Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20120821 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, August 21, 2012 4:30 p.m. Sister Cities room 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen I. ROLL CALL II. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public III. MINUTES IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC HEARINGS— A. 122 E. Durant, Final Commercial Design Review VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. BOARD REPORTS VIII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: P 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planning Technician THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director MEETING DATE: August 21, 2012 RE: 122 E. Durant Ave - Commercial Design Review SPECIAL NOTE: At the initial hearing (August 7, 2012), Planning and Zoning Commission members voted to continue the hearing to August 21, 2012 to have the opportunity to more fully discuss and comment on the Applicant's plans for the remodel and expansion of the building at 122 E. Durant Ave. Specifically, concerns were raised regarding the 40' height variation request that would enable the fourth floor fitness room and lodge unit, the increased height of the stair and elevator towers to accommodate fourth floor egress, the potential for reflection from the glazing on the front stair tower and glass safety railing, and the massing of the front entryway/balconies area and its relationship to the overall building design. In response to direction from the Planning and Zoning Commission the Applicant has submitted a new design plan for consideration that Staff has reviewed. In light of these new design plans, Staff suggests the following items be considered by Planning and Zoning Commission for points of discussion with the Applicant at the August 21st hearing. • Building Massing. The Applicant has responded to the massing issues of the previous design in the following ways: o Front (southern) stair tower - A lighter colored palette has been used on this tower which serves to create a less imposing massing. Also solar shade panels have been added to this façade that break up the linear nature of the tower. o Stair/front entryway/balconies - The newly proposed design includes a front entryway with a lighter feel. The heavy stone cheekwalls of the earlier design have been exchanged with simple metal railings. The shadow box balconies have been replaced by porches with glass safety barriers, and each level is rooted to the level below by wooden beams. These elements help to provide a more grounded, yet airier element to the overall design, which Staff feels is an improvement to the massing of the building's front facade. o On the western façade the elevator has been moved back (north) from the front of the building approximately 25', and incorporated into the fourth floor roof 1 P2 r. line. A module is created by the recessed western wall, which serves to break up the massing and adds articulation to the building. f yS k '"- mit 'MS TR • Figure A: Originally proposed design - view of Figure B: Newly proposed design - view of southwest southwest facades facades • Height. In the previous hearing the Planning and Zoning Commission did not feel the Applicant met the criteria for a height increase to 40', and suggested the Applicant design the building in such a way as to not require a variation from the 38' height limit that is permitted for a development of this density in the Lodge zone district. The Applicant has responded to the height issue of the previous design in the following ways: o The building has been designed to meet the 38' height limit. The stair tower at the building's south (front) façade is allowed by Code to exceed this height limit by five feet. The elevator tower and north (rear) façade stair tower is allowed to exceed the height limit by ten feet. None of these elements takes full advantage of these allowances. The southern stair tower meets the 38' height requirement, the northern stair tower is measured at just over 41'5", and the elevator tower is measured at just over 44'3" in height. o Roof forms - The building has been designed with a variety of roof forms, from flat to gabled. These gabled roofs enable the existence of the fourth floor rooms. According to the Land Use Code, roofs with a pitch greater than 7:12, such as that found over the fourth floor rooms, is measured 1/3 of the distance from the eave point to the ridge. The ridge itself has no limitation on height. Roofs with a pitch from 3:12 to 7:12, such as those found on the elevator and stairwell towers, are measured to the midpoint between the eave point and the ridge. 2 % P3 Although these roofs do meet the 38' height requirement, Staff is concerned that the gabled styles over the front (southern) stair tower and the fourth floor rooms create a sense of being larger than they actually are, and are out of context with the design of the building. Staff counts five different roof forms on this building. Although this creates a high degree of variation in roof profile, Staff believes the proposed design has too many roof forms, creating massing issues and adding to a very busy design.14141—i - Etc' ,� ,, _____ , t ::„......._ , :r /ice hilli . , ?.'%. ,[^ Figure C: Depiction of various roof forms Materials. The new proposal does not change the materials, rather the vertical cedar siding and wood rain-screen have been proposed with a lighter stain. The east façade of the building will remain stucco, as found also in places on the front facade. The Planning and Zoning Commission has directed the Applicant to use a non-reflective glass for the southern stair tower and the safety railings that will not create a glare nuisance. Staff finds the materials to be of quality and appropriate to the Mountain Base Character Area; however Staff recommends a reduction in the number of different materials used. As currently proposed, the variety of materials creates a busy effect for the building. Although Staff finds the lighter color tones to be an improvement, Staff 3 P4 e feels the Applicant should reduce the number of individual materials used on the building. .ii iii iill .11 .... `x.4111;' I �I r , �,_ . ii 3` - !! ''1 e III 1 1!11 Jrii _... } j 'I ii 1 11 dill - Tn �t ( Lf !3 p 1 I v , Ill , , l' : -----------I— 1)i ' "1"..14'."16" ' - Figure D: Depiction of various materials used in the design Staff Discussion Staff feels there has been improvement in the design of some of the building's elements, such as the front entryway, balconies, and lighter color materials. However, there is some disconnect in the relationship between the proposed and existing design pieces. There are opportunities to minimize this disconnect. For instance, the front facade balconies on both sides of the stair tower may benefit from use of the same material for the safety railing and color palette. The varied roof styles add to a perceived lack in a consistent architectural vocabulary. As designed, the building has a busy feeling that could be calmed by simplifying the number of different roof styles. The same effect may be had for a decrease in the number of different materials used on the building's facades. The fourth floor appears to be creating issues with mass and height. The egress elements of the stair and elevator towers are necessary due to building code requirements. The increased height and massing that is created by these towers to accommodate the fourth floor, in particular the stair tower on the front facade, does not respect the goal of creating a human scale for the area. ' 4 P5 Lastly, the design includes green roofs and solar energy panels. The Applicant has indicated that some of the building's design has been based on an energy efficiency model. However, at the time of this memo Staff has not received any specifics related to this topic, and therefore cannot provide an opinion at this time. RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Department staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission continue the Commercial Design Review, and require the applicant to revise their design prior to returning to the Commission. RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the Planning and Zoning Commission chooses to recommend approval for the request, they may use this motion "I move to make a recommendation to approve the request for the commercial design review for 122 E. Durant Ave." ATTACHMENTS: (New in Bold) Exhibit A - Commercial Design Review Exhibit B - Commercial Design Standards Exhibit C - Design Objectives of the Mountain Base Character Area Exhibit D - Mountain Base Character Area Conceptual Review Design Guidelines Exhibit E - Mountain Base Character Area Final Review Design Guidelines Exhibit F - Application Exhibit G - Department Review Memos Exhibit H - Letters from Neighbors Exhibit I - Affidavit of Public Notice - Staff Exhibit J - Affidavit of Public Notice - Applicant Exhibit K - Hotel Durant Public Outreach Summary Exhibit L - Email from Josh Rice, Development Engineer Exhibit M - R. Purvis letter Exhibit N - Design Proposal • Exhibit 0 - Elevations 5 P6 THE MEMO OF AUGUST 7TH IS PROVIDED BELOW FOR REFERENCE Applicant /Owner: Staff Recommendation: Hotel Durant LLC Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission continue the commercial design Representative: review and require the Applicant to revise their Phillip Ring, RDS Inc. design prior to returning to the Commission. Ken Adler, KA DesignWorks Inc. Summary: Location: The Applicant requests of the Planning and Hotel Durant, commonly known as 122 E. Zoning Commission approval of the application Durant Ave., Aspen CO 81611 for Final Commercial Design Review for the remodel of the existing building located at 122 Current Zoning & Use E. Durant Ave. This property is located in the Lodge (L) zone district. The building is currently used as a lodge. Nyr�;.-:n.y.yyy-.r Proposed Land Use: The Applicant is proposing to remodel and expand the existing lodge structure from a ( _ total of 6,904 square feet to 10,642 square s � $ r ,� feet. The lodge unit count and use will ,W _.-} remain unchanged. - r; - Figure A: Current image of subject property LAND USE REQUESTAND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission: • Final Commercial Design Review - Mountain Lodge Character Area pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412.050. An application for Commercial Design Review requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions or disapprove of the application. 6 . P7 BACKGROUND: 122 E. Durant Ave. was developed with a three-story, 20-unit lodge in 1963, known as the Hotel Durant. A significant remodel of the property took place in 1985, and a limited remodel occurred in 2005. The lodge is located in the Lodge (L) zone district near the base of Lift 1A, adjacent to the downtown Commercial Core, between Garmisch St. and Aspen St. on Durant Ave. The Applicant is proposing a remodel of the existing lodge to increase the size of the units and provide amenities, without increasing the number of rooms. ate � E 4' / 14' „.744a" I� r + '4 J ,:- iipc I• F' :1 : _ ' • l'i. r1104:111::' -- * '.••••• '..4.tiir '.--111 q"te u .. I. • --• • Are Ct A' � 'r Ik . ^4! .; .fie tit ee ,. ..th Ail—i., ,_ . s„„....:z. :76.-4..._,,,., : Figure B: Vicinity Map, location of subject property Existing Conditions The lot is 6,006 square feet in total size. The existing floor area for Hotel Durant is 6,904 square feet, with a height of 35' 6" at its highest measuring point (1/3rd point between the eave and the ridge). This lodge is a three-story building containing 20 lodge units, which range in size from 176 sf to 305 sf. A single parking space exists on-site off of the alley at the building's rear (northern) facade, with nine additional head-in parking spaces along Durant Ave. at the building's front facade, within the public right-of-way. The site, as exists, contains 2,282 sf (38%) of land area that qualifies as public amenity. The trash/recycling/utility area is located on the alley that runs along the north side of the parcel. Proposed Project The Applicant is proposing to remodel and expand the existing lodge, maintaining the majority of the existing lodge building, and increasing the building by 3,738 sf. This remodel will 7 P8 bring the total size of the lodge building to 10,642 sf. On average, the unit sizes will be increased 95 sf, ranging from 291 sf to 401 sf. S'S'A'""E 6 ° The proposal includes the addition of a fourth • ® [ •-- `y :P story that will contain a fitness room, a hot 10i1)••• ti. °a a - , -- tub, an open air deck, and a single lodge ' ! ,Ir 040..4. pm k �1, unit. The proposal further includes the Po° • �` G,. q 1, v"7 hsa addition of an elevator along the Western • 51F1'19 �v'9)76 • �'{• ∎ façade and an increase in the existing front • e it . bJ ' and rear stairwell heights to provide adequate t o • `, ` v. 0,97x t egress for the fourth floor (specifics to be 4� A G �, s4 ? ,, ; ��t� discussed in the Building Height, Mass,dec1. k ��w *r∎r � Scale later in this memo). The Applicant ' Y W q : x „ � I proposes a slight reduction in the amount of .19)2 �y ':.;� _ open space from 2,282 sf (38%) to 2,222 sf `k srve qyr` Fb S 3{, ,-,<., ;r1 No changes are being proposed to the current �j 1°„:a III parking, or to the trash/recycling/utility area -��, ';'‘*';', .t. y y \a atrY X914 a9 -.