Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20131015 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TUESDAY, October 15, 2013 REGULAR MEETING: 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. 110 W. Main, Hotel Aspen- Consolidated PUD VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. EXECUTIVE SESSION VIII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 21 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TUESDAY, October 15, 2013 REGULAR MEETING: 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. 110 W. Main, Hotel Aspen- Consolidated PUD VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. EXECUTIVE SESSION VIII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 21 "For internal Staff use only. Not for publication. Dates subject to Change" CITY AGENDAS City Council-2nd and 4th Mon. @ 5:00 PM, (Work sessions for Council @ 5 on Mondays, 4 on Tuesdays) P/Z-1St and 3`1 Tues. @ 4:30 PM, HPC-2nd & 4th Wed. @ 5:00 PM. BOA Thurs. @ 4 Week of October 6, 2013 10/15 P&Z(cD- 4:30 Notice: 9/23 Hotel Aspen, applicant presentation/introduction - SA 11/5 P&Z 0-4:30 —CANCELLED, ELECTION 11/19 P&Z 8-4:30 Notice: Hotel Aspen, Final PUD - SA P1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director RE: Hotel Aspen, 110 W. Main Street—Consolidated PUD Review, Subdivision Review and Rezoning Resolution No. 21, Series of 2013 MEETING DATE: October 15, 2013 APPLICANT/OWNER: Garmisch Lodging LLC STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The applicant is providing an introduction to the project on October 15th with a continuation date of REPRESENTATIVE: November 19th at which time Staff will present their Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. findings and recommendation. LOCATION: 110 W. Main Street, corner of Main, Garmisch and Bleeker Streets CURRENT ZONING: �- F Mixed Use along Main Street, R-6 (Medium Density Residential) along Bleeker Street, and Lodge Preservation Overlay over the entire 27,000 sf, parcel. SUMMARY: The Applicant requests approval to remodel the existing lodge, increase lodge units from 45 to 54 with an _ average unit size of 300 s£ The proposal includes 4 free market Photo: Current image of Hotel Aspen. residential units in the form of 2 duplexes, and 3 onsite affordable housing units. The requested reviews include consolidated PUD, Subdivision, and Rezoning. 110 W.Main Street—Hotel Aspen Staff Memo 10/15/13 Page 1 of 7 e� P2 NOTE: The October 15th public hearing is dedicated to an introduction of the project by the applicant. The scheduled hearing on November 191h will include a staff presentation and a draft Resolution. P&Z is not asked to make a decision on the project on the 15tH. REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals to redevelop the existing lodge: • Consolidated PUD Review (Chapter 26.445, Planned Unit Development) to establish dimensional requirements. (The Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. Council is the final review authority.) • Subdivision Review (Chapter 26.480, Subdivision) for a mixed use project to divide legal interests. (The Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. Council is the final review authority.) • Rezoning Review (Chapter 26.310, Amendment to the Official Zone District Map) to adopt the PUD and to clean up the zoning of the back portion of the lot. (The Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. Council is the final review authority.) BACKGROUND: 110 W. Main Street is a 27,000 square foot lot developed as a small lodge, Hotel } Aspen. The property spans from Main Street to Bleeker Street and encompasses a vacated alley. The south half of the r ert is located in the Main Street 0 p p Y ,. a Historic Distract and is zoned MU Mixed Use. The north half of the property is located in the West End neighborhood and is zoned R-6 Residential. It was remodeled, expanded, condominiumized - and converted from the Nugget Lodge to the Hotel Aspen in the 1980s. In 1997, the ; entire property was rezoned with the Lodge Preservation Overlay(LP). Figure 1:Zone District Map. The Lodge Preservation Overlay allows some additional development options and flexibility for Aspen's traditional small lodges, many of which have historically been located in residential neighborhoods. The overlay allows all dimensional requirements, including floor area and height, to be approved on a case by case basis through the planned unit development (PUD) process. 110 W.Main Street.—Hotel Aspen Staff Memo 10/15/13 Page 2 of 7 P3 PREVIOUS APPROVALS: Because the project is partially located within the Main Street Historic District, HPC conducted Conceptual design reviews prior to the PUD/Subdivision/Rezoning application. Recognizing that the PUD/Subdivision/Rezoning Reviews overlap with conceptual design reviews, HPC was asked to focus their review on overall issues of architecture and compatibility with the surrounding area. After PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning and GMQS approvals, HPC will hold a Final design review hearing. HPC held four public hearings on the project, continuing each time for a restudy of the height and the footprint of the free market residential units along Bleeker Street. In general, there was little concern expressed with the design of the lodge portion of the development. A major