, for the single-family residence at 660 S. Galena Street. Section 2: 8040 Greenline Review The City of Aspen Parks, Engineering and Community Development Departments have reviewed the application related to the 8040 Greenline review standards in the Land Use Code. The project includes an exterior recladding to include new fenestration, siding, roofing and trim, and stabilization efforts to repair the foundation. The addition of the accessibility ramp has also been reviewed against the 8040 Greenline standards. Section 3: Setback Variance The construction of the access ramp requires the placement of structures within the setback. The approval of a variance allows for the construction of foundation, posts, railings, and decking related to the access ramp to be located within the setback and be allowed to be more than the 30” above and below grade limitation in the Land Use Code, as required to complete a building code compliant access ramp. As designed, the access ramp is 7 feet, 7 inches (7’7”) above grade at the highest point. Section 4: Floor Area Variance This single-family residence in the Lodge (L) Zone District is a non-conforming use. As such, the existing floor area of the home is also the allowable floor area for the parcel. The land use code allows a 15% exemption of allowable floor area for deck and related exterior features. The addition of the access ramp will cause the property to exceed the deck exemption and will therefore add floor area to the home. The access ramp will add 419 square feet of deck space to the existing decking. This addition of deck will increase net floor area of the home by 360 square feet. Section 5: Conditions of Approval The approval of the review is subject to the following conditions: 1) The approved variance to floor area is solely for the addition of the access ramp. If the approved ramp is not built, or the ramp is removed in the future, the additional floor area may not be converted or transferred to any other interior or exterior location on the property. 2) The approved variance to setbacks is limited to that necessary for the access ramp. No other variances to improvements in the setbacks are approved. 3) Minor additions to the area (up to 10% more than approved total) and to the height from grade of the access ramp may be approved during building permit review to accommodate technical necessities or building code compliance. P172 IX.a Page 3 of 3 660 S. Galena Street; Resolution No. 36, Series of 2019 4) Urban Runoff Management Plan requirements will need to be submitted at time of building permit. 5) The applicant shall work with the City of Aspen Parks Department to minimize the impact to existing trees. A tree permit will be required for removal of any code sized trees. Section 5: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the temporary use proposal as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 6: 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 7: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the City Council of the City of Aspen on this 25th day of March 2019. __________________________ Steven Skadron, Mayor Attest: Linda Manning, City Clerk Approved as to form: James R. True, City Attorney Exhibit: A – Site and Floor Plans, and Elevations P173 IX.a 8040 Greenline Review 26.435.030 Standard Meets Does Not Meet Not Applicable 1.The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City. 2.The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects of water pollution. 3.The proposed development does not have a significant adverse effect on the air quality in the City. 4.The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. 5.Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. 6.The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. Exhibit A - Review Criteria P174 IX.a Standard Meets Does Not Meet Not Applicable 7.Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. 8.Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. 9.Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said roads can be properly maintained. 10.Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. 11.The adopted regulatory plans of the Open Space and Trails Board are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical. P175 IX.a Variance 26.314.040 Required Circumstance (all three must be present) Meets Does Not Meet Not Applicable 1.The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of this Title and the Municipal Code; and, 2.The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and, 3.Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience. Required Conditions (only one is required) Meets Does Not Meet Not Applcable a)There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or b)Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the terms of this Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or structures, in the same zone district. Exhibit A - Review Criteria P176 IX.a Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT A Review Criteria 26.435.030. 8040 Greenline review. C. 8040 Greenline review standards. No development shall be permitted at, above or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City. Staff Finding – City Engineering reviewed the project and location and raised no concerns about the impacts of the proposed project related to these potential hazards. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects of water pollution. Staff Finding – Any impacts of the proposed project will be mitigated through a construction management plan and compliance with URMP requirements. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse effect on the air quality in the City. Staff Finding – Based on the scope of the project, staff finds this criterion not applicable. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. Staff Finding – Based on the scope of the project, staff finds this criterion not applicable. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. Staff Finding – While the project will require some disturbance to improve the foundation and construct the access ramp, impacts will be minimal. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. Staff Finding – Except for the addition of the access ramp, no other improvements extend beyond the existing footprint of development. The access ramp is built to its minimum functional size and is adjacent to existing development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P177 IX.a Page 2 of 3 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. Staff Finding – None of the proposed work expands the existing mass or scale of the residence. The access ramp is built to its minimum functional size. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. Staff Finding – Based on the scope of the project, staff finds this criterion not applicable. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said roads can be properly maintained. Staff Finding – Based on the scope of the project, staff finds this criterion not applicable. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. Staff Finding – The proposed project improves accessibility but does not change the inherent conditions of ingress and egress to the property. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 11. The adopted regulatory plans of the Open Space and Trails Board are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical. Staff Finding – Based on the scope of the project, staff finds this criterion not applicable. 26.314.040. Standards applicable to variances. A. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision-making body shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of this Title and the Municipal Code; and, Staff Finding: The addition of the access ramp is consistent with the larger purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Municipal Code. Zoning limitations regarding setbacks and floor area, while important in defining the Aspen’s urban form, are not in place to inhibit appropriate access to a given property. Staff finds this circumstance to exist. 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and, Staff Finding: The access bridge is designed to its minimum functional size. The Resolution limits the Variances solely for the construction of the access ramp. Staff fins this circumstance to exist. P178 IX.a Page 3 of 3 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience. Staff Finding: Prohibiting the access ramp on the grounds of inconsistency with zoning requirements would prevent a family member from accessing the property with a wheel chair. This would be a true hardship, and not merely an inconvenience. Staff finds this criterion to be met. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the Board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a) There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or Staff Finding: The access to the site using the bridge from The Residences at Little Nell, the steep grades at the front of the property, and the change to the Lodge Zone District, establishing the residence as a non-conforming use – are all conditions unique to the parcel that are not of the creation by the applicant. Staff finds that this condition applies. b) Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the terms of this Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or structures, in the same zone district. Staff Finding: The Variances, if granted would be limited to the allowance of the access ramp. This purpose is not a special privilege. Staff finds this condition applies. P179 IX.a EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN NEW WALL PROPOSED PLAN LEGEND 1. NEW INTERIOR FINISHES 2. NEW WINDOWS 3. NEW PLUMBING FIXTURES 4. NEW APPLIANCES PROPOSED PLAN NOTES CL. DN DECK SLOPEFP FLOOR ELEVATION 8007' - 7 3/8" FLOOR ELEVATION 8006' - 7 3/8" LIVING ROOM 204 STAIR 203 FOYER DINING 205 206 KITCHEN 202 STO. A2011 A200 1 A202 1 A203 1 201 ENTRY NEW RAILING NEW EXTERIOR DOORS AND WINDOWS, TYP. NEW RAILING EDGE OF EXISTING ROOF ABOVE NEW COPPER ROOFING TILES NEW STEPS NEW PLUMBING FIXTURES, TYP. NEW APPLIANCES, TYP. BAR CL. DN DN DECK DECK ROOF FP DW REF / FRZ / SEE SHEET 1 A103 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L I N E SETBACK LINE SETBACK LI NES E T B A C K L IN E P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L IN E / SEE SHEET 1 A103 DN 1 1 3 3 4 4 6 6 7 7 B B D D E E F F 2 5 C A A NEW ADA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE NEW RAILING SHEET NORTH TRUE NORTH Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , A S P E N, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:04660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 A102 PROPOSED PLAN -MAIN LEVEL 21824.00 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL PROPOSED PLAN 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL P180IX.a 1 A302 ENTRY NEW ADA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DECK EXISTING RESIDENCES LITTLE NELL PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PROPERTY LINELINE OF EXISTING BRIDGE ROOF ABOVE EXISTING PAVERS S L O P E U P 1 : 1 8 .5 PROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L IN E SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINES E T B A C K L IN E TRAIL EASEMENT AND RIGHT -OF -WAY EXISTING STEPS EXISTING TREES 6'-0" ACCESS EASEMENT EXISTING RETAINING WALLS NEW STEPS DN NEW RAILING NEW POSTS 1/2" GAP BETWEEN BRIDGES SHEET NORTH TRUE NORTH Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , A S P E N, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:06660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 A103 PROPOSED PLAN -ADA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE 21824.00 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 ADA BRIDGE PROPOSED PLAN P181IX.a 1. DASHED LINES INDICATE EXTERIOR EDGE OF FRAMING BELOW. 2. INDICATES DIRECTION AND PITCH OF ROOF SLOPE. 3. CRICKETS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. 4. COORDINATE ROOF-PENETRATION FLASHING INSTALLATION WITH ROOFING AND INSTALLATION OF ITEMS PENETRATING ROOF. 5. RIDGE ELEVATIONS ARE TO TOP OF FINISH. 