-_FF g.� i`t4S.,d� si _■r 5 �"" ' NIu1N F `; r : •• •'} A▪ t. - Y0..: X18^ 4! +�xCss_i9®il 9' ..; Y ;i mommoms '�.. Q.. •.—4x990 ..H� ,919°i2s j3 415.i f S ilSS 4,Y. 4,* k .. . ` 9 70?0 •sr,�„ µ i y v $4 't4 .e s s•' Ds:- .7 ` ' 1 • rte 9:1:, /i .�`L F R (k` *hZ4s iiA k •I 4 S g, F [ ,�} rN �V ▪. (S t 7 ,y ! , r Y �. �\ .,s.> .�}:w r�..r•Y, Esc r.si .t —I� Q� s 9:\C TF 3`F x0.°6 i•F 3�:�� 111 y =+ � f 1 i„— � i• l irlt ' lat Nit 1x iti . .. , . t r r w- v,,,444111; x s -k' t$k i ,107... 21'..-; ...� .�: �"��i'fi:,:"�.,.....�▪�,� c�:°:;:�:.;�'�:e3h:s:e�r's�6 �y' •:kg }`it" h l,.:° ffis_g '\�';;±,a : iii a :r ,i is ,.:p. Figure C:Existing site plan depicting property boundaries and public ROW • 8 • P9 • 3 r e Figure D: Current image of lodge Figure E: Proposed image of lodge The remodel and expansion of the Hotel Durant requires the applicant to meet the policies of the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. For this project, the Applicant proposes the removal of the roof to change from the pitched style roof to generally flat roofs, the addition of a fourth floor, and the removal of the western wall to build an addition and increase the square footage of the building. No new units are proposed, but the existing units will be reconfigured within the floor plan. As the number of lodge units (or pillows, per the Land Use code) stays the same, no net leasable space is being added, therefore not requiring mitigation. However, there may be additional impact fees, such as Parks or Transportation Demand Management fees, as a result of any new development. STAFF COMMENTS Commercial Design Review: This application is required to undergo review under the Commercial Design standards as the standards apply to all commercial, lodging, and mixed use development containing a commercial component within the City of Aspen. The property is located in the Mountain Base Character Area of the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. The location of the Mountain Base Character Area is between the city's commercial center and the base of the mountain. This area encompasses the most focused concentration of lodge development within the City. The purpose of design within this area is to create a pedestrian- friendly street edge and buildings with a sense of human scale that reflect the natural topography of the mountain base area. Designs should also encourage pedestrian activity by providing an interconnected circulation system and street level uses, as well as maintaining views to the mountains and existing natural features. 9 P 1 0 A consolidated conceptual and final review requires an examination of the placement of the building on the site, the mass of the building, and the building's relationship to streets, alley, parking and public spaces as well as the appearance of the design and the type and quality of materials used for the building's remodel. Overall, Staff's review of the application provides the following recommendations: • Redesign the trash/recycling area to meet the requirements of the Land Use Code. • Reduce the overall height of the building to the 38' that is permitted by right in this one district. • Re-examine the materials proposed on the stair tower at the building's front façade to soften the massing and create a better sense of pedestrian scale. • Incorporate Figure K as the entry and balconies over the primary entryway. Conceptual Review Design Guidelines (Exhibit D of the Staff memo: Street & Alley System The lodge is located on E. Durant Ave., and an r,F 7 '" mss- ' e • alleyway is located at the building's rear facade. The ! r p• 1"` - i - 1 building is situated between two residential multi-family . - `-' • Ian j Vat properties; a two-story building to the west, and a ': !.ct 9 " I=� 'gym I three-story building to the east. The subject site is a d© !. " i small lot that maintains city's established grid pattern. ib - ° l 1 A sidewalk exists at the property line for the building 41,1A located to the east that concludes before the Hotel ` ``■�i I'• Durant. The Applicant proposes to continue this ''L -% F 'img Et sidewalk across the front façade of the lodge building, ..•_g0 r i to the property's edge. This will serve to enhance 1 II .`" pedestrian circulation and safety throughout this area, � N il as well as increase opportunities for connectivity and 01,.....1.1 g access to the property. The Applicant has also 1 ,..1, proposed a paved walkway from the sidewalk to the y„� � elevator tower on the western portion of the property. - iS @,f Fe ht rnr odmk1 Staff finds these guidelines to be met. J . Parking ! J The lodge has one existing on-site parking space, off of i II- T N I the alley. Nine additional parking spaces can be found 1 on Durant Ave. in the public right-of-way, which are available to the general public. There is a current on- i _J __ ► ! site deficit of nine parking spaces. The code states that 1 r upon redevelopment of a property any existing deficit in , parking spaces is allowed to be maintained. Staff finds Figure F:Yellow = on-site parking space. Green = proposed public amenity space. these guidelines to be met. 10 P11 Topography The building's proposed design largely depends on the existing lodge structure, with a significant expansion on the western side of the property. This planned expansion does not significantly alter the site's topography. The building is designed to face Durant Ave. and the landscaped front lawn. The materials are compatible with the character area and the surrounding natural landscape. Staff finds these guidelines to