point of debate was roof forms of the free market residential units regarding both height and compatibility with the neighborhood. The hotel and the residences were all initially proposed to have flat roofs. At the March 13th meeting, Staff and HPC members suggested that incorporating gable roof forms on the residences facing Bleeker Street would be more typical of the streetscape and would go a long way in helping that aspect of the project relate to context. The applicant returned to the board on April 24th with this amendment. However, throughout the review, the members in attendance at each hearing varied and the members who attended on April 24th had not given the direction to study gable roofs. Instead, they voted in favor of the flat roofed design that was proposed on March 13th, finding that it reduced the project impact by reducing the height. The overall height with the pitched roofs was actually taller than the flat roofs. HPC granted Conceptual Commercial Design and Conceptual Major Development resolution by a vote of 4-0. As part of their vote, HPC approved the free market residential units to reach a maximum height of 32' where 28' is allowed through Commercial Design review. Due to overlapping review standards, the project size and dimensional requirements are subject to discussion in the PUD hearing. The proiect is subject to the Land Use Code in place on October 19, 2012 when the application was submitted/deemed complete for HPC review. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: The proposal before P&Z is complete demolition of all the existing structures except for a portion of the current entry lobby, and replacement with new lodge units, affordable housing and two free market multifamily buildings (in the form of 2 duplexes). The current lodge includes 45 lodge units (average size of 370 sf), a breakfast area, lobby, and 1 affordable housing unit. The proposal is for the following: 54 lodge units with an average of 300 sf net livable area, a cafe/bar area, lobby, 4 free market residential units, and 3 affordable housing units. The following is proposed for the site: • 1 lodge/affordable housing building along Main Street. 0 54 lodge units, 300 sf net livable average size, no lock-offs o Cafe/bar for lodge guests 0 3 affordable housing units: 1 studio and 2 1-bedroom units 110 W.Main Street—Hotel Aspen Staff Memo 10/15/13 Page 3 of 7 P4 • 2 free market residential duplex buildings along Bleeker Street: total of 4 multi-family residential units Subgrade parking garage accessed from the alley (west elevation) o 15 parking spaces • Public amenity area along Main Street. PUD REVIEW(EXHIBIT A): The purpose of Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation is to encourage flexibility and innovation in the development of land which: A. Promotes the purposes, goals and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan. B. Achieves a more desirable development pattern, a higher quality design and site planning, a greater variety in the type and character of development and a greater compatibility with existing and future surrounding land uses than would be possible through the strict application of the underlying zone district provisions. C. Preserves natural and man-made site features of historic, cultural or scenic value. D. Promotes more efficient use of land, public facilities and governmental services. E. Incorporates an appropriate level of public input to the planning process to ensure sensitivity to neighborhood and community goals and objectives. Through the PUD process the applicant requests approval to vary the maximum cumulative floor area for the entire site, maximum allowable floor area for the lodge use, maximum allowable floor area for the free market multi-family residential use, the free market multi-family unit size maximum, and setback requirements as described below. Floor Area analysis: The maximum cumulative floor area is calculated based on the underlying zoning — Mixed Use. The allowable lodge and affordable housing floor area is also calculated based on the underlying zoning. The allowable free market multi-family housing is calculated based on the allowances in the Lodge Zone District which provides more free market residential floor area for smaller average lodge room sizes. The average lodge room size proposed is 300 sf net livable which provides for a free market residential floor area equivalent to 60% of the total lodge unit and affordable housing net livable area. The applicant proposes 17,365 sf of net livable area for lodge and affordable housing; therefore 10,419 sf of floor area is allowed for free market multi-family residential. 