6. NEW ROOF FINISH APPLIED ON ALL EXISTING ROOFS. PROPOSED ROOF PLAN NOTES SLOPE 8:12 SLOPE 8:12 SLOPE 8:12 SLOPE 8:12SLOPE8:12SLOPE8:12SLOPEA2011 A200 1 A202 1 A203 1 SLOPE8:12SLOPE8:12SLOPE8:12SLOPE8:12SLOPE8:12SLOPE8:12SLOPESLOPENEW ROOF NEW COPPER ROOFING SHINGLES NEW COPPER ROOFING SHINGLES NEW CHIMNEY TO REPLACE EXISTING CHIMNEY NEW ROOF NEW CHIMNEY TO REPLACE EXISTING CHIMNEY NEW COPPER ROOFING SHINGLES PROPERTY LI NEPROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L I N E SETBACK LINE SETBACK LI NES E T B A C K L IN E P R O P E R T Y L IN E S E T B A C K L IN E 1 1 3 3 4 4 6 6 7 7 B B D D E E F F 2 5 C A A SHEET NORTH TRUE NORTH Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , A S P E N, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:07660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 A140 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 21824.00 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN SLOPE XXXXX 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET P182IX.a MIDDLE LEVEL 7997' - 4 105/128" MAIN LEVEL 8007' - 7 41/128" LOWER LEVEL 7988' - 3 41/128" EXISTING PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE TO REMAIN PROPOSED ADA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AND RAILING NEW RAILING NEW ROOF NEW COPPER SHINGLES NEW WINDOWS NEW COPPER ROOFING SHINGLES NEW CONCRETE CHIMNEY CAP AND STONE VENEER TO REPLACE EXISTING CHIMNEY EXISTING RETAINING WALLS NEW WINDOWS NEW CONCRETE CHIMNEY CAP AND STONE VENEER TO REPLACE EXISTING CHIMNEY NEW ROOF NEW COPPER SHINGLES NEW DOOR NEW WINDOWS NEW STEEL LEDGER NEW STEEL BRACE NEW WINDOWS NEW WINDOWS NEW DOOR 11' - 1 1/2"32' - 8 3/4"SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE1346725 Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , A S P E N, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:08660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 A200 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 21824.00 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATION - PROPOSED P183IX.a MIDDLE LEVEL 7997' - 4 105/128" MAIN LEVEL 8007' - 7 41/128" LOWER LEVEL 7988' - 3 41/128" NEW CONCRETE CHIMNEY CAP AND STONE VENEER TO REPLACE EXISTING CHIMNEY NEW COPPER ROOFING SHINGLES NEW COPPER ROOFING SHINGLES NEW STONE VENEER NEW STONE VENEER NEW ADA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AND RAILING NEW COPPER ROOF SHINGLES NEW ROOF NEW COPPER SHINGLES NEW RAILING NEW STONE VENEER NEW DOOR NEW STEEL LEDGER NEW WINDOWS NEW STEEL BRACE NEW WINDOWS NEW STONE VENEER NEW COPPER ROOFING SHINGLES NEW CONCRETE HEADER NEW VENT 39' - 0 3/4"33' - 4 1/2"31' - 7"28' - 0 1/4"SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINEBDEFC A Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , A S P E N, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:10660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 A201 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 21824.00 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED P184IX.a MIDDLE LEVEL 7997' - 4 105/128" MAIN LEVEL 8007' - 7 41/128" LOWER LEVEL 7988' - 3 41/128" NEW CONCRETE CHIMNEY CAP AND STONE VENEER TO REPLACE EXISTING CHIMNEY NEW COPPER ROOFING SHINGLES NEW ROOF NEW COPPER SHINGLES NEW STONE VENEER NEW WINDOWS NEW COPPER ROOFING SHINGLES NEW WINDOWS NEW CONCRETE CHIMNEY CAP AND STONE VENEER TO REPLACE EXISTING CHIMNEY NEW COPPER ROOF SHINGLES NEW ROOF NEW WINDOWS NEW COPPER SHINGLES NEW STONE VENEER NEW RAILING PROPOSED ADA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AND RAILING NEW STEPS NEW VENT 18' - 4 3/4"SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE1 3 4 6 725 Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , A S P E N, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:11660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 A202 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 21824.00 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 SOUTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED P185IX.a MIDDLE LEVEL 7997' - 4 105/128" MAIN LEVEL 8007' - 7 41/128" LOWER LEVEL 7988' - 3 41/128" NEW CONCRETE CHIMNEY CAP AND STONE VENEER TO REPLACE EXISTING CHIMNEY NEW COPPER ROOFING SHINGLES NEW STONE VENEER NEW WINDOWS NEW COPPER SHINGLES NEW RAILING NEW STEEL LEDGER NEW WINDOWS NEW COPPER ROOFING SHINGLES NEW STONE VENEER NEW WINDOWS NEW WINDOW NEW STONE VENEER 23' - 7 3/4"26' - 9 1/4"25' - 0 1/2"SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINEB D E FCA Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , A S P E N, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:12660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 A203 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 21824.00 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 SOUTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED P186IX.a MAIN LEVEL 8007' - 7 41/128" MAIN LEVEL 8007' - 7 41/128" NEW ADA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AND RAILING SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE7' - 7"13' - 9 1/4"T.O. ADA BRIDGE DECK 8006' - 7 171/256" T.O. ADA BRIDGE DECK 8006' - 7 171/256" T.O. ADA BRIDGE RAILING 8010' - 1 171/256" T.O. ADA BRIDGE RAILING 8010' - 1 171/256"17' - 3 1/4"6' - 8 3/4"11' - 1"3' - 2 3/4"Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , A S P E N, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:13660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 A302 PROPOSED BRIDGE SECTION 21824.00 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 SECTION THROUGH ADA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL P187IX.a 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM December 18, 2018 Mr. Ben Anderson Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 660 So. Galena Street, Tipple Woods Subdivision, Lot 2 Mr. Anderson: Please accept this application for an 8040 Greenline Review and requests for setback and deck area (floor area) variances to allow for construction of an accessible walkway for the residence at 660 So. Galena Street, Tipple Woods Subdivision, Lot 2. The existing residence is a two-story single-family home on a 3,790 square foot lot at the base of Aspen Mountain in the Lodge Zone District. The home is accessed through the Residences at Little Nell, by use of the elevator and exterior walkway leading to the south and crossing the neighbor’s property via a flagstone pathway. This flagstone pathway provides legal access but does not provide an accessible route. Several steps and the flagstones themselves prohibit access to the 660 home via a wheelchair. This condition prohibits access to the home by anyone who is mobility impaired, including the applicant’s son. A single-family residence is not currently allowed in the Lodge Zone District. The 660 home, and the neighboring homes, were built prior to code changes that removed the use from the zoning. Dimensional limits, including height and floor area, are not defined for this use. The existing floor area of the home is 2,158 sf. Setbacks in the Lodge zone are five (5) feet on all sides. The entire property is located within 8040 Greenline Review area. P188 IX.a The application proposes a ramp extending from the Residence at Little Nell walkway to the 660 home without crossing the neighboring property. To maintain the same elevation, the ramp will extend to the property line and be roughly 7’-7” above grade (at the highest point). (See sheet A302 of plan set.) The slope of the surrounding area and the desire to provide this connection without steps requires this ramp to exceed the 30-inch allowance for features in the setback. This requires a setback variance. The accessible ramp is technically an expansion of the property’s deck area. The ramp represents 419 square feet, including a portion of the existing walkway serving the Residences at Little Nell. (See sheet G212 within plan set.) Because the use is non- conforming and already has decks, this deck area exceeds the 15% allowance and “counts” as floor area. This necessitates a floor area variance. The owner is not seeking a variance for any other purpose other than providing an accessible route to the 660 home. If granted, this additional deck area will not be parlayed into interior floor area. If the ramp is ever removed, for any reason, the additional deck area will no longer be available to the property unless conforming with the property’s zoning or otherwise approved by the City. The height and size of the ramp are the minimum required to provide access to the home. Additional work to the 660 home includes structural and aesthetic upgrades. The home sustained damage from soil subsidence related to construction of the Residences at Little Nell. Levelling the floors, fixing mis-aligned components of the home, and work to cure various foundation issues will be undertaken. An exterior “re-skin” is planned to the home, updating the aesthetics to be on par with the Residences at Little Nell. No change to the floor area of the home is proposed. Various energy efficiency upgrades are also contemplated. Together with the ramp, these exterior improvements require an 8040 Greenline approval. Construction access is over the neighboring property through an easement reserved for this purpose. Selective tree removals and pruning are expected within this construction access easement. The applicant requests two Land Use reviews: 1. Dimensional Variances: a. Setback variance for the ramp for up to 0’ for the front yard (north) and up to 0’ for the side yard (east). b. Setback variance to permit for the ramp to be more than 30” above grade within a setback. c. Floor area variance to allow 360 additional square feet of deck area for the ramp. 2. 8040 Greenline Review a. 8040 Greenline Review for the ramp, re-clad of the existing structure, and structural stabilization of the home. P189 IX.a The home is owned by Westpac Aspen Investments, LLC. Patrick Smith, Manager, has authorized BendonAdams to submit this application. Philippe-Antoine Beauregard of Poss Architecture is the Architect of record and has prepared the attached drawing set. The applicant has attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Code and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the application. We look forward to your review and commentary and an opportunity to discuss this request with City Council. Please let us know if we can provide additional information, if we can assist with a site visit, or if we can respond to your input in any way. Kind Regards, Chris Bendon, AICP BendonAdams LLC Attachments: 1. Review Criteria 2. Pre-Application Summary 3. Application form 4. Agreement to Pay form 5. HOA form 6. Authorization to represent 7. Proof of ownership 8. Vicinity Map 9. Construction Easement 10. Staircase Easement 11. Trail Easement 12. Plans and Survey P190 IX.a Exhibit 1 Page 1 Exhibit 1 Review Criteria Setback and Floor Area Variances: The applicant requests the following setback variances for the proposed ramp accessing the home at 660 South Galena from the adjoining Residences at Little Nell property. Review criteria for granting a setback variance are addressed below. 1. Setback variance for the ramp (and supporting structure) to be within 0’ for the front yard (north) and up to 0’ for the side yard (east). 2. Setback variance to permit for the ramp (and supporting structure) to be more than 30” above or below grade within a setback, at a height not to exceed 8 feet. 3. Floor area variance to permit for 420 sf additional square feet of floor area for the ramp. 26.314.040. Standards applicable to variances. A. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision-making body shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of this Title and the Municipal Code; and 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the Board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a) There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or b) Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the terms of this Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or structures, in the same zone district. B. In order to authorize a variance from the permitted uses of Title 26, the appropriate decision-making body shall make a finding that all of the following circumstances exist: 1. Notice by publication, mailing and posting of the proposed variance has been provided to surrounding property owners in accordance with Subparagraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a.—c. P191 IX.a Exhibit 1 Page 2 2. A variance is the only reasonable method by which to afford the applicant relief, and to deny a variance would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship such that the property would be rendered practically undevelopable, as distinguished from mere inconvenience. 4. The temporary off-site storage or construction staging can be undertaken in such a manner so as to minimize disruption, if any, of normal neighborhood activities surrounding the subject parcel. 5. If ownership of the off-site parcel subject to the proposed variance is not vested in the applicant, then verified written authorization of the parcel's owner must be provided. 6. Adequate provision is made to restore the subject parcel to its original condition upon expiration of the variance, including the posting of such financial security as deemed appropriate and necessary by the appropriate decision-making body to ensure such restoration. Response: The property is located on the slope of Aspen Mountain behind (uphill from) the Residences at Little Nell. Construction of an accessible pathway is challenging due to the narrowness of the 660 property and mountain topography. The lot does not have any yards that face a street and there is no alley access. The only form of egress to the property is a pedestrian walkway from the interior of the Residences at Little Nell. This is provided with a non-exclusive access easement. The current route to the 660 home crosses the neighboring property. This involves a few steps down, crossing an uneven flagstone surface, and a few steps back up to access the 660 home. This does not enable access to the home for a person limited to a wheelchair. This route was subject of litigation between WestPac (the Applicant) and Henn, the owner of the home at 550 S. Galena located to the east of the 660 home. The Court’s resolution allows WestPac to continue using the accessway in its current configuration. But, does not allow it to be upgraded – the steps and flagstone conditions cannot be improved by WestPac. Please see survey showing existing access condition. The proposal seeks to enhance access to this home, for anyone, but also for a wheelchair-bound member of the family. The steps and flagstone condition of the current situation do not enable access. The 2012 AACP speaks to self-reliance in the Lifelong Aspenite Chapter. “Self-Reliance: We must work together to help each person in our community meet his or her basic needs and remain self-reliant to the greatest extent possible.” The requested setback variances for the ramp structure are the minimum needed to achieve an accessible pathway to the 660 home. The deck area will not be used to make the home larger and will not be used to make other non-essential deck areas larger. The applicant will agree to an approval stipulation to this effect. All construction staging will meet City of Aspen Construction Management Plan requirements. P192 IX.a Exhibit 1 Page 3 8040 Greenline Review: The applicant requests the following 8040 Greeline Review for the ramp, reskin of the existing structure, and structural stabilization. The criteria for an 8040 Greenline Review are addressed below. C. 8040 Greenline review standards. No development shall be permitted at, above or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse effect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects of water pollution. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse effect on the air quality in the City. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. 9. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. 10. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said roads can be properly maintained. P193 IX.a Exhibit 1 Page 4 11. The adopted regulatory plans of the Open Space and Trails Board are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical. Response: The property is currently developed with a single-family residence and is located at the base of Aspen Mountain. The project includes a new access ramp, an update to the exterior materials, and structural stabilization of the existing home. Any potential impacts to water and air quality during and after construction will be mitigated by ensuring compliance with the City’s Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP) as outlined in the Construction Management Plan (CMP). Given the project location, a geotechnical engineer and a structural engineer have been retained. The existing foundation requires shoring to stabilize the structure and prevent further damage to the home. The new ramp will be constructed to the specifications of the geotechnical engineer and IBC. The ramp will be constructed with a steel and wood superstructure, wood planking and wood and steel railings. Exterior improvements to the home include a “re-skin” with cut stone veneer matching the neighboring Residences at Little Nell, steel for structural members and accents, and copper shingles. Access to the property is challenging. There is no vehicular access to the lot and parking is provided at the adjacent Residences at the Little Nell parking garage. Pedestrian access is provided via a shared non-exclusive access easement. This access easement is on three lots: The Residences at the Little Nell and Lots 1 and 2 of the Tipple Woods Subdivision. Construction access is provided via an easement on the western portion of Lot 1 of the Residences of the Little Nell Subdivision and along the western portion of Lot 1 of the Tipple Woods Subdivision. No roads or new access easements are proposed as a part of this request. Tree removal is necessary to utilize this easement during the period of construction. Condition number three of the easement agreement requires any “damage or disturbance of any improvements or landscaping within the Easement Area” shall be restored to either the same or better condition prior to utilizing the easement. Any damage and disturbance will be minimized. While tree removal is unavoidable, the site will be revegetated with trees, shrubs, and grasses in compliance with the City of Aspen Parks Department and the Grantors of the construction easement. The site is served by existing utility lines and will not require new service lines as a result of this project. The site is not subject to any adopted regulatory documents of the Open Space and Trails Board. P194 IX.a PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY DATE: October 29, 2018 PLANNER: Ben Anderson, 429.2765 PROJECT NAME AND ADDRESS: 660 South Galena Street, Tipple Woods Subdivision, Lot 2. PARCEL ID# 2737-182-96-003 REPRESENTATIVE: Chris Bendon, BendonAdams DESCRIPTION: (Existing and Proposed Conditions) The property at 660 South Galena Street is located in the Lodge (L) zone district on an irregularly shaped lot with an approximate lot size of 3,809 square feet. According to the final recorded plat for the Residences at Little Nell Subdivision/PUD (Book 73, Page 21; Reception #510209) a Staircase Easement (Reception #554606) and a Trail and Right-of-Way Easement (Reception #444935) are depicted on the property. Currently there is a single-family residence located on this site. A walkway that is located on the staircase easement that spans between Lot 1 and Lot 2, provides access to the residences from the Residences at Little Nell, an adjacent development. The applicant would like to extend a portion of the walkway on their property towards the residence to create an accessible route. Three reviews are required for a proposed accessibility ramp. First, as the single family residence is a non-conforming use in the Lodge (L) zone district, it is limited to its existing Floor Area (approx. 2400sf) – and cannot be expanded. The home is allowed the 15% deck exemption and existing deck is at or near the total exemption allowance. The proposed ramp would fit under the category of “deck” and if added would exceed the allowance and would be calculated as Floor Area. The addition of the ramp would therefore require a variance to Floor Area. City Council is the review board for requests for Floor Area variances. Second, due to the grade changes in this area, the proposed walkway needs to be supported by columns that would be over 30” in height from grade. The Lodge (L) zone district requires a minimum of a 5’ setback. In order to extend this walkway, the applicant will need to build into the setback and would require a dimensional variance to accommodate the improvements to the walkway. Third, the home at 660 S. Galena is located in the 8040 Greenline Review Area. The 8040 Greenline standards provide for a heightened level of review for development that may be potentially impactful to the view shed, or to hazards related to steep slopes. At application, it will be determined if the project requires a review for exemption to 8040 Greenline requirements – or a full review of the requirements. A combined review with City Council will consider the two variance requests and the 8040 Greenline review. Exhibit 2 P195 IX.a RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS: Section Number Section Title 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.314 Variances 26.435.030 8040 Greenline Review 26.710.190 Lodge (L) For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below: Land Use Application Land Use Code REVIEW BY: • Staff for Complete Application • City Council for Variances and 8040 Greenline REQUIRED LAND USE REVIEW(S): • Variance • 8040 Greenline (or exemption) PUBLIC HEARING: Yes. It is the responsibility of applicant to coordinate with Planning staff to meet the notice requirements for the public hearing: PLANNING FEES: $4,550.00 deposit for 14 hours of staff time (City Council Review) (additional / fewer hours will be billed/refunded at a rate of $325 per hour) -Engineering - $325 per Hour (1 hour deposit – additional hours will be billed at $325/hr.) -Parks - $975 Flat Fee Total Deposit $5,580.00 APPLICATION CHECKLIST – These items should first be submitted in a paper copy. Completed Land Use Application and signed Fee Agreement. Pre-application Conference Summary (this document). Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application. Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. HOA Compliance form (Attached to Application) P196 IX.a A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application and relevant land use approvals associated with the property. An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. Written responses to applicable review criteria A proposed site plan. Depending on further review of the case, additional items may be requested of the application. Once the application is deemed complete by staff, the applicant/applicant’s representative will receive an e-mail requesting submission of an electronic copy of the complete application and the deposit. Once the deposit is received, the case will be assigned to a planner and the land use review will begin. Once the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted: 1 digital PDF copy of the complete application. Total deposit for review of the application. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. P197 IX.a Exhibit 3 P198 IX.a 2158sf P199 IX.a Exhibit 4 P200 IX.a Exhibit 5P201 IX.a Exhibit 6 P202 IX.a P203 IX.a P204 IX.a P205 IX.a P206 IX.a P207 IX.a P208 IX.a P209 IX.a P210 IX.a P211 IX.a Exhibit 7 P212 IX.a Exhibit 8 660 South Galena Street – Vicinity Map P213 IX.a Exhibit 9 P214 IX.a P215 IX.a P216 IX.a P217 IX.a P218 IX.a P219 IX.a P220 IX.a P221 IX.a P222 IX.a P223 IX.a P224 IX.a P225 IX.a P226 IX.a P227 IX.a P228 IX.a P229 IX.a Exhibit 10 P230 IX.a P231 IX.a P232 IX.a P233 IX.a P234 IX.a P235 IX.a P236 IX.a P237 IX.a P238 IX.a P239 IX.a P240 IX.a Exhibit 11 P241 IX.a P242 IX.a P243 IX.a P244 IX.a P245 IX.a P246 IX.a ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1 BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,2018C ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.12/04/2018 660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL COVER SHEET Exhibit 12 P247IX.a APPLIES TO FLOOR AREA EXTERIOR COVERED AREA FLOOR AREA LEGEND APPLIES TO DECK AREA EXPOSED WALLS WALL BELOW GRADE SUBGRADE CALCULATION LEGEND LOWER LEVEL -FAR CALCULATION LOWER LEVEL TOTAL GROSS (SQ.FT.)1052.09 LOWER LEVEL -% EXPOSED LOWER LEVEL COUNTED AS FLOOR AREA (SQ. FT.) 33.91% 356.73 LOWER LEVEL -SUBGRADE CALCULATIONS WALL LABEL WALL AREA (SQ. FT.)EXPOSED AREA (SQ. FT.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TOTAL % 162.73 349.79 24.33 74.52 130.79 92.77 326.98 12.17 1174.08 100.00% 17.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.42 74.47 256.83 9.77 398.09 33.91% TOTAL DECK AREA (OVER) 323.63 15.37 1052.09 1206.68 1090.06 3348.83 323.63 381.37 TOTAL DECK AREA (EXEMPT) TOTAL DECK AREA 339.00 705.00 DECK AREA CALCULATIONS EXISTING PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL TOTAL GROSS (SQ.FT.) MIDDLE LEVEL TOTAL GROSS (SQ.FT.) TOTAL GROSS FLOOR AREA (SQ.FT.) 660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE -FAR CALCULATIONS LOWER LEVEL COUNTED AS FLOOR AREA (SQ.FT.) 2157.50 EXISTING PROPOSED MIDDLE LEVEL COUNTED AS FLOOR AREA (SQ.FT.) MAIN LEVEL COUNTED AS FLOOR AREA (SQ.FT.) EXTERIOR COVERED AREA OVERHANG (SQ.FT.) TOTAL FAR (SQ.FT.) ALLOWED FAR (SQ.FT.) 3348.83 1052.09 1206.68 1090.06MAIN LEVEL TOTAL GROSS (SQ.FT.) 2157.50 106.00 1090.06 604.71 356.73 2157.50 2157.50 106.00 1090.06 604.71 356.73 EXEMPTED DECK AREA = 15% OF EXISTING FAR = 15% x 2157.50 = 323.63 SQ.FT. EXISTING LOWER LEVEL 1052 SF 1.17' - 10"14' - 4"2' - 8"38' - 4" 8' - 2" 1' - 4" 35' - 10" 10' - 2" 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.7. 1. 17' - 10"9' - 1 1/2"38' - 4"9' - 1 1/2"2. 2' - 8"9' - 1 1/2"3. 8' - 2"9' - 1 1/2"4. 14' - 4"9' - 1 1/2"5. 8. 10' - 2"9' - 1 1/2"6. 35' - 10"9' - 1 1/2"7.9' - 1 1/2"8. 1' - 4" 2 EXISTING SUBGRADE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - LOWER LEVEL SCALE 3/16" = 1'-0" 7' - 3 7/8"14' - 4"SHEET NORTH TRUE NORTH Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:22660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 G200 EXISTING FAR -LOWER LEVEL 21824.00 SCALE 3/16" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING FLOOR AREA - LOWER LEVEL 2018.05.03 PRELIMINARY FLOOR AREA CALCULATION 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL P248IX.a APPLIES TO FLOOR AREA EXTERIOR COVERED AREA FLOOR AREA LEGEND APPLIES TO DECK AREA TOTAL DECK AREA (OVER) 323.63 15.37 1052.09 1206.68 1090.06 3348.83 323.63 381.37 TOTAL DECK AREA (EXEMPT) TOTAL DECK AREA 339.00 705.00 DECK AREA CALCULATIONS EXISTING PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL TOTAL GROSS (SQ.FT.) MIDDLE LEVEL TOTAL GROSS (SQ.FT.) TOTAL GROSS FLOOR AREA (SQ.FT.) 660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE -FAR CALCULATIONS LOWER LEVEL COUNTED AS FLOOR AREA (SQ.FT.) 2157.50 EXISTING PROPOSED MIDDLE LEVEL COUNTED AS FLOOR AREA (SQ.FT.) MAIN LEVEL COUNTED AS FLOOR AREA (SQ.FT.) EXTERIOR COVERED AREA OVERHANG (SQ.FT.) TOTAL FAR (SQ.FT.) ALLOWED FAR (SQ.FT.) 3348.83 1052.09 1206.68 1090.06MAIN LEVEL TOTAL GROSS (SQ.FT.) 2157.50 106.00 1090.06 604.71 356.73 2157.50 2157.50 106.00 1090.06 604.71 356.73 EXEMPTED DECK AREA = 15% OF EXISTING FAR = 15% x 2157.50 = 323.63 SQ.FT. MIDDLE LEVEL -FAR CALCULATION MIDDLE LEVEL TOTAL GROSS (SQ.FT.)1206.68 MIDDLE LEVEL -% EXPOSED MIDDLE LEVEL COUNTED AS FLOOR AREA (SQ. FT.) 50.11% 604.71 EXISTING MIDDLE LEVEL 1207 SF 18' - 0 1/2"3' - 1" 26' - 6"6' - 10"6' - 10"7' - 1"2' - 8" 35' - 10"1' - 4" 1. 18' - 0 1/2"10' - 2 1/2"10' - 2 1/2"2.10' - 2 1/2"3. 26' - 6" 4.10' - 2 1/2"6.10' - 2 1/2"7. 2 EXISTING SUBGRADE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - MIDDLE LEVEL SCALE 3/16" = 1'-0" 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.11.12. 3' - 1"6' - 10"10' - 2 1/2"5. 6' - 10"7' - 1"2' - 8"8' - 0 1/2" 8. 14' - 3" 9.10' - 2 1/2"10. 10' - 2"10' - 2 1/2"11. 35' - 10"10' - 2 1/2"12. 1' - 4"10' - 2 1/2"10' - 2 1/2"10' - 2 1/2"3' - 1" 1' - 4" MIDDLE LEVEL -SUBGRADE CALCULATIONS WALL LABEL WALL AREA (SQ. FT.)EXPOSED AREA (SQ. FT.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TOTAL % 184.18 31.48 69.76 270.52 69.76 72.31 27.22 82.09 1435.98 100.00% 141.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 719.62 50.11% 9 145.47 94.44 10 103.78 103.78 11 365.80 365.80 12 13.61 13.61 EXPOSED WALLS WALL BELOW GRADE SUBGRADE CALCULATION LEGEND SHEET NORTH TRUE NORTH Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:23660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 G201 EXISTING FAR -MIDDLE LEVEL 21824.00 SCALE 3/16" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING FLOOR AREA - MIDDLE LEVEL 2018.05.03 PRELIMINARY FLOOR AREA CALCULATION 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL P249IX.a EXISTING MAIN LEVEL 1090 SF OVERHANG 106 SF EXISTING DECK AREA 168 SF EXISTING DECK AREA 118 SF DN EXISTING DECK AREA 53 SF EXISTING PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LI NEPROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L IN E P R O P E R T Y L IN E PROPERTY LINEAPPLIES TO FLOOR AREA EXTERIOR COVERED AREA FLOOR AREA LEGEND APPLIES TO DECK AREA TOTAL DECK AREA (OVER) 323.63 15.37 1052.09 1206.68 1090.06 3348.83 323.63 381.37 TOTAL DECK AREA (EXEMPT) TOTAL DECK AREA 339.00 705.00 DECK AREA CALCULATIONS EXISTING PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL TOTAL GROSS (SQ.FT.) MIDDLE LEVEL TOTAL GROSS (SQ.FT.) TOTAL GROSS FLOOR AREA (SQ.FT.) 660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE -FAR CALCULATIONS LOWER LEVEL COUNTED AS FLOOR AREA (SQ.FT.) 2157.50 EXISTING PROPOSED MIDDLE LEVEL COUNTED AS FLOOR AREA (SQ.FT.) MAIN LEVEL COUNTED AS FLOOR AREA (SQ.FT.) EXTERIOR COVERED AREA OVERHANG (SQ.FT.) TOTAL FAR (SQ.FT.) ALLOWED FAR (SQ.FT.) 3348.83 1052.09 1206.68 1090.06MAIN LEVEL TOTAL GROSS (SQ.FT.) 2157.50 106.00 1090.06 604.71 356.73 2157.50 2157.50 106.00 1090.06 604.71 356.73 EXEMPTED DECK AREA = 15% OF EXISTING FAR = 15% x 2157.50 = 323.63 SQ.FT. MAIN LEVEL -FAR CALCULATION MAIN LEVEL TOTAL GROSS (SQ.FT.)1090.06 MAIN LEVEL TOTAL FOR CALCULATION (SQ.FT.) MAIN LEVEL COUNTED AS FLOOR AREA (SQ. FT.) 1090.06 1090.06 SHEET NORTH TRUE NORTH Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:23660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 G202 EXISTING FAR -MAIN LEVEL 21824.00 SCALE 3/16" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING FLOOR AREA - MAIN LEVEL 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL P250IX.a APPLIES TO FLOOR AREA EXTERIOR COVERED AREA FLOOR AREA LEGEND APPLIES TO DECK AREA PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL 1052 SF 1.17' - 10"2' - 8"38' - 4" 8' - 2" 1' - 4" 35' - 10" 10' - 2" 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.7. 1. 17' - 10"9' - 1 1/2"38' - 4"9' - 1 1/2"2. 2' - 8"9' - 1 1/2"3. 8' - 2"9' - 1 1/2"4. 14' - 4"9' - 1 1/2"5. 8. 10' - 2"9' - 1 1/2"6. 35' - 10"9' - 1 1/2"7.9' - 1 1/2"8. 1' - 4" 2 PROPOSED SUBGRADE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - LOWER LEVEL SCALE 3/16" = 1'-0" 7' - 3 7/8"14' - 4"LOWER LEVEL -SUBGRADE CALCULATIONS WALL LABEL WALL AREA (SQ. FT.)EXPOSED AREA (SQ. FT.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TOTAL % 162.73 349.79 24.33 74.52 130.79 92.77 326.98 12.17 1174.08 100.00% 17.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.42 74.47 256.83 9.77 398.09 33.91% LOWER LEVEL -FAR CALCULATION LOWER LEVEL TOTAL GROSS (SQ.FT.)1052.09 LOWER LEVEL -% EXPOSED LOWER LEVEL COUNTED AS FLOOR AREA (SQ. FT.) 33.91% 356.73 TOTAL DECK AREA (OVER) 323.63 15.37 1052.09 1206.68 1090.06 3348.83 323.63 381.37 TOTAL DECK AREA (EXEMPT) TOTAL DECK AREA 339.00 705.00 DECK AREA CALCULATIONS EXISTING PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL TOTAL GROSS (SQ.FT.) MIDDLE LEVEL TOTAL GROSS (SQ.FT.) TOTAL GROSS FLOOR AREA (SQ.FT.) 660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE -FAR CALCULATIONS LOWER LEVEL COUNTED AS FLOOR AREA (SQ.FT.) 2157.50 EXISTING PROPOSED MIDDLE LEVEL COUNTED AS FLOOR AREA (SQ.FT.) MAIN LEVEL COUNTED AS FLOOR AREA (SQ.FT.) EXTERIOR COVERED AREA OVERHANG (SQ.FT.) TOTAL FAR (SQ.FT.) ALLOWED FAR (SQ.FT.) 3348.83 1052.09 1206.68 1090.06MAIN LEVEL TOTAL GROSS (SQ.FT.) 2157.50 106.00 1090.06 604.71 356.73 2157.50 2157.50 106.00 1090.06 604.71 356.73 EXEMPTED DECK AREA = 15% OF EXISTING FAR = 15% x 2157.50 = 323.63 SQ.FT. EXPOSED WALLS WALL BELOW GRADE SUBGRADE CALCULATION LEGEND SHEET NORTH TRUE NORTH Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:24660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 G210 PROPOSED FAR -LOWER LEVEL 21824.00 SCALE 3/16" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED FLOOR AREA - LOWER LEVEL 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL P251IX.a APPLIES TO FLOOR AREA EXTERIOR COVERED AREA FLOOR AREA LEGEND APPLIES TO DECK AREA EXPOSED WALLS WALL BELOW GRADE SUBGRADE CALCULATION LEGEND PROPOSED MIDDLE LEVEL 1207 SF 18' - 0 1/2"26' - 6"6' - 10"6' - 10"7' - 1"14' - 3"8' - 0 1/2"2' - 8"1. 18' - 0 1/2"10' - 2 1/2"10' - 2 1/2"2.10' - 2 1/2"3. 26' - 6" 4.10' - 2 1/2"6.10' - 2 1/2"7. 2 PROPOSED SUBGRADE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - MIDDLE LEVEL SCALE 3/16" = 1'-0" 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.11.12. 3' - 1"6' - 10"10' - 2 1/2"5. 6' - 10"7' - 1"2' - 8"8' - 0 1/2" 8. 14' - 3" 9.10' - 2 1/2"10. 10' - 2"10' - 2 1/2"11. 35' - 10"10' - 2 1/2"12. 1' - 4"10' - 2 1/2"10' - 2 1/2"10' - 2 1/2" 1' - 4" 35' - 10" 10' - 2" MIDDLE LEVEL -SUBGRADE CALCULATIONS WALL LABEL WALL AREA (SQ. FT.)EXPOSED AREA (SQ. FT.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TOTAL % 184.18 31.48 69.76 270.52 69.76 72.31 27.22 82.09 1435.98 100.00% 141.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 719.62 50.11% 9 145.47 94.44 10 103.78 103.78 11 365.80 365.80 12 13.61 13.61 MIDDLE LEVEL -FAR CALCULATION MIDDLE LEVEL TOTAL GROSS (SQ.FT.)1206.68 MIDDLE LEVEL -% EXPOSED MIDDLE LEVEL COUNTED AS FLOOR AREA (SQ. FT.) 50.11% 604.71 TOTAL DECK AREA (OVER) 323.63 15.37 1052.09 1206.68 1090.06 3348.83 323.63 381.37 TOTAL DECK AREA (EXEMPT) TOTAL DECK AREA 339.00 705.00 DECK AREA CALCULATIONS EXISTING PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL TOTAL GROSS (SQ.FT.) MIDDLE LEVEL TOTAL GROSS (SQ.FT.) TOTAL GROSS FLOOR AREA (SQ.FT.) 660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE -FAR CALCULATIONS LOWER LEVEL COUNTED AS FLOOR AREA (SQ.FT.) 2157.50 EXISTING PROPOSED MIDDLE LEVEL COUNTED AS FLOOR AREA (SQ.FT.) MAIN LEVEL COUNTED AS FLOOR AREA (SQ.FT.) EXTERIOR COVERED AREA OVERHANG (SQ.FT.) TOTAL FAR (SQ.FT.) ALLOWED FAR (SQ.FT.) 3348.83 1052.09 1206.68 1090.06MAIN LEVEL TOTAL GROSS (SQ.FT.) 2157.50 106.00 1090.06 604.71 356.73 2157.50 2157.50 106.00 1090.06 604.71 356.73 EXEMPTED DECK AREA = 15% OF EXISTING FAR = 15% x 2157.50 = 323.63 SQ.FT. SHEET NORTH TRUE NORTH Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:25660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 G211 PROPOSED FAR -MIDDLE LEVEL 21824.00 SCALE 3/16" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED FLOOR AREA - MIDDLE LEVEL 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL P252IX.a APPLIES TO FLOOR AREA EXTERIOR COVERED AREA FLOOR AREA LEGEND APPLIES TO DECK AREA PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL 1090 SF PROPOSED OVERHANG 106 SF PROPOSED DECK AREA 168 SF PROPOSED DECK AREA 118 SF PROPOSED DECK AREA 53 SF PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED DECK AREA 366 SF NEW ADA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE EXISTING PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LI NEPROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L IN E P R O P E R T Y L IN E PROPERTY LINEMAIN LEVEL -FAR CALCULATION MAIN LEVEL TOTAL GROSS (SQ.FT.)1090.06 MAIN LEVEL TOTAL FOR CALCULATION (SQ.FT.) MAIN LEVEL COUNTED AS FLOOR AREA (SQ. FT.) 1090.06 1090.06 TOTAL DECK AREA (OVER) 323.63 15.37 1052.09 1206.68 1090.06 3348.83 323.63 381.37 TOTAL DECK AREA (EXEMPT) TOTAL DECK AREA 339.00 705.00 DECK AREA CALCULATIONS EXISTING PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL TOTAL GROSS (SQ.FT.) MIDDLE LEVEL TOTAL GROSS (SQ.FT.) TOTAL GROSS FLOOR AREA (SQ.FT.) 660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE -FAR CALCULATIONS LOWER LEVEL COUNTED AS FLOOR AREA (SQ.FT.) 2157.50 EXISTING PROPOSED MIDDLE LEVEL COUNTED AS FLOOR AREA (SQ.FT.) MAIN LEVEL COUNTED AS FLOOR AREA (SQ.FT.) EXTERIOR COVERED AREA OVERHANG (SQ.FT.) TOTAL FAR (SQ.FT.) ALLOWED FAR (SQ.FT.) 3348.83 1052.09 1206.68 1090.06MAIN LEVEL TOTAL GROSS (SQ.FT.) 2157.50 106.00 1090.06 604.71 356.73 2157.50 2157.50 106.00 1090.06 604.71 356.73 EXEMPTED DECK AREA = 15% OF EXISTING FAR = 15% x 2157.50 = 323.63 SQ.FT. SHEET NORTH TRUE NORTH Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:26660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 G212 PROPOSED FAR -MAIN LEVEL 21824.00 SCALE 3/16" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED FLOOR AREA - MAIN LEVEL 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL P253IX.a XGAS XTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXW L XW L XW L XW L XG A S XG A S XG A S XG A S XG A S XGA S XGASXGASXGAS XGAS XE L XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XTV XTV XTV XTV XTV XTV XTV XTV XTV XTV XTV XTV S S S S S S S S XGASXGASXWLXGASFOUND P.K. NAIL & 1.5" SHINER L.S. 28643 FOUND BRASS DISC L.S. 28643 FOUND #5 REBAR & 1.5" PLASTIC CAP L.S. 15710 FOUND #5 REBAR & 1.5" PLASTIC CAP L.S. 9184 FOUND #5 REBAR & 1.5" PLASTIC CAP L.S. 28643 N 15°30'00" E 70.00'N74° 3 0 ' 0 0 W " 6 0 . 0 0 '87.08'LOT 2 TIPPLE WOODS SUBDIVISION, FIRST AMENDED 0.087 ACRES +/- PLAT BK 73 @ PG 19 FOUND #5 REBAR & 1.5" PLASTIC CAP L.S. 20151 FOUND #5 REBAR & 1.5" PLASTIC CAP L.S. 20151 FOUND #5 REBAR & 1.5" PLASTIC CAP L.S. 9184 SOUTH GALENA STREET CONDOMINIUMS PLAT BK 3 @ PAGE 376 HIGH ON THE HILL CONDOMINIUMS PLAT BK 7 @ PAGE 85 THE DURANT CONDOMINIUMS PLAT BK 3 @ PAGE 376 LOT 3 TIPPLE WOODS SUBDIVISION FIRST AMENDED PLAT BK 73 @ PG 19 LOT 1 TIPPLE WOODS SUBDIVISION FIRST AMENDED PLAT BK 73 @ PG 19 RESIDENCES AT THE LITTLE NELL CONDOMINIUMS PLAT BK 89 @ PAGE 32 N15°30'00"E 26.00'UTILITY EASEMENT RECEPTION #510204 & RECEPTION #520531 TRAIL EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY (RECEPTION #308666) TRAIL EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY (RECEPTION #444935) UTILITY EASEMENT RECEPTION #210204 & RECEPTION #520531 N 60°30'00"E 16.97' S 29°30'00"E 14.74' STAIR CASE EASEMENT RECEPTION #510204 6' WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT RECEPTION #634134N30° 10' 52"E BASIS OF BEARINGXSAXSA XSA XSA XSA XSA ASPEN TOWNSITE CORNER 9 N3° 07' 18"E 519.07'COA GPS-2 GALENA & DURANT N5 5 ° 5 2 ' 5 3 " W 1 5 7 5 . 8 5 ' COA GPS-3 GARMISCH & DURANT N60° 3 0' 0 0" E 8 7. 0 8' RECIPROCAL EASEMENT RECEPTION #563259 EXTERIOR BOUNDARY AND CONTROLLING MONUMENTATION SURVEY NOTES 1) DATE OF SURVEY: JANUARY 2009, AUGUST 2009, AND JULY 2018 2) DATE OF PREPARATION: JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2009, AUGUST 2009, AND JULY 2018 3) BASIS OF BEARING: A BEARING OF N 30°10'52" W BETWEEN THE NORTH EAST PROPERTY CORNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, MONUMENTED BY A 1.25" BRASS DISC. L.S. #28643 AND ASPEN TOWNSITE CORNER 9, MONUTMENTED BY A 1.25 BRASS CAP L.S. #28643, AS SHOWN HEREON. 4) BASIS OF SURVEY: THE CONDOMINIUM MAP OF RESIDENCES AT THE LITTLE NELL CONDOMINIUMS, THE FINAL PLAT OF THE RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL SUBDIVISION/PUD; THE FIRST AMENDED PLAT OF TIPPLE WOODS SUBDIVISION; THE FIRST AMENDED PLAT OF LITTLE NELL SUBDIVISION; ADJOINING RECORDED PLATS SHOWN HEREON; VARIOUS DOCUMENTS OF RECORD AND THE FOUND SURVEY MONUMENTS AS SHOWN. 5) THIS SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TITLE SEARCH BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING, LLC (SE) TO DETERMINE OWNERSHIP OR EASEMENTS OF RECORD. FOR ALL INFORMATION REGARDING EASEMENTS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND/OR TITLE OF RECORD SE RELIED THE TITLE COMMITMENT PREPARED BY LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY UNDER CASE NO. Q64002076, EFFECTIVE DATE JULY 27, 2018. 6) LOT 2, ACCORDING TO THE FIRST AMENDED PLAT OF TIPPLE WOODS SUBDIVISION, AS DELINEATED ON THIS MAP, IS NOT WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE FLOODWAY OR ZONE AE FLOODPLAIN AS DELINEATED ON THE CURRENTLY APPLICABLE FEMA FIRM MAP WITH THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF JUNE 4, 1987 (PANEL NUMBERS: 08097C0203 C & 08097C0204 C). 7) THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO TIEBACK EASEMENT AGREEMENT RECEPTION NUMBERS 510187 AND 524845. THESE EASEMENTS LOCATIONS ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED EXCEPT IN THE MANNER OF SUBSURFACE SOIL NAIL AND SOIL NAIL RETENTION SYSTEM WHICH ENCOMPASSES THE ENTIRETY OF THE LOT. 8) THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS A 40% +/- GRADE AS DESIGNATED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN'S GIS SLOPE ANALYSIS, IS LOCATED ON ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS PER WRE ENGINEERING INC. MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN OF POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC HAZARDS, IS IN THE 30% SLOPE MUDFLOW AREA PER THE URBAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT PLAN FIGURE 7.1 MUDFLOW ZONES, AND HAS A LOW FIRE HAZARD PER THE PITKN COUNTY GIS DEPARTMENT WILDFIRE HAZARD MAP. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION LOT 2, TIPPLE WOODS SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE FIRST AMENDED PLAT OF TIPPLE WOODS SUBDIVISION RECORDED MAY 17, 2005 IN PLAT BOOK 73 AT PAGE 19 AS RECEPTION NO. 510204 CITY OF ASPEN COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO 18114.01 08/14/2018 18114 ISP.DWG SHEET 1 OF 2 IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT OF: SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6th P.M. CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO LOT 2, FIRST AMENDED PLAT OF TIPPLE WOODS SUBDIVISION SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC CIVIL CONSULTANTS 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 (970) 704-0311 sopris@sopriseng.comNOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. GRAPHIC SCALE 1 inch = ft. 20010 40510 10 U.S. SURVEY FEET IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT I, MARK S. BECKLER, HEREBY CERTIFY TO WESTPAC ASPEN INVESTMENTS LLC AND LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY, THAT THIS IS AN “IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT” AS DEFINED BY C.R.S. § 38-51-102(9), AND THAT IT IS A MONUMENTED LAND SURVEY SHOWING THE CURRENT LOCATION OF ALL STRUCTURES, WATER COURSES, WATER FEATURES AND/OR BODIES OF WATER , VISIBLE ROADS, UTILITIES, FENCES, OR WALLS SITUATED ON THE DESCRIBED PARCEL AND WITHIN FIVE FEET OF ALL BOUNDARIES OF SUCH PARCEL, ANY CONFLICTING BOUNDARY EVIDENCE OR VISIBLE ENCROACHMENTS, AND ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY OF A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE NATURE THAT ARE VISIBLE, OR APPARENT, OR OF RECORD AND UNDERGROUND UTILITIES DESCRIBED IN LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY FILE NO. Q64002076, OR OTHER SOURCES AS SPECIFIED ON THE IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT. THE ERROR OF CLOSURE IS LESS THAN 1/15000. ________________________________ MARK S. BECKLER L.S. #28643 EXISTING ELECTRIC MANHOLE EXISTING DRAINAGE DRY-WELL EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE EXISTING WATER VALVE EXISTING CURB STOP EXISTING GAS METER EXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER EXISTING ELECTRIC METER EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL EXISTING CATV PEDESTAL EXISTING SEWER CLEANOUT EXISTING LEGEND EXISTING EASEMENT EXISTING PROPERTY LINE EXISTING ROCK WALL EXISTING 8" WATER MAINXWLXWL EXISTING 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN EXISTING GAS EXISTING TELEPHONE XGAS XGAS XGAS EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC EXISTING CABLE XUT XUT XUT XEL XEL XEL XTV XTV XTV EXISTING IRRIGATION PIPEXIRRXIRR XSA XSA EXISTING CONCRETE EXISTING FLAGSTONE PAVERS FOUND MONUMENT 08/20/2018 P254IX.a XGASXGAS XGAS XGAS XTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXWLXWLXWL XWLXWL XWLXWL XWL XWLXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XELXELXELXEL XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGASXWL XWL XWLXWLXWL XWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXELXEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XTVXTVXTV XTV XTV XTV XTV XTV XTV XTV XTV XTV XTV XTVXTV XTV XTV XTV XTV XTV XTV XTV XTV XTV XTV XTV3.7"x8' 8.1"x16' 7.2"x15' 6"x12' 9.4"x18' 5.1"x10' 4"x8' 7.3"x14' 9"x18' 4.1"x8' 4.9"x8' 4.8"x8' 7.6"x14' 4.3"x8' 4.2"x8' 4.4"x8' SS S S S S SS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XWLXWLXGASXGASXGAS3 STORY WOOD FRAME BUILDING 4" AREA DRAIN RIM EL. = 7987.70' DOWN SPOUT 3RD FLOOR FINISHED FLOOR ON WOOD ELEVATION = 8007.26' 6" PVC RIM EL. = 7982.42' INV. EL. = 7962.92' DOWN SPOUT DOWN SPOUTS 1'x1' AREA INLET RIM EL. = 7991.94 -3RD LEVEL WOOD PATIO EL. = 8006.6' -GROUND LEVEL TOPOGRAPHY INACCESSIBLE EXISTING BRIDGE ABUTMENT RAIL ROAD TIE RETAINING WALLS (TYPICAL) EXISTING BRIDGE EXISTING 1'X1' CONCRETE COLUMN (TYPICAL) WOODEN STEPS WOODEN STEPS UTILITY SHED SHOTCRETE WALL 3RD FLOOR OF BUILDING FINISHED FLOOR AT THESHOLD ELEVATION = 8007.61' 800 5 . 0 80 0 4 . 5 8001.0 8000.0 7997.5 7995.0 7992. 5 7999.0 8005.0EX:7997.42EX:7997.18 EX:7992.63 EX:7993.91 EX:7998.49 EX:7992.06 EX:7992.36 EX:7992.50EX:7988.02 EX:7995.45EX:7995.50 EX:7998.55 EX:8000.15 EX:7994.12 EX:7994.30 EX:7995.30EX:7996.90 EX:8004.50 EX:8004.48 EX:7992.61 EX:7992.20 EX:8003.50 EX:7997.96 EX:8005.50 EX:8005.39 EX:8005.45 EX:8003.73 EX:7997.88 EX:7992.82 EX:7992.66 NEIGHBORING BUILDING ROOF LINE 7990. 0 7989. 5 7988.5 7990.0 7992.0 DRY W E L L RIM E L . = 7 9 9 6 . 1 3 ' SUM P E L . = 7 9 8 1 . 6 3 ' 3RD FLOOR OF BUILDING DOOR FRAME LOCATIONXSAXSAXSAXSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA SANITARY SEWER LINES DEPICTED FROM DESIGN LOCATION - NOT FIELD LOCATED 8010.0 8008.5 8006.5 8001.0 8000.0 7997.0 7997.5 7995.0 7992 . 0 79 9 0 . 