be met. Public Amenity Space The proposed public amenity space will be in the form of green space that begins at the property's edge of the Durant Ave. facade and extends to both sides of the building (see Figure F above). This public amenity space will comprise 2,222 sf, or 37% of the total property, and will exceed the 25% that is required by the code. It is proposed at street level, visually apparent, unenclosed, and the portion that is located on the front southern façade of the building will receive the maximum amount of solar gain. The public amenity is proposed to be landscaped lawn and will contain an area for bench seating and a table. Staff fords these guidelines to be met. Building Placement The Applicant proposes to meet or exceed all required I i _ - /,.j I setbacks for the Lodge zone district. The western side yard will meet the required setback of 5'. The existing j 1 eastern side yard setback of 10' 6" exceeds the 5' side '• II yard setback requirement and is not changing with this it application. The existing front yard setback of 10' is I ? (R ! maintained and allows for green space and landscaping. The rear setback will remain unchanged at 6'11". — The building's primary entrance is re-oriented toward I II E. Durant Ave. and has been enhanced to create a more j - 0 i^, distinct entryway to the building. Staff finds these guidelines to be met. _ i__I Building Hei ht, Mass & Scale ®1 AP ' g _. The building is being proposed at a height of 39' 6" at the building's highest roofline. The Lodge zone district - • IOW allows up to 38' in height by right for a lodge with one i j� or more lodge units per 500 sf of Gross Lot Area, i �I which may be increased to 40' through approval by the -- I I Planning and Zoning Commission during commercial -------. =- design review. As the building is proposed, the Applicant is requesting the Planning & Zoning _._._.___ Commission consider and approve this additional two Figure G:Orange indicates the area of increased foot request. This variation is requested to allow the building footprint fourth story. The floor to ceiling plate height of the 11 P12 fourth floor is 8' 6 3/4". The two foot increase in height will enable the inclusion of the fourth floor lodging unit and fitness room. The Design Guidelines provide five circumstances to aid in determining if an additional height request should be permitted. To summarize, these include the following: • To achieve at least two foot variation in height with an adjacent building. o Staff finds there is more than a two-foot variation already in existence between the adjacent buildings on either side of the proposed remodel. Staff fmds this project does not meet this criterion. • The primary function of the building is civic. o This building will maintain its use as a lodge, and does not qualify as a civic use building. Staff finds this project does not meet this criterion. • Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another area may be appropriate. o Staff notes there are no such conditions that affect this property. Staff finds this project does not meet this criterion. • To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units. o This building is not proposed with any affordable housing units. Staff finds this project does not meet this criterion. • To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contribution to the building's overall energy efficiency,for instance by providing improved day-lighting. o The Applicant is suggesting that the primary reason for the height increase and raised stairwell roof at on the Durant Ave. facade is to allow for efficiency in regards to the heating and cooling of the building. At the time of this memo, this has yet to be verified by the Building Dept. as a reason for the height increase. Staff does not support the Applicant's request for the additional two foot height allowance. At this time the Applicant has not met any of the standards for receiving this variance. Furthermore, the inclusion of a fourth floor will add additional height to the building due to the required means of egress. Per chapter 26.575.020(F)(4)(c) Allowed Exceptions to Height Limitations of the Land Use Code, the stair tower on the front façade is allowed to exceed the height limit by 5', and the side elevator and rear stair tower by 10'. Although the design does not fully take advantage of these heights, these egress elements will create an even greater height on nearly every side of this building. It is a goal of the character area to maintain views to natural features, and these views through the property will be compromised by this height increase. t Staff finds this guideline to not be met. 12 P13 _ flh11r���� ; ■ -\ 40' height line + ; je 4 t Height of stair tower 43" _ !_ - (as measured to halfway 1 I 1 ,1 !l' = point of eave) '__� `ash, _ _ri�� �+; _+ i _L ...111,, lairli, r _4, ....,===.: f illillImm memoinsiestmelsm ., _ -_ — 17 ug Figure H(left): South h fag ade with 1 ar � # heights depicted. 1— -r la etF� i 81!u ,l1 l a_�a= a ®- r a 4.�0_ A. w 1�1L•- 11111111111111 7 1®��..a i1B ;it ' a i —n : .,r te ? r �.5 o r I � At/rPr fri'"/.7. '. /./. ■ ..&■‘ Al Figure I(below): Western facade with heights depicted. I 40' height .:n - INKS line Height of elevator 44' 2" (as measured to Height of stair tower • halfway point of eave) 41'11" (as measured to , _ halfway point of eave) s< - `. 