110 W. Main Street—Hotel Aspen Staff Memo 10/15/13 Page 4 of 7 P5 Table 1: Floor Area analysis Floor Area Proposed Floor Area Allowable in MU/LP zone Difference districts 36,500 sf(1.35:1) 27,000 sf floor area (1:1) 9,500 sf floor area Maximum ability to increase to 33,750 over the allowable Cumulative sf floor area (1.25:1) through Special Review 23,500 sf 20,250 (0.75:1) ability to 3,250 sf floor area Lodge increase to 27,000 (1:1) over allowable through Special Review 11,000 sf 10,419 sf floor area or 60% 581 sf floor area Free Market of total net livable area for over allowable Multi-family lodge units and affordable Housing housing units (a total of 17,365 sf nla for lodge units and ah units) Affordable 2,000 sf Unlimited, but cannot exceed Housing cumulative maximum FAR Net Livable Analysis: The project proposes to utilize the Code incentive that allows smaller lodge rooms to develop more free market residential floor area to help drive the lodge redevelopment. Due to a shift in visitor base, Staff has been developing a Code amendment to provide incentive packages for lodges that incentivize larger lodge rooms with lock-offs, rather than smaller rooms. The amendment is scheduled to be presented to Council before the end of 2013. As mentioned above, the current Code allows a percentage of the lodge/affordable housing net livable area to be developed as free market multi-family housing based on average unit size. The existing lodge has an average unit size of 370 sf of net livable area. The applicant represents an average unit size of 300 sf of net livable area for the new lodge rooms. The affordable housing units meet minimum net livable area sizes for the type of unit at Category 1 or 2 level. The studio unit is 401 sf of net livable area, the two 1-bedroom units are 603 sf and 642 sf of net livable area. The free market multi-family residential units within the MU zone district have a maximum unit size cap of 2,000 sf of net livable area with the ability to increase to 2,500 sf of net livable area with a TDR. The 4 free market multi-family residential units all exceed the maximum unit size cap and require a variation through the PUD. Two units are proposed to be 3,750 sf of net livable area and two units are proposed to be 3,400 sf of net livable area. TDRs are not proposed to be landed. Setbacks: The applicant requests a reduced sideyard setback along Garmisch Street for the free market multi-family residential units. The required side yard is 5' and 0' is proposed. A front yard setback variance for the free market multi-family buildings is requested: 9'9" is proposed and 10' is required. HPC was supportive of the setback variances. 1 10 W. Main Street—Hotel Aspen Staff Memo 10/15/13 Page 5 of 7 P6 Height: HPC granted a height increase through Commercial Design Review from 28' to 32' for the free market multi-family buildings. The lodge/affordable housing building is proposed at 28'. Staff comments: Staff is supportive of the lodge redevelopment and understands that the free market residential portion of the project is needed to fund the lodge. The requested floor area increases, net livable increase, and setback reductions may be appropriate with the condition that the overall architecture and massing of the free market multi family housing is compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent landmarks. The PUD review criteria require a finding that the mass, bulk, height and architecture is compatible with the neighborhood and with surrounding historic landmarks. HPC held 4 public hearings to discuss the mass of the free market residential buildings (they did not have purview over the proposed floor area numbers for the project) and ultimately decided to support the project on a conceptual design level. In respect to HPC's design approval, the Staff discussion is focused on the proposed variations from the zoning rather than the bulk and mass of the project which was approved by HPC. Staff does still believe this issue needs more discussion. P&Z and City Council are asked to make a finding that the architecture, mass and scale are compatible with the neighborhood in accordance with the PUD review criteria. The proposed floor area for the entire site is significantly over the allowable floor area which creates challenges regarding compatibility with the neighborhood. The free market residential unit sizes (two units at 3,750 sf and two units at 3,400 sf), which are not required or proposed to be short-term rentals, are significantly over maximum cap of 2,000 square feet of net livable area allowed in the zone district. Staff cannot support this variation and suggest this item be discussed further. Landing TDRs on the site and possibly adding more free market residential units to reduce the proposed unit sizes are possibilities to bring the free market units into closer compliance with Code. The applicant is proposing 300 sf average lodge rooms for the development. The current Code incentivizes smaller lodge rooms by allowing more free market residential; however Staff has been working with the community, review boards, and consultants to update the lodge regulations. All of the information gathered to date concludes that the visitor base desires larger, more flexible lodge rooms. Staff understands the code-driven parameters for small lodge room. Staff suggests that the applicant speak to the market for 300 sf lodge rooms during the public hearings. SUBDIVISION: The applicant requests subdivision, which is required for mixed-use project with multiple residential units. Exhibit B addresses the review criteria. Staff comment: In Staff's opinion the review criteria are generally met. 110 W. Main Street—Hotel Aspen Staff Memo 10/15/13 Page 6 of 7 P7 REZONING: The project requires rezoning to adopt the PUD and Staff suggests that the entire property be rezoned to Mixed Use Zone District with the Lodge Preservation overlay to simplify the underlying zoning by removing the R-6 designation. Exhibit C addresses the review criteria. Staff comment: Rezoning the entire parcel to Mixed Use/Lodge Preservation Overlay, does not significantly impact the allowed uses on the parcel. Staff finds that the review criteria are met to rezone the parcel to Mixed Use/Lodge Preservation Overlay. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that P&Z continue the project to November 19, 2013 at which time Staff will present their findings and recommendation. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to continue the public hearing for 110 W. Main Street to November 19, 2013. Attachments: Exhibit A— Staff Findings, PUD Review Criteria Exhibit B — Staff Findings, Subdivision Review Criteria Exhibit C — Staff Findings, Rezoning Review Criteria Exhibit D—Development Review Committee Comments Exhibit E—Application 1 10 W. Main Street—Hotel Aspen Staff Memo 10/15/13 Page 7 of 7 P8 Exhibit A—PUD Review Criteria Sec. 26.445.040.General provisions.The following provisions shall apply to all property designated with a PUD Overlay on the Official Zone District Map unless otherwise provided pursuant to an adopted final PUD development plan for the property. A. Uses: The land uses permitted in a PUD shall be limited to those allowed in the underlying zone district in which the property is located. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi- family dwelling units shall only be allowed when permitted by the underlying zone district. The proposes uses - Lodge, Affordable Housing, and Multi-family Residential - are permitted in the underlying zone districts (Mixed Use and R-6) and the Lodge Preservation (LP) overlay. Free market multi-family housing is not a permitted use in the R-6 Zone District; however the LP overlay allows multi-family uses to be established. The free market multi- family housing is in the form of two duplexes, which is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood which allows duplex development. B. Density: Unless otherwise established pursuant to a final PUD Development Plan, the maximum aggregate density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district, considering the inclusions and exclusions of Lot Area, as defined and the mandatory density reduction for steep slopes as described below. The proposed density is no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone districts. C. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall be established with the adoption of a final PUD development plan. The underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimension for each provision. The final development plan shall clearly define all dimensional requirements for each lot within the PUD. In the absence of a final development plan, a single detached or duplex residential dwelling, if listed as a permitted use in the underlying zoning, may be developed in conformance with the provisions of the underlying Zone District. Exhibit A—PUD Review Criteria Hotel Aspen-110 W.Main Street 10/15/13 Page 1 of 15 P9 Table 1: Dimensional Requirements Proposed dimensions Allowable dimensions in MU and LP zone districts Minimum lot size 27,000 Minimum lot area per n/a n/a dwelling unit Maximum allowable density n/a n/a Minimum lot width 110' 30' Minimum front yard(Main 10' 10' Street) - lodge Minimum front yard(Bleeker 9' 9" 10' Street)—multi-family residential Minimum side yard 5 5' (Garmisch) - lodge Minimum side yard 0' 5' (Garmisch)—multifamily residential Minimum rear yard n/a The property spans 5' between two streets and does not necessarily have a rear yard. In Staff's opinion the property is delineated by use so there are two front yards — one for lodge, and one for multi-family residential. Maximum site coverage 87% n/a Maximum height-lodge 28' 28' may be increased to 32' Maximum height—multi- 32' 28' may be increased to 32' family residential Maximum distance between 16' between affordable 10' buildings—lodge and housing/lodge and multi- multifamily residential family residential Maximum distance between 12' 9" 10' buildings—multifamily residential Minimum percent open space 15% or 4,030 sf- reduction of 18% - 4,857 sf required public public amenity approved by -amenity - HPC via Resolution #14, Series of 2013 Trash access area 10' d x 15'3" w (open to the 10'd x 10' w x 10' h sky) Cumulative Allowable Floor 36,500 sf(1.35:1) 27,000 sf(1:1) with the ability Area to increase to 33,750 (1.25:1) through Special Review Exhibit A—PUD Review Criteria Hotel Aspen—110 W.Main Street 10/15/13 Page 2 of 15 NO Maximum multi-family 11,000 sf 10,419 sf [60% of total net residential floor area livable area for lodge units and affordable housing units (17,365 sf nla * 60%)] Maximum net livable area for Unit 1: 3,750 sf nla 2,000 sf maximum net livable multi-family residential Unit 2: 3,400 sf nla area (nla) per unit, ability to dwelling unit size Unit 3: 3,400 sf nla increase to 2,500 sf nla by Unit 4: 3,750 sf nla landing a TDR Maximum lodge floor area 23,500 sf 20,250 sf (.75:1) with ability to increase to 27,000 (1:1) through Special Review Maximum affordable housing 2,000 sf n/a floor area Minimum off-street parking 15 subgrade parking spaces 11.5 spaces for new spaces development 26.445.050. Review standards: conceptual,final, consolidated and minor PUD. A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be compatible with