5 EL:8006.04 EL:8001.66 EL:7998.05 EL:7995.92 EL:7996.13 EL:7993.97 EL:7994.12 EL:7990.27 EL:7990.59 XWLXWLXSAXSAXWLXWLXWLXWLEL:8006.51 EL:8006.48 EL:8006.47 EL:8006.47 EL:8006.56 EL:8006.63 EL:8006.50 EL:8006.55 EL:8006.498006.5 EL:8006.49 EL:8006.58 EL:8006.57 EL:8006.51 EL:8006.58 HANDRAIL BETWEEN COLUMNS (TYPICAL) BRIDGE ABUTMENT 8006.58006.6ADJACENT BUILDING FACE 1'x1' CONCRETE COLUMNS (TYPICAL) XSA XSA XSA XSA XSAPARTIAL TOPOGRAPHIC DETAIL AND ADDITIONAL SITE INFORMATION 18114.01 08/14/2018 18114 ISP.DWG SHEET 2 OF 2 IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT OF: SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6th P.M. CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO LOT 2, FIRST AMENDED PLAT OF TIPPLE WOODS SUBDIVISION SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC CIVIL CONSULTANTS 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 (970) 704-0311 sopris@sopriseng.comNOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. GRAPHIC SCALE 1 inch = ft. 1005 202.5 5 5 U.S. SURVEY FEET EXISTING ELECTRIC MANHOLE EXISTING DRAINAGE DRY-WELL EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE EXISTING WATER VALVE EXISTING CURB STOP EXISTING GAS METER EXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER EXISTING ELECTRIC METER EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL EXISTING CATV PEDESTAL EXISTING SEWER CLEANOUT EXISTING LEGEND EXISTING EASEMENT EXISTING PROPERTY LINE EXISTING ROCK WALL EXISTING 8" WATER MAINXWLXWL EXISTING 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN EXISTING GAS EXISTING TELEPHONE XGAS XGAS XGAS EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC EXISTING CABLE XUT XUT XUT XEL XEL XEL XTV XTV XTV EXISTING IRRIGATION PIPEXIRRXIRR XSA XSA EXISTING CONCRETE EXISTING FLAGSTONE PAVERS S SOIL NAIL EXPOSED ON RETAINING WALL GRAPHIC SCALE 1 inch = ft. 603 121.5 3 3 U.S. SURVEY FEET OVERALL LOT 2 DETAIL TOPOGRAPHY AT GROUND LEVEL CONTOUR INTERVAL ONE-HALF (1 2) FOOT 1"=5' SCALE EXITING PEDISTRIAN FOOT BRIDGE DETAIL TOPOGRAPHY ON BRIDGE WALKING SURFACE CONTOUR INTERVAL ONE-TENTH (1/10) FOOT 1"=3' SCALE BRIDGE ABUTMENT PHOTOS FOR REFERENCE (TAKEN 08/09/18) EXISTING PINE TREE 4.1"x8'= 4.1" TRUNK WITH 8' DRIP LINE EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE 4.1"x8'= 4.1" TRUNK WITH 8' DRIP LINE 08/20/2018 P255IX.a EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN EXISTING WALL TO BE DEMOLISHED EXISTING CEILING TO BE DEMOLISHED EXISTING / DEMO PLAN LEGEND UP UPUP WDLINEN LINEN 12' - 3" (E)3' - 7" (E)3' - 6" (E)7' - 8" (E)27' - 0" (E)32' - 9" (E)5' - 9" (E)12' - 3" (E)7' - 1" (E)7' - 8" (E)9' - 0" (E)7' - 11" (E)9' - 11" (E)4' - 4 3/4" (E)13' - 10 1/4" (E)3' - 11" (E) D2011 D200 1 D202 1 D203 1 LAUNDRY SHOWER BATH WC BEDROOM BATHCLOSET MECHANICAL ROOM BEDROOM STAIRS TUB CRAWLSPACE (4' -0" HEIGHT) FP EXISTING ACCESS HATCH FLOOR ELEVATION 7988' - 3 1/4" 2' - 0 3/4" (E)15' - 8 1/2" (E)4' - 4 3/4" (E)16' - 0" (E)1' - 9 3/4" (E)9' - 0" (E) ENTRY APPLIANCES TO BE DEMO PLUMBING FIXTURES TO BE DEMO PLUMBING FIXTURES TO BE DEMO EDGE OF EXISTING ROOF ABOVE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L I N E SETBACK LINE SETBACK LI NES E T B A C K L IN E P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L IN E EXISTING EXTERIOR DOORS AND WINDOWS TO BE DEMO, TYP. 49' - 0" (E) 49' - 0" (E) 1 1 3 3 4 4 6 6 7 7 B B D D E E F F 2 5 C 1. ALL INTERIOR FINISHES TO BE DEMO 2. ALL WINDOWS TO BE DEMO 3. ALL PLUMBING FIXTURES TO BE DEMO 4. ALL APPLIANCES TO BE DEMO EXISTING / DEMO PLAN NOTES SHEET NORTH TRUE NORTH Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , A S P E N, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:14660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 D100 EXISTING / DEMO PLAN - LOWER LEVEL 21824.00 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 LOWER LEVEL EXISTING / DEMO PLAN 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL P256IX.a EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN EXISTING WALL TO BE DEMOLISHED EXISTING CEILING TO BE DEMOLISHED EXISTING / DEMO PLAN LEGEND7' - 8" (E)7' - 1" (E)12' - 3" (E)32' - 9" (E)5' - 9" (E)12' - 3" (E)3' - 7" (E)3' - 6" (E)7' - 8" (E)49' - 0" (E) 3' - 11" (E)13' - 10 1/4" (E)4' - 4 3/4" (E)9' - 11" (E)7' - 11" (E)9' - 0" (E) CL. CL. DN UP D200 1 D202 1 D203 1 TUB FP TUB MASTER BEDROOM HALL GUEST BEDROOM BATHROOM STORAGE WC POWDER MASTER CLOSET WC STAIR STAIR SHOWER EXISTING CRAWLSPACE ACCESS HATCH MASTER BATHROOMLINEN 2' - 1 1/2" (E)15' - 7 3/4" (E)4' - 4 3/4" (E)15' - 10 1/4" (E)1' - 11 1/2" (E)9' - 0" (E) FLOOR ELEVATION 7997' - 4 3/4" EXISTING PLUMBING FIXTURES TO BE DEMO EXISTING PLUMBING FIXTURES TO BE DEMO EXISTING PLUMBING FIXTURES TO BE DEMO EDGE OF EXISTING ROOF ABOVE EXISTING WOOD SHINGLES TO BE DEMO PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L IN E SETBACK LINE SETBACK LI NES E T B A C K L IN E P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L IN E 49' - 0" (E)27' - 0" (E)EXISTING WINDOWS TO BE DEMO, TYP. 1 1 3 3 4 4 6 6 7 7 B B D D E E F F 2 5 C 1. ALL INTERIOR FINISHES TO BE DEMO 2. ALL WINDOWS TO BE DEMO 3. ALL PLUMBING FIXTURES TO BE DEMO 4. ALL APPLIANCES TO BE DEMO EXISTING / DEMO PLAN NOTES SHEET NORTH TRUE NORTH Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , A S P E N, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:15660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 D101 EXISTING / DEMO PLAN - MIDDLE LEVEL 21824.00 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 MIDDLE LEVEL EXISTING / DEMO PLAN 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL P257IX.a EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN EXISTING WALL TO BE DEMOLISHED EXISTING CEILING TO BE DEMOLISHED EXISTING / DEMO PLAN LEGEND BAR 3' - 0" (E)2' - 6" (E)1' - 0" (E)8' - 6" (E)2' - 6" (E)2' - 6" (E)3' - 0" (E)7' - 8" (E)30' - 8" (E)54' - 0"11' - 4" (E)6' - 0" (E)11' - 0" (E)6' - 0" (E)7' - 8" (E)6' - 10 1/2" (E)30' - 8" (E)49' - 0" (E) CL. UP DN D2011 D200 1 D202 1 D203 1 LIVING ROOM FOYER DINING ROOM ENTRY KITCHEN DECK DECK STAIR STO. ROOF SLOPEFP APPLIANCE TO BE DEMO PLUMBING FIXTURE TO BE DEMO PANTRYEDGE OF EXISTING ROOF ABOVE EXISTING WOOD SHINGLES TO BE DEMO FLOOR ELEVATION 8007' - 7 3/8" FLOOR ELEVATION 8006' - 7 3/8" DW PROPERTY LI NEPROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L IN E SETBACK LINE SETBACK LINES E T B A C K L IN E P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L IN E STAIRS TO BE DEMO 2' - 6" (E)3' - 5" (E)11' - 7" (E)10' - 0" (E)7' - 1" (E)7' - 11" (E)9' - 0" (E)PANTRYAPPLIANCE TO BE DEMOUP EXISTING EXTERIOR DOORS AND WINDOWS TO BE DEMO, TYP. EXISTING RAILING TO BE DEMO EXISTING RAILING TO BE DEMO 1 1 3 3 4 4 6 6 7 7 B B D D E E F F 2 5 C A A 2' - 6" (E)4' - 10" (E)30' - 4" (E)4' - 10" (E)9' - 0" (E)2' - 6" (E) 1. ALL INTERIOR FINISHES TO BE DEMO 2. ALL WINDOWS TO BE DEMO 3. ALL PLUMBING FIXTURES TO BE DEMO 4. ALL APPLIANCES TO BE DEMO EXISTING / DEMO PLAN NOTES SHEET NORTH TRUE NORTH Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , A S P E N, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:16660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 D102 EXISTING / DEMO PLAN - MAIN LEVEL 21824.00 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL EXISTING / DEMO PLAN 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL P258IX.a SLOPE 8:12 SLOPE 8:12 SLOPE 8:12 SLOPE 8:12 SLOPE SLOPED200 1 D202 1 D203 1 SLOPE EXISTING OVER -FRAMING TO BE DEMO SLOPE8:12SLOPE8:12SLOPE8:12SLOPE8:12SLOPESLOPEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L IN E SETBACK LINE SETBACK LINES E T B A C K L IN E P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L IN E EXISTING CHIMNEY TO BE DEMO AND REPLACED 1 1 3 3 4 4 6 6 7 7 B B D D E E F F 2 5 C A A EXISTING CHIMNEY TO BE DEMO AND REPLACED EXISTING OVER -FRAMING TO BE DEMO 1. ALL EXISTING ROOF FINISHES TO BE DEMO. EXISTING / DEMO ROOF PLAN NOTES SHEET NORTH TRUE NORTH Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , A S P E N, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:17660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 D140 EXISTING / DEMO ROOF PLAN 21824.00 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING / DEMO ROOF PLAN 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET P259IX.a MIDDLE LEVEL 7997' - 4 105/128" MAIN LEVEL 8007' - 7 41/128" LOWER LEVEL 7988' - 3 41/128" EXISTING WINDOWS TO BE DEMOEXISTING WINDOWS TO BE DEMO EXISTING STONE VENEER TO BE DEMO EXISTING WINDOWS TO BE DEMO EXISTING WOOD SIDING TO BE DEMO EXISTING WOOD SIDING TO BE DEMO EXISTING WINDOWS TO BE DEMO EXISTING WINDOWS TO BE DEMO EXISTING STUCCO FINISH TO BE DEMO EXISTING STUCCO FINISH TO BE DEMO EXISTING WINDOWS TO BE DEMO T.O. RIDGE 8026' - 10 205/256" T.O. RIDGE 2 8025' - 2 41/256" T.O. RIDGE 3 8021' - 6 23/64" EXISTING DOOR TO BE DEMO EXISTING RAILING TO BE DEMO EXISTING ROOF TO BE DEMO EXISTING WOOD SHINGLES TO BE DEMO EXISTING OVER -FRAMING TO BE DEMO EXISTING CHIMNEY TO BE DEMO AND REPLACED EXISTING ROOF TO BE DEMO EXISTING CHIMNEY TO BE DEMO AND REPLACED EXISTING OVER -FRAMING TO BE DEMO 11' - 0 3/4" (E)33' - 3" (E)EXISTING RETAINING WALLS SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE1. ALL EXTERIOR FINISHES TO BE DEMO AND REPLACED WITH NEW EXTERIOR FINISHES. 2. ALL EXTERIOR DOORS AND WINDOWS TO BE DEMO AND REPLACED WITH NEW UNITS. EXISTING / DEMO EXTERIOR ELEVATION NOTES Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , A S P E N, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:18660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 D200 EXISTING / DEMO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 21824.00 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATION - EXISTING / DEMO 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL P260IX.a MIDDLE LEVEL 7997' - 4 105/128" MAIN LEVEL 8007' - 7 41/128" LOWER LEVEL 7988' - 3 41/128" EXISTING STUCCO FINISH TO BE DEMO EXISTING WOOD SIDING TO BE DEMO EXISTING WINDOWS TO BE DEMO EXISTING STONE VENEER TO BE DEMO EXISTING WINDOWS TO BE DEMO T.O. RIDGE 8026' - 10 205/256" T.O. RIDGE 8026' - 10 205/256" T.O. RIDGE 2 8025' - 2 41/256" T.O. RIDGE 2 8025' - 2 41/256" T.O. RIDGE 3 8021' - 6 23/64" T.O. RIDGE 3 8021' - 6 23/64" EXISTING ROOF TO BE DEMO EXISTING OVER -FRAMING TO BE DEMO EXISTING WOOD SHINGLES TO BE DEMO EXISTING RAILING TO BE DEMO EXISTING WOOD SHINGLES TO BE DEMO EXISTING CHIMNEY TO BE DEMO AND REPLACEDEXISTING WOOD SHINGLES TO BE DEMO EXISTING STEPS TO BE DEMO EXISTING VENT TO BE DEMOSETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE1. ALL EXTERIOR FINISHES TO BE DEMO AND REPLACED WITH NEW EXTERIOR FINISHES. 2. ALL EXTERIOR DOORS AND WINDOWS TO BE DEMO AND REPLACED WITH NEW UNITS. EXISTING / DEMO EXTERIOR ELEVATION NOTES Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , A S P E N, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:19660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 D201 EXISTING / DEMO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 21824.00 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION - EXISTING / DEMO 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL P261IX.a MIDDLE LEVEL 7997' - 4 105/128" MAIN LEVEL 8007' - 7 41/128" LOWER LEVEL 7988' - 3 41/128" EXISTING WINDOWS TO BE DEMO EXISTING STUCCO FINISH TO BE DEMO EXISTING WINDOWS TO BE DEMO EXISTING WINDOWS TO BE DEMO T.O. RIDGE 8026' - 10 205/256" T.O. RIDGE 2 8025' - 2 41/256" T.O. RIDGE 3 8021' - 6 23/64" EXISTING WOOD SHINGLES TO BE DEMO EXISTING ROOF TO BE DEMO EXISTING WOOD SHINGLES TO BE DEMO EXISTING CHIMNEY TO BE DEMO AND REPLACED EXISTING OVER -FRAMING TO BE DEMO EXISTING STAIRS TO BE DEMO EXISTING RAILING TO BE DEMO EXISTING ROOF TO BE DEMO EXISTING CHIMNEY TO BE DEMO AND REPLACED EXISTING OVER -FRAMING TO BE DEMO EXISTING WOOD SHINGLES TO BE DEMO EXISTING VENT TO BE DEMO 19' - 0 3/4" (E)SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE1. ALL EXTERIOR FINISHES TO BE DEMO AND REPLACED WITH NEW EXTERIOR FINISHES. 2. ALL EXTERIOR DOORS AND WINDOWS TO BE DEMO AND REPLACED WITH NEW UNITS. EXISTING / DEMO EXTERIOR ELEVATION NOTES Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , A S P E N, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:20660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 D202 EXISTING / DEMO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 21824.00 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION - EXISTING / DEMO 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL P262IX.a MIDDLE LEVEL 7997' - 4 105/128" MAIN LEVEL 8007' - 7 41/128" LOWER LEVEL 7988' - 3 41/128" EXISTING STUCCO FINISH TO BE DEMO EXISTING WINDOWS TO BE DEMO EXISTING WINDOWS TO BE DEMO EXISTING WOOD SIDING TO BE DEMO EXISTING WINDOWS TO BE DEMO EXISTING STONE VENEER TO BE DEMO EXISTING STONE VENEER TO BE DEMO EXISTING STUCCO FINISH TO BE DEMO T.O. RIDGE 8026' - 10 205/256" T.O. RIDGE 2 8025' - 2 41/256" T.O. RIDGE 3 8021' - 6 23/64" EXISTING WOOD SHINGLES TO BE DEMO EXISTING RAILING TO BE DEMO EXISTING WOOD SHINGLES TO BE DEMO EXISTING OVER -FRAMING TO BE DEMO EXISTING CHIMNEY TO BE DEMO EXISTING WINDOW TO BE DEMO EXISTING WOOD SHINGLES TO BE DEMO EXISTING OVER -FRAMING TO BE DEMO 23' - 5 1/2" (E)27' - 9 1/4" (E)29' - 6" (E)SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE1. ALL EXTERIOR FINISHES TO BE DEMO AND REPLACED WITH NEW EXTERIOR FINISHES. 