7 r. if ■ 11�I1 `� • P14 - Staff has further concerns regarding the design relating to the perceived mass of the building. The original application depicts a front balconied area for the second and third story rooms that cantilevers over the front entrance. Staff finds this shadow box style balcony with its decks, and the railing on the stairway below, adds mass to the building that feels out of context with the rest of the design. The Applicant has worked with Staff to develop an alternative that allows the balconies and style of entryway to remain, but with a lighter feel. Staff supports the alternative design to this front entryway and balcony with its lighter balconied areas and open entryway to the building. Staff finds the alternative design (Figure K) to meet the guidelines. rillIllIllr: „,,, ,, in 4nRVae - P I!Hll 111111 a a . ti 3a iorr.iii3 Figure J:Originally proposed design Figure K: Alternative proposed design Final Review Design Guidelines (Exhibit E of the Staff memo): Building Design & Articulation: The building is largely dependent on the form of the existing lodge, as the Applicant is maintaining many of the existing features, such as the front façade stairwell. Staff feels the Applicant should explore an alternative mix of these materials to aid in reducing the perceived scale of the front stair tower. As initially proposed, the tower's front face presents as an entire row of windows. This glazing creates a sense of strong linear mass at this feature. After 14 P15 meeting with Staff, the Applicant has proposed a secondary design that reduces the amount of glazing on the stair tower, creating smaller punched openings. Staff does not support this alternative design as a remedy to the design issue, as the number of windows within the tower creates a sense of even more floors than actually exists. The use of dark materials on this part of the front facade does not assist in creating a feeling of reduced scale. Staff recommends the Applicant re-examine the use of materials on this stair tower with the goal of reducing the perceived scale of the building, and creating a more human scale. Staff finds these guidelines to not be met. �18l� Figure NI: Alternative proposed stair tower,south facade Figure L:Originally proposed stair tower, south facade Architectural materials are varied on both the building's facades as well as the roofs, which are proposed as a mix of metal and green roofing. All mechanical units proposed for the roof will be grouped and screened from view. Staff finds these guidelines to be met. The roof styles, however, lack variation in profile, in that they are of flat style as opposed to the gabled roof that currently exists. The flat roofs add a greater mass to the building. Staff finds this guideline to not be met. According to the Design Guidelines the first floor should appear as the tallest floor of the building. The Applicant proposes a more pronounced front entryway that assists in creating the feeling that the first floor is the most prominent. The floor to floor heights do not meet the design guidelines of a minimum 11' for the first floor or the 9' floor to ceiling height on all 15 P16 floors, as this is a remodel and expansion project. Staff finds these guidelines to be not applicable. Architectural Materials: SIDING MATERIALS ROOFING MATERIALS The Applicant is proposing to —_ employ high quality and INNSAT STOVE VENEER STUCCO METAL ROCTT'C durable materials in this <, —:..`10RYaa AMM design. These include: • Thinset stone veneer _ �` " stucco • Wood rainscreen • CV grain vertical cedar x, F .' siding • Standing seam metal roofing • Liveroof modular green roof system I . WOOF RA>ISCRFFS CV GRA'C VERT CAL CECAR St NO LNERCCFR MOCWi GREEN ROOF SYSTEM Figure N: Proposed materials Staff finds these materials to be appropriate and to convey the quality and range of materials used in the design of the existing buildings in the character area. RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Department Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission continue the requests for Commercial Design Review, with the following recommended changes. • Redesign the trash/recycling area to meet the requirements of the Land Use Code. • Reduce the overall height of the building to the 38' that is permitted by right in this one district. • Re-examine the materials proposed on the stair tower at the building's front facade to soften the massing and create a better sense of pedestrian scale. • Incorporate Figure K as the entry and balconies over the primary entryway. RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the Planning and Zoning Commission chooses to recommend approval for the requests, they may use this motion "I move to make a recommendation to approve the request for the commercial design review for 122 E. Durant Ave."; however, Staff recommends continuation of the hearing to a date certain. 16 P17 Exhibit A Section 26.412.050 Commercial Design Review Commercial Design Review Sec. 26.412.050.Review Criteria. An application for commercial design review may be approved,approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards. Staff Response: The proposed development meets the requirements of chapter 26.412.060 of the Land Use Code. The development includes an appropriately designed public amenity space that will contribute to an attractive pedestrian atmosphere. The trash/recycling area has been redesigned to meet the standards found in the Land Use Code. The development will include signage and lighting that will respect the Suggested Design Elements, as found in chapter 26.412.070 of the Land Use Code. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards,to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the facade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. Staff Response: The proposal does not include the conversion of an existing structure to a commercial use. It exists currently as a lodge, and the additions will not change the use of the property. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. (Ord.No. 13,2007, §1) Staff Response: Staff does not believe that the proposal fully meets the Design Guidelines for the Mountain Base Character Area. A key design objective of this area is to provide a sense of human scale. The fourth floor creates the need for additional egress by way of two stair towers and one elevator tower. These towers are permitted by chapter 26.575.020 (F)(4)(c) Allowed Exceptions to Height Limitations of the Land Use Code to extend 5' above the height of the building when located on the front façade, and up to 10'above the height of the building when 1 • P18 - located at least 15'from the building's front façade. This additional height,particularly for the front stair tower, creates a linear mass that is out of character with the goal for a human scaled design. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 2 P19 Exhibit B Section 26.412.060 Commercial Design Standards Sec. 26.412.060.Commercial design standards. The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed-use development: A. Public amenity space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights- of-way or private property within commercial areas. On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. Staff Response: As the current lodge exists, there is 2,282 sf of on-site open space, representing 38% of the total parcel. This has not been officially designated as public amenity space. The Applicant has proposed a designated public amenity space of 2,202 sf, which represents 37% of the total parcel. The majority of the proposed public amenity space will be located along the Durant St façade. It will contain a bench and table seating, and will be landscaped with native vegetation. The Applicant further proposes to install a new sidewalk along the Durant St façade, continuing the existing sidewalk to the east, and ending at the property's western edge. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent rights-of-way are encouraged. Staff Response: The public amenity space is proposed to contain public seating and a table. The majority of the space will face south, which will serve to maximize solar gain, and will have a view of Shadow Mountain to the west. It will be directly accessible with an at-grade relationship to the street and proposed sidewalk extension. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of- way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. Staff Response: The Applicant proposes to landscape the public amenity space, which will receive maximum solar gain for the area, and is directly accessible by way of Durant St 3 P20 The Applicant further plans to include a bench and table seating in this space. These characteristics contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. 4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. Staff Response: The proposed amenity does not duplicate any existing pedestrian space. It is proposed as completely on-site green space with a seating area to the west side of the property. The proposed public amenity does not detract from the pedestrian environment, but rather enhances the environment by the provision of landscaping,public seating and a large buffer of green space between the building and the street. To further promote a successful pedestrian environment, the Applicant is proposing to extend the sidewalk along this property that currently exists to the east. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F.,promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. Staff Response:No variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity is sought. Staff finds this criterion to be not-applicable. B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A utility, trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated along the alley meeting the minimum standards established by Section 26.575.060, Utility/trash/recycle service areas, unless otherwise established according to said Section. Staff Response: The current trash/recycle area is located on the north side of the property, along the existing alleyway. According to the City's Environmental Health Dept staff, the existing area measures 10'x10. Chapter 26.575.060, Utility/trash/recycling service areas, of the Land Use Code requires a minimum of 15 linear feet for the trash area. Environmental Health Staff further recommends the Applicant provide at least four bins to collect recycling in addition to a dumpster for trash. Staff recommends this deficiency be remedied during the hotel's remodel. The Applicant has responded by providing an expanded trash/recycling area that measures 15'6"of linear space. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property and along the alley. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. Staff Response: The location of all utility service pedestals will remain in their current location, which is on the northwest corner of the property, along the alleyway. On July 5, 1979 a Multipurpose Easement was recorded for this purpose (B372P80, Rec# 216075) and will continue to be utilized. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4 P21 3. Delivery service areas shall be incorporated along the alley. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. Staff Response: The hotel receives laundry service bi-weekly. Delivery trucks park along the alleyway for this purpose. Staff finds this criterion to be niet. 4. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. Staff Response: All mechanical exhaust will be vented through the roof, towards the alley end of the building. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. (Ord.No. 13, 2007, §1) Staff Response: All mechanical ventilation equipment will be ducted internally within the building and ventilated through the roof The existing condensation units will remain in their current locations on the roof, recessed behind the parapet wall and not visible from the public right-of-way. Staff finds this criterion to be met. • 5 P22 Exhibit C Design Objectives of the Mountain Base Character Area Design Objectives: These are key design objectives for the Mountain Base area. The City must find that any new work will help to meet them: 1. Provide a pedestrian-friendly street edge. Staff Response: The Applicant is proposing a sidewalk extension that will enhance the pedestrian friendly street edge. The Applicant is further relocating the building's primary entrance to more directly face Durant St, and is enhancing the environment with landscaping. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Provide a sense of human scale. Staff Response: Staff is not convinced that the project provides an accurate sense of human scale. There are building requirements that are necessary to make the fourth floor possible, such as the egress of the stair towers and the elevator towers. These elements are allowed to be higher than the building's height limit by five to ten feet, depending on their proximity to the front facade of the building. In this design, the added height of these elements creates extra mass and height to the building,particularly at the stair tower located at the front façade. From the pedestrian scale, this stair tower is the most imposing element of the building's design, and feels out of scale with the pedestrian realm. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 3. Encourage pedestrian serving uses at the street level. Staff Response: The Applicant is proposing landscaping and a table with bench seating at the street level. However, this is a small lodge, with no restaurant or retail proposed for this space. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. Reflect the natural topography. Staff Response: The proposed project is a remodel of the existing building, and does not significantly alter the existing grade. The current design reflects the area's natural topography, and the remodel will do the same. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Provide interconnected pedestrian circulation system. Staff Response: The Applicant has proposed an extension of the existing sidewalk that currently concludes on the eastern edge of the subject property,to run the length of the property on the Durant St facade. This extension will improve the pedestrian environment in this district.Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6 P23 6. Maintain views to the mountain and other natural features. Staff Response: The proposed development may impact views to the north,due to the addition of the fourth floor, which has the potential to interrupt the view as seen from the upper level of the Lift One Lodge directly across the street from this development. The proposal does not interrupt any protected view planes. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 7 P24 Exhibit D Mountain Base Character Area Conceptual Review Design Guidelines 1. Street&Alley System Staff Response: The Applicant proposes to create a public sidewalk along the Durant St facade which will increase pedestrian access to the property and circulation in the neighborhood, increase pedestrian safety, and will serve as an extension of the sidewalk that currently exists along the neighboring property's front facade to the east. The Applicant further proposes a paved trail which will connect the sidewalk to the elevator tower on the property's west side. Both the sidewalk and the trail will meet ADA accessibility requirement. Stafffinds the criterion to be met. Staff finds the following criteria to be met: 4.1 Provide pedestrian ways through a property that will connect to public sidewalks and trails. 2. Parking Staff Response: The Applicant is proposing no changes to the current parking. Chapter 26.515.020 of the Land Use Code requires 0.5 spaces per lodge unit in the Lodge(L)zone district. The property currently has one single parking space on-site, located off the rear alley of the property, and nine additional parking spaces off-site, along E.Durant Ave. Counting the off-site parking spaces, there is a deficit of one parking space for the 20 lodge units. According to chapter 26.515.030, Required number of off-street parking space, of the Land Use Code, this deficit is allowed to be maintained so long as the number of lodge units does not increase. This application does not propose any increases to the number of lodge units, therefore no additional parking is required to be provided by the Applicant. Staff finds the following criterion to be met: 4.2 Minimize the visual impacts of parking. Staff finds the following criteria to be not applicable: 4.3 Structured parking access shall not have a negative impact on the character of the street. 3. Topography Staff Response: The proposed expansion of the building will have no significant impact on or changes to the site's topography. The Applicant proposes to use a natural color palette and materials that will serve to blend the development with the natural landscape. Staff finds the following criterion to be not applicable: 4.4 A building on a sloping site should be designed to reduce the perceived mass and scale and reflect the natural slope of the site. Staff finds the following criterion to be met: 4.5 Design a building to integrate with the natural landscape. 8 P25 4. Public Amenity Space Staff Response: The public amenity space is proposed to be located primarily on the south end of the property, abutting the proposed sidewalk that will be adjacent to Durant Ave, and extending to either side of the front facade. This space is proposed at grade, is accessible to the public, open to the sky, and is visible from the public way. Access is further granted by a trail that will extend from the sidewalk to the elevator on the west side of the building. Since it is located in the front yard area on the south end of the property, at the lodge's front facade, the public amenity space will receive the maximum amount of solar gain. It is proposed to include a table and seating area for public use along the property's western facade. A sidewalk extension is proposed at the E. Durant Ave. property line, which will adjoin the existing sidewalk that currently ends to east of this parcel. Staff finds the following criteria to be met. 4.6 Locate Public Amenity Space such that it is conveniently accessible. 4.7 Locate Public Amenity Space such that it is visible from the public way and takes advantage of solar potential for outdoor activities related to hotels. 4.8 Provide pedestrian ways that accommodate convenient access. 4.9 Provide Public Amenity Space which accommodates outdoor dining space adjacent or close to and directly visible from the public way. 5. Building Placement Staff Response: The majority of the building is pre-existing, and any proposed additions do not change the placement of the current structure. The building is setback 9.8'on the E. Durant Ave. facade, exceeding the required five foot front setback. The west facade meets the required five foot side setback, whereas the east facade exceeds this at 10'. The primary entrance to the lodge is oriented toward E. Durant St. The front facade is proposed to be landscaped to enhance the pedestrian environment. Staff finds the following criteria to be met: 4.10 Use setbacks to reduce building scale,enhance public access and accommodate landscaping where appropriate. 4.11 Orient a primary entrance to face the street or an area of open space adjacent to the street. 6. Building Height,Mass& Scale Staff Response: Staff does not believe that the project provides an accurate sense of human scale. There are building requirements that are necessary to make the fourth floor possible, such as the egress of the stair towers and the elevator towers. These elements are allowed to be higher than the building's height limit by five to ten feet, depending on their proximity to the front facade of the building. In this design, the added height of these elements creates extra mass and height to the building,particularly at the stair tower located at the front facade. From the pedestrian scale, this stair tower is the most imposing element of the building's design, and feels out of scale with the pedestrian realm. 