the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of density, height, bulk, and architecture, as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan. The applicant proposes a mixed use project including lodge, free market residential and affordable housing uses. The property spans between two zone districts — Mixed Use Zone/Main Street Historic District and the R-6 Medium Density Residential Zone District. The development on this site is challenging because each zone district has a different neighborhood context with more commercial/lodge structures on Main Street and primarily single family/duplex residence along Bleeker Street. The project includes complete demolition of all the existing structures except for a portion of the current entry lobby, and replacement with new lodge units, affordable housing and two duplex structures. The HPC reviewed the project and granted conceptual design approvals after 4 public hearings. The requested variations are outlined in Table 2 below. Staff is supportive of the lodge development and finds that it is compatible with the mix of uses and architecture along the Main Street corridor. The proposed Hotel Aspen remodel is compatible with the height, mass and architecture of the Molly Gibson, Innsbruck Inn and Annabelle Inn which are all in close proximity to the project site. Exhibit A—PUD Review Criteria Hotel Aspen— 110 W.Main Street 10/15/13 Page 3 of 15 P11 Within the Planning Staff, there is remaining concern with the size free market residences which significantly exceed the unit size cap of 2,000 sf of net livable area. While necessary to enable the small lodge accommodations to be revitalized, the free market residential buildings impose some impacts on Bleeker Street neighbors. These concerns were voiced by Staff and HPC resulting in many revised roof forms and building setbacks along Bleeker through the HPC process. P&Z and Council have the ability to set the dimensional allowances of the proposal based on site specific and program specific considerations through the PUD process. If that were not the case, the Hotel Aspen proposal would not be allowed because the development along Bleeker Street represents approximately 3,000 square feet of floor area above and beyond what would be typical of an equivalent lot area in the West End. Approximately 2/3rds of the Hotel Aspen site is devoted to hotel rooms, affordable housing and amenities. Fitting the desired residential square footage in the remaining property is causing the project to creep into the traditional setback areas on the east, and up in height. The applicant proposes, and HPC approved, a height of 32 feed and flat roof buildings for the residential buildings, and a height of 28 feet for the lodge buildings. P&Z is asked to make a finding that the project is compatible with the neighborhood. Staff recommends that the applicant continue to develop the free market residential units to better relate to the neighborhood context. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. The proposal is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. The Main Street Historic District includes lodges, commercial and residential uses. There is multi-family housing across Garmisch Street, single family homes on the adjacent parcels along Bleeker Street, and commercial and lodging uses along Main Street. The one story Yellow Brick building is located across Bleeker Street. The proposed lodge and residential uses are consistent with the surrounding area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. The uses are consistent with underlying zoning and the neighborhood. A lodge and affordable housing already exist on the parcel. The free market multi-family units are consistent with the neighborhood. Future development of the surrounding area should not be adversely affected by the proposed project. Staff finds this criteria to be met. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate. the proposed development and will be considered prior to or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. The Mixed Use Zone District(MU)allows a height increase from 28—32 feet for mixed use properties through conceptual commercial design review. Residential properties within the MU District are restricted to 25 feet. The R- 6 Zone District allows a 25 feet height limit. Exhibit A—PUD Review Criteria Hotel Aspen— 110 W.Main Street 10/15/13 Page 4 of 15 P12 The project requests consolidated PUD review. GMQS review shall occur after PUD review is granted. At this time, GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development. The applicant proposes to mitigate for affordable housing onsite and through either cash-in-lieu or housing credits for the remainder of the housing requirement. The quality and configuration of the units shall be discussed during GMQS review for the development of affordable housing. B. Establishment of dimensional requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying Zone District shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking and historical resources. The proposed dimensional requirements are consistent with the underlying Mixed Use Zone District with the exception of maximum cumulative FAR, maximum Floor Area for lodge use, maximum Floor Area for free market multi-family residential use, and maximum