2. ALL EXTERIOR DOORS AND WINDOWS TO BE DEMO AND REPLACED WITH NEW UNITS. EXISTING / DEMO EXTERIOR ELEVATION NOTES Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , A S P E N, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:21660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 D203 EXISTING / DEMO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 21824.00 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 SOUTH ELEVATION - EXISTING / DEMO 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL P263IX.a 660 SOUTH GALENA STREET EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE TO BE REMODELED EXISTING BRIDGE TO REMAIN EXISTING DECK 8005.08005.08000.0 7995.0 7990.0 EXISTING EL: 8005.39 EXISTING EL: 7992.63 EXISTING EL: 7997.18 EXISTING EL: 8001.66 EXISTING EL: 8006.04 EXISTING EL: 7990.59 EXISTING RETAINING WALLS TO REMAIN EXISTING EL: 7995.92 EXISTING EL: 7998.05 EXISTING EL: 7990.27 EXISTING EL: 7994.12 EXISTING EL: 7993.97 EXISTING EL: 7996.13 EXISTING RETAINING WALLS TO REMAIN EXISTING RETAINING WALLS TO REMAIN EXISTING UTILITY SHED TO REMAIN NEW ADA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE EXISTING RESIDENCES LITTLE NELL PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE EXISTING RETAINING WALL TO REMAIN EXISTING RETAINING WALL TO REMAIN EXISTING RETAINING WALL TO REMAIN (BELOW) EXISTING RETAINING WALL TO REMAIN (BELOW)PROPERTY LINE1 A302 PROPERTY LI NEPROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L IN E SETBACK LINE SETBACK LINES E T B A C K L IN E P R O P E R T Y L IN E PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINES E T B A C K L IN E EXISTING DECK TRAIL EASEMENT AND RIGHT -OF -WAY ACCESS EASEMENT 6' - 0"SHEET NORTH TRUE NORTH Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:01660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 A001 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN 21824.00 SCALE 3/16" = 1'-0"1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL P264IX.a EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN NEW WALL PROPOSED PLAN LEGEND 1. NEW INTERIOR FINISHES 2. NEW WINDOWS 3. NEW PLUMBING FIXTURES 4. NEW APPLIANCES PROPOSED PLAN NOTES UP UP LINEN LINEN (5' -6" MAX HEIGHT) FP NEW CRAWLSPACE ACCESS BEDROOM #4 002 BEDROOM #3 007 009 CLOSET BATHROOM 008 STORAGE 006 004 BATHROOM 003 LAUNDRY 001 ENTRY 005 WC 010 MECHANICAL CRAWLSPACE A2011 A200 1 A202 1 A203 1 NEW EXTERIOR DOORS AND WINDOWS, TYP. NEW APPLIANCES, TYP. NEW PLUMBING FIXTURES, TYP. EDGE OF ROOF ABOVE FLOOR ELEVATION 7988' - 3 1/4" UP UPUP WDLINEN LINEN TUB FP SHOWER PROPERTY LI NEPROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L IN E SETBACK LINE SETBACK LI NES E T B A C K L IN E P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L IN E 1 1 3 3 4 4 6 6 7 7 B B D D E E F F 2 5 C EDGE OF DECK ABOVE EDGE OF FLOOR ABOVE EDGE OF FLOOR ABOVE SHEET NORTH TRUE NORTH Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , A S P E N, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:03660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 A100 PROPOSED PLAN -LOWER LEVEL 21824.00 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 LOWER LEVEL PROPOSED PLAN 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL P265IX.a EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN NEW WALL PROPOSED PLAN LEGEND 1. NEW INTERIOR FINISHES 2. NEW WINDOWS 3. NEW PLUMBING FIXTURES 4. NEW APPLIANCES PROPOSED PLAN NOTES CL. CL. DN UP FP 106 WC 104 MASTER CLOSET 102 POWDER 110 WC 109 BATHROOM 111 STORAGE MASTER BEDROOM 103 GUEST BEDROOM 108 101 HALL STAIR 105 MASTER BEDROOM107 LINEN STAIR A2011 A200 1 A202 1 A203 1 NEW COPPER ROOFING TILES EDGE OF EXISTING ROOF ABOVE NEW PLUMBING FIXTURES NEW PLUMBING FIXTURES NEW PLUMBING FIXTURES FLOOR ELEVATION 7997' - 4 3/4" CL. CL. DN UP TUB FP TUB SHOWER PROPERTY LI NEPROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L I N E SETBACK LINE SETBACK LI NES E T B A C K L IN E P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L IN E 1 1 3 3 4 4 6 6 7 7 B B D D E E F F 2 5 C A A NEW WINDOWS, TYP. PLUMBING FIXTURE SHEET NORTH TRUE NORTH Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , A S P E N, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:04660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 A101 PROPOSED PLAN -MIDDLE LEVEL 21824.00 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 MIDDLE LEVEL PROPOSED PLAN 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL P266IX.a EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN NEW WALL PROPOSED PLAN LEGEND 1. NEW INTERIOR FINISHES 2. NEW WINDOWS 3. NEW PLUMBING FIXTURES 4. NEW APPLIANCES PROPOSED PLAN NOTES CL. DN DECK SLOPEFP FLOOR ELEVATION 8007' - 7 3/8" FLOOR ELEVATION 8006' - 7 3/8" LIVING ROOM 204 STAIR 203 FOYER DINING 205 206 KITCHEN 202 STO. A2011 A200 1 A202 1 A203 1 201 ENTRY NEW RAILING NEW EXTERIOR DOORS AND WINDOWS, TYP. NEW RAILING EDGE OF EXISTING ROOF ABOVE NEW COPPER ROOFING TILES NEW STEPS NEW PLUMBING FIXTURES, TYP. NEW APPLIANCES, TYP. BAR CL. DN DN DECK DECK ROOF FP DW REF / FRZ / SEE SHEET 1 A103 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L I N E SETBACK LINE SETBACK LI NES E T B A C K L IN E P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L IN E / SEE SHEET 1 A103 DN 1 1 3 3 4 4 6 6 7 7 B B D D E E F F 2 5 C A A NEW ADA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE NEW RAILING SHEET NORTH TRUE NORTH Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , A S P E N, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:04660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 A102 PROPOSED PLAN -MAIN LEVEL 21824.00 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL PROPOSED PLAN 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL P267IX.a 1 A302 ENTRY NEW ADA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DECK EXISTING RESIDENCES LITTLE NELL PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PROPERTY LINELINE OF EXISTING BRIDGE ROOF ABOVE EXISTING PAVERS S L O P E U P 1 : 1 8 .5 PROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L IN E SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINES E T B A C K L IN E TRAIL EASEMENT AND RIGHT -OF -WAY EXISTING STEPS EXISTING TREES 6'-0" ACCESS EASEMENT EXISTING RETAINING WALLS NEW STEPS DN NEW RAILING NEW POSTS 1/2" GAP BETWEEN BRIDGES SHEET NORTH TRUE NORTH Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , A S P E N, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:06660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 A103 PROPOSED PLAN -ADA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE 21824.00 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 ADA BRIDGE PROPOSED PLAN P268IX.a 1. DASHED LINES INDICATE EXTERIOR EDGE OF FRAMING BELOW. 2. INDICATES DIRECTION AND PITCH OF ROOF SLOPE. 3. CRICKETS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. 4. COORDINATE ROOF-PENETRATION FLASHING INSTALLATION WITH ROOFING AND INSTALLATION OF ITEMS PENETRATING ROOF. 5. RIDGE ELEVATIONS ARE TO TOP OF FINISH. 6. NEW ROOF FINISH APPLIED ON ALL EXISTING ROOFS. PROPOSED ROOF PLAN NOTES SLOPE 8:12 SLOPE 8:12 SLOPE 8:12 SLOPE 8:12SLOPE8:12SLOPE8:12SLOPEA2011 A200 1 A202 1 A203 1 SLOPE8:12SLOPE8:12SLOPE8:12SLOPE8:12SLOPE8:12SLOPE8:12SLOPESLOPENEW ROOF NEW COPPER ROOFING SHINGLES NEW COPPER ROOFING SHINGLES NEW CHIMNEY TO REPLACE EXISTING CHIMNEY NEW ROOF NEW CHIMNEY TO REPLACE EXISTING CHIMNEY NEW COPPER ROOFING SHINGLES PROPERTY LI NEPROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L I N E SETBACK LINE SETBACK LI NES E T B A C K L IN E P R O P E R T Y L IN E S E T B A C K L IN E 1 1 3 3 4 4 6 6 7 7 B B D D E E F F 2 5 C A A SHEET NORTH TRUE NORTH Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , A S P E N, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:07660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 A140 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 21824.00 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN SLOPE XXXXX 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET P269IX.a MIDDLE LEVEL 7997' - 4 105/128" MAIN LEVEL 8007' - 7 41/128" LOWER LEVEL 7988' - 3 41/128" EXISTING PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE TO REMAIN PROPOSED ADA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AND RAILING NEW RAILING NEW ROOF NEW COPPER SHINGLES NEW WINDOWS NEW COPPER ROOFING SHINGLES NEW CONCRETE CHIMNEY CAP AND STONE VENEER TO REPLACE EXISTING CHIMNEY EXISTING RETAINING WALLS NEW WINDOWS NEW CONCRETE CHIMNEY CAP AND STONE VENEER TO REPLACE EXISTING CHIMNEY NEW ROOF NEW COPPER SHINGLES NEW DOOR NEW WINDOWS NEW STEEL LEDGER NEW STEEL BRACE NEW WINDOWS NEW WINDOWS NEW DOOR 11' - 1 1/2"32' - 8 3/4"SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE1346725 Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , A S P E N, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:08660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 A200 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 21824.00 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATION - PROPOSED P270IX.a MIDDLE LEVEL 7997' - 4 105/128" MAIN LEVEL 8007' - 7 41/128" LOWER LEVEL 7988' - 3 41/128" NEW CONCRETE CHIMNEY CAP AND STONE VENEER TO REPLACE EXISTING CHIMNEY NEW COPPER ROOFING SHINGLES NEW COPPER ROOFING SHINGLES NEW STONE VENEER NEW STONE VENEER NEW ADA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AND RAILING NEW COPPER ROOF SHINGLES NEW ROOF NEW COPPER SHINGLES NEW RAILING NEW STONE VENEER NEW DOOR NEW STEEL LEDGER NEW WINDOWS NEW STEEL BRACE NEW WINDOWS NEW STONE VENEER NEW COPPER ROOFING SHINGLES NEW CONCRETE HEADER NEW VENT 39' - 0 3/4"33' - 4 1/2"31' - 7"28' - 0 1/4"SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINEBDEFC A Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , A S P E N, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:10660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 A201 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 21824.00 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED P271IX.a MIDDLE LEVEL 7997' - 4 105/128" MAIN LEVEL 8007' - 7 41/128" LOWER LEVEL 7988' - 3 41/128" NEW CONCRETE CHIMNEY CAP AND STONE VENEER TO REPLACE EXISTING CHIMNEY NEW COPPER ROOFING SHINGLES NEW ROOF NEW COPPER SHINGLES NEW STONE VENEER NEW WINDOWS NEW COPPER ROOFING SHINGLES NEW WINDOWS NEW CONCRETE CHIMNEY CAP AND STONE VENEER TO REPLACE EXISTING CHIMNEY NEW COPPER ROOF SHINGLES NEW ROOF NEW WINDOWS NEW COPPER SHINGLES NEW STONE VENEER NEW RAILING PROPOSED ADA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AND RAILING NEW STEPS NEW VENT 18' - 4 3/4"SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE1 3 4 6 725 Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , A S P E N, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:11660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 A202 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 21824.00 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 SOUTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED P272IX.a MIDDLE LEVEL 7997' - 4 105/128" MAIN LEVEL 8007' - 7 41/128" LOWER LEVEL 7988' - 3 41/128" NEW CONCRETE CHIMNEY CAP AND STONE VENEER TO REPLACE EXISTING CHIMNEY NEW COPPER ROOFING SHINGLES NEW STONE VENEER NEW WINDOWS NEW COPPER SHINGLES NEW RAILING NEW STEEL LEDGER NEW WINDOWS NEW COPPER ROOFING SHINGLES NEW STONE VENEER NEW WINDOWS NEW WINDOW NEW STONE VENEER 23' - 7 3/4"26' - 9 1/4"25' - 0 1/2"SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINEB D E FCA Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , A S P E N, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:12660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 A203 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 21824.00 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 SOUTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED P273IX.a MAIN LEVEL 8007' - 7 41/128" MAIN LEVEL 8007' - 7 41/128" NEW ADA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AND RAILING SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE7' - 7"13' - 9 1/4"T.O. ADA BRIDGE DECK 8006' - 7 171/256" T.O. ADA BRIDGE DECK 8006' - 7 171/256" T.O. ADA BRIDGE RAILING 8010' - 1 171/256" T.O. ADA BRIDGE RAILING 8010' - 1 171/256"17' - 3 1/4"6' - 8 3/4"11' - 1"3' - 2 3/4"Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , A S P E N, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:13660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 A302 PROPOSED BRIDGE SECTION 21824.00 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 SECTION THROUGH ADA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL P274IX.a For the best experience, open this PDF portfolio in Acrobat X or Adobe Reader X, or later. Get Adobe Reader Now! P275IX.a EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN NEW WALL PROPOSED PLAN LEGEND 1. NEW INTERIOR FINISHES 2. NEW WINDOWS 3. NEW PLUMBING FIXTURES 4. NEW APPLIANCES PROPOSED PLAN NOTES CL. DN DECK SLOPEFP FLOOR ELEVATION 8007' - 7 3/8" FLOOR ELEVATION 8006' - 7 3/8" LIVING ROOM 204 STAIR 203 FOYER DINING 205 206 KITCHEN 202 STO. A2011 A200 1 A202 1 A203 1 201 ENTRY NEW RAILING NEW EXTERIOR DOORS AND WINDOWS, TYP. NEW RAILING EDGE OF EXISTING ROOF ABOVE NEW COPPER ROOFING TILES NEW STEPS NEW PLUMBING FIXTURES, TYP. NEW APPLIANCES, TYP. BAR CL. DN DN DECK DECK ROOF FP DW REF / FRZ / SEE SHEET 1 A103 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L I N E SETBACK LINE SETBACK LI NES E T B A C K L IN E P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L IN E / SEE SHEET 1 A103 DN 1 1 3 3 4 4 6 6 7 7 B B D D E E F F 2 5 C A A NEW ADA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE NEW RAILING SHEET NORTH TRUE NORTH Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , A S P E N, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:04660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 A102 PROPOSED PLAN -MAIN LEVEL 21824.00 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL PROPOSED PLAN 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL P276IX.a 1 A302 ENTRY NEW ADA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DECK EXISTING RESIDENCES LITTLE NELL PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PROPERTY LINELINE OF EXISTING BRIDGE ROOF ABOVE EXISTING PAVERS S L O P E U P 1 : 1 8 .5 PROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L IN E SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINES E T B A C K L IN E TRAIL EASEMENT AND RIGHT -OF -WAY EXISTING STEPS EXISTING TREES 6'-0" ACCESS EASEMENT EXISTING RETAINING WALLS NEW STEPS DN NEW RAILING NEW POSTS 1/2" GAP BETWEEN BRIDGES SHEET NORTH TRUE NORTH Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , A S P E N, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:06660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 A103 PROPOSED PLAN -ADA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE 21824.00 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 ADA BRIDGE PROPOSED PLAN P277IX.a 1. DASHED LINES INDICATE EXTERIOR EDGE OF FRAMING BELOW. 2. INDICATES DIRECTION AND PITCH OF ROOF SLOPE. 3. CRICKETS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. 4. COORDINATE ROOF-PENETRATION FLASHING INSTALLATION WITH ROOFING AND INSTALLATION OF ITEMS PENETRATING ROOF. 5. RIDGE ELEVATIONS ARE TO TOP OF FINISH. 6. NEW ROOF FINISH APPLIED ON ALL EXISTING ROOFS. PROPOSED ROOF PLAN NOTES SLOPE 8:12 SLOPE 8:12 SLOPE 8:12 SLOPE 8:12SLOPE8:12SLOPE8:12SLOPEA2011 A200 1 A202 1 A203 1 SLOPE8:12SLOPE8:12SLOPE8:12SLOPE8:12SLOPE8:12SLOPE8:12SLOPESLOPENEW ROOF NEW COPPER ROOFING SHINGLES NEW COPPER ROOFING SHINGLES NEW CHIMNEY TO REPLACE EXISTING CHIMNEY NEW ROOF NEW CHIMNEY TO REPLACE EXISTING CHIMNEY NEW COPPER ROOFING SHINGLES PROPERTY LI NEPROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L I N E SETBACK LINE SETBACK LI NES E T B A C K L IN E P R O P E R T Y L IN E S E T B A C K L IN E 1 1 3 3 4 4 6 6 7 7 B B D D E E F F 2 5 C A A SHEET NORTH TRUE NORTH Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , A S P E N, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:07660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 A140 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 21824.00 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN SLOPE XXXXX 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET P278IX.a MIDDLE LEVEL 7997' - 4 105/128" MAIN LEVEL 8007' - 7 41/128" LOWER LEVEL 7988' - 3 41/128" EXISTING PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE TO REMAIN PROPOSED ADA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AND RAILING NEW RAILING NEW ROOF NEW COPPER SHINGLES NEW WINDOWS NEW COPPER ROOFING SHINGLES NEW CONCRETE CHIMNEY CAP AND STONE VENEER TO REPLACE EXISTING CHIMNEY EXISTING RETAINING WALLS NEW WINDOWS NEW CONCRETE CHIMNEY CAP AND STONE VENEER TO REPLACE EXISTING CHIMNEY NEW ROOF NEW COPPER SHINGLES NEW DOOR NEW WINDOWS NEW STEEL LEDGER NEW STEEL BRACE NEW WINDOWS NEW WINDOWS NEW DOOR 11' - 1 1/2"32' - 8 3/4"SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE1346725 Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , A S P E N, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:08660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 A200 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 21824.00 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATION - PROPOSED P279IX.a MIDDLE LEVEL 7997' - 4 105/128" MAIN LEVEL 8007' - 7 41/128" LOWER LEVEL 7988' - 3 41/128" NEW CONCRETE CHIMNEY CAP AND STONE VENEER TO REPLACE EXISTING CHIMNEY NEW COPPER ROOFING SHINGLES NEW COPPER ROOFING SHINGLES NEW STONE VENEER NEW STONE VENEER NEW ADA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AND RAILING NEW COPPER ROOF SHINGLES NEW ROOF NEW COPPER SHINGLES NEW RAILING NEW STONE VENEER NEW DOOR NEW STEEL LEDGER NEW WINDOWS NEW STEEL BRACE NEW WINDOWS NEW STONE VENEER NEW COPPER ROOFING SHINGLES NEW CONCRETE HEADER NEW VENT 39' - 0 3/4"33' - 4 1/2"31' - 7"28' - 0 1/4"SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINEBDEFC A Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , A S P E N, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:10660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 A201 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 21824.00 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED P280IX.a MIDDLE LEVEL 7997' - 4 105/128" MAIN LEVEL 8007' - 7 41/128" LOWER LEVEL 7988' - 3 41/128" NEW CONCRETE CHIMNEY CAP AND STONE VENEER TO REPLACE EXISTING CHIMNEY NEW COPPER ROOFING SHINGLES NEW ROOF NEW COPPER SHINGLES NEW STONE VENEER NEW WINDOWS NEW COPPER ROOFING SHINGLES NEW WINDOWS NEW CONCRETE CHIMNEY CAP AND STONE VENEER TO REPLACE EXISTING CHIMNEY NEW COPPER ROOF SHINGLES NEW ROOF NEW WINDOWS NEW COPPER SHINGLES NEW STONE VENEER NEW RAILING PROPOSED ADA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AND RAILING NEW STEPS NEW VENT 18' - 4 3/4"SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE1 3 4 6 725 Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , A S P E N, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:11660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 A202 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 21824.00 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 SOUTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED P281IX.a MIDDLE LEVEL 7997' - 4 105/128" MAIN LEVEL 8007' - 7 41/128" LOWER LEVEL 7988' - 3 41/128" NEW CONCRETE CHIMNEY CAP AND STONE VENEER TO REPLACE EXISTING CHIMNEY NEW COPPER ROOFING SHINGLES NEW STONE VENEER NEW WINDOWS NEW COPPER SHINGLES NEW RAILING NEW STEEL LEDGER NEW WINDOWS NEW COPPER ROOFING SHINGLES NEW STONE VENEER NEW WINDOWS NEW WINDOW NEW STONE VENEER 23' - 7 3/4"26' - 9 1/4"25' - 0 1/2"SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINEB D E FCA Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , A S P E N, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:12660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 A203 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 21824.00 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 SOUTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED P282IX.a MAIN LEVEL 8007' - 7 41/128" MAIN LEVEL 8007' - 7 41/128" NEW ADA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AND RAILING SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE7' - 7"13' - 9 1/4"T.O. ADA BRIDGE DECK 8006' - 7 171/256" T.O. ADA BRIDGE DECK 8006' - 7 171/256" T.O. ADA BRIDGE RAILING 8010' - 1 171/256" T.O. ADA BRIDGE RAILING 8010' - 1 171/256"17' - 3 1/4"6' - 8 3/4"11' - 1"3' - 2 3/4"Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , A S P E N, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2018 PROJECT NO: Issue:2018-12-07 11:04:13660 SOUTH GALENA RESIDENCE REMODEL 660 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 A302 PROPOSED BRIDGE SECTION 21824.00 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 SECTION THROUGH ADA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE 2018.11.30 PROGRESS SET 2018.12.04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL P283IX.a Emzy Veazy III Testimony To Aspen City Council March 25, 2019 PAGE 1 OF 2 March 25, 2019 Testimony At Aspen City (Colorado) Council Meeting Title: Needed Good Government Practices With Nexus For Businesses And Private Individuals MY NAME IS EMZY VEAZY III. CAREFULLY LISTEN TO EVERY WORD I SPEAK. IT IS IMPERATIVE TO INSTITUTE AND ENFORCE NEEDED LOCAL GOOD GOVERNMENT PRACTICES WITH AN IMMEDIATE NEXUS FOR BUSINESSES AND PRIVATE INDIVDIUALS IN ASPEN. HERE ARE A FEW THINGS TO TAKE GREATER ACTION ON, ESPECIALLY BY CONCERNED ASPEN AMERICANS. COUP DE MAIN. COUP DE THEATRE. ILLEGAL PRACTICES UNDER FEDERAL LAWS: PRICE FIXING: BUSINESSES THAT COMPETE WITH EACH OTHER DISCUSS AND AGREE ON PRICES. NONE OF THIS THIS IS LEGAL OR ETHICAL. 1 https://www.vai Idail ycom/news/wiser-stronger-charitable-regulations-should-be-a-goal-for-garfield- eagle-and-Pitkin-counties-letter/ Vail Daily Wiser, stronger charitable regulations should be a goal for Garfield, Eagle and Pitkin counties (letter) News ! July 5, 2018 [On Vaily Daily this letter has four hyperlinks contributing to it.] Dear editor: Smarter and stricter charity solicitation regulating is beneficial for the counties of Garfield, Eagle and Pitkin and their respective cities and towns. It is prudent to consider and study a bit of what Beverly Hills, California, and the city of Los Angeles do about charitable activities. The televised Beverly Hills Charitable Solicitations Commission regulates charitable activities to protect charitable assets for their intended purpose and ensure Beverly Hills residents' givings are not misappropriated by fraud or other chicanery. A charitable group must give an after-event financial statement to show at least 50 percent of the proceeds went to a charitable contribution. The Beverly Hills Police Chief advises the Beverly Hills Charitable Solicitations Commission. The Los Angeles Police Commission deals with charity groups.To do a fundraiser,they must contact the Charitable Services Section of the Investigation Division of the Los Angeles Police Department. In the city of Angeles charitable organizations complete and return the"Notice of Intention to Solicit Contributions"to the Charitable Services Section. Charities hand in their: 1)corporation articles (and amendments), 2) bylaws, 3)IRS letter of income tax exemption, (4)state of California Franchise Tax Board letter of income tax exemption and(5)Charitable Trust number issued by the State of California Office of the Attorney General. The Los Angeles Police Department Charitable Services Section investigates charity and philanthropic corporations or associations relying on public appeal or general solicitations for support. Investigations include misstatements,deceptions and frauds in connection with solicitation. The Charitable Services Section issues solicitation permits or required"information cards"to charity groups. Furthermore, it makes recommendations for granting or denying permits. Do bear in mind that the more 300 nonprofit groups in the Roaring Fork Valley should be the first to champion wiser and stronger charitable investigations and regulations for theirs and the public's benefit, shouldn't they? What do you think? Best wishes, Emzy Veazy III Aspen