9 P26 The varied roof profiles do provide variation in regard to the height of the building; however, the number of various roof types creates a very busy effect on the building's overall design. Staff does not agree that this is a successful design in this regard. The proposed design does meet the 38'height restriction as allowed for a lodge of this density within the lodge zone district; however, the design should reflect the character of the surrounding buildings in the area. The design of this building, with its fourth floor and egress elements,feels out of context with the surrounding buildings in the neighborhood. Stafffinds this criterion to not be met. Staff finds the following criteria to be met: 4.13 Incorporate varied heights of building components in a development. 4.14 Provide variation in building height and roof profile through one or more of the following: • Vary the heights for different sections of the development. • Vary the setbacks and wall planes of different building components. Staff finds the following criteria to not be met: 4.12 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Mountain Base Area. 10 P27 Exhibit E Mountain Base Character Area Final Review Design Guidelines 1. Building Design and Articulation Staff Response: The proposed building is largely dependent on the form of the existing lodge as the Applicant is maintaining many of the existing features. This includes the front stairwell on the building's front facade. Staff finds the massing of the stairwell to be helped by the solar shade panels that are affixed to the front facade, as these serve to assist in breaking up the linear mass. However, the top of the stairwell with its roofform creates additional vertical massing that adds height to the building. Height is further added by the fourth floor element with its gabled roof. The addition of the fourth floor creates the necessity for these egress towers which are allowed to project an additional amount over the height. The added height of these elements creates extra mass and height to the building,particularly at the stair tower located at the front facade. From the pedestrian scale, this stair tower is the most imposing element of the building's design, and feels out of scale with the pedestrian realm. Stafffinds this criterion to not be met. Staff finds the following criteria to not be met: 4.15 To reduce the perceived mass of a building, the design shall respect the natural setting and reflect the human scale and character of the city. 2. Street Level Character Staff Response: The Applicant has proposed to landscape the street edge area to create a visually inviting area to pedestrians, and has proposed a continuation of the existing sidewalk, which currently ends before this parcel. Any addition to this building is proposed to match the floor-to- floor height of the existing structure. The structure is not new, nor is there any retail proposed, therefore not all criteria is relevant to this review. Stafffinds the following criteria to be met: 4.16 Develop the street edge to be visually interesting to pedestrians. Staff finds the following criteria to be not applicable: 4.17 A new building should be designed to maintain the stature of traditional street level retail frontage. 4.18 Any new building shall be designed to maintain a minimum of 9 feet from floor to ceiling on all floors. 4.19 The retail entrance should be at the sidewalk level. 4.20 Incorporate an airlock entry into the plan for all new structures. 11 P28 3. Roofscape Staff Response: The proposed design includes green roofs, solar panels, and various roof styles. Variation in the roof profiles are achieved throughout the building's design. Although the criteria is met to the extent that there is variation across the width and depth of the roofscape, Stafffeels that the extreme variation in roof styles lack any relationship to one another, and create a sense of making a busy design that could be simplified with fewer roofforms. Staff finds the following criteria to be met: 4.21 The roofscape should be designed with the same design attention as the secondary elevations of the building. 4.22 Variation in roof profiles should be reflected in both the width and the depth of the roofscape of the building(s) 4. Architectural Materials Staff Response: The Applicant is proposing to employ high quality and durable materials in this design that reflect the quality and range of those found within this character area. However, Stafffeels that the proposed design incorporates too many different materials within the design, and these give the building a busy feeling. Stafffeels this could be aided by simplifying the number of different materials that are incorporated within this design. Staff finds the following criteria to be met: 4.23 High quality, durable materials should be employe& 4.24 Building materials should have these features: • Convey the quality and range of materials seen historically. • Reduce the perceived scale of the building and enhance visual interest of the façade. • Convey human scale. • Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within this climate. 5. Paving and Landscaping Staff Response: The Applicant proposes to landscape the property with native vegetation, particularly along the Durant St facade. A green buffer is proposed to be created between the on- street parking area and the sidewalk, and will between the sidewalk and the building. The Applicant further proposes to continue the existing sidewalk that currently concludes at the eastern edge of the property along the Durant St facade. A pathway will also be created from the sidewalk to the elevator on the property's western side, to provide ADA compliance. Staff finds the following criteria to be met: 4.25 Landscaping and paving should have the following characteristics: • Enhance the street scene. • Integrate the development with its setting. • Reflect the quality of the architectural materials. 4.26 Landscaping should create a buffer between the street and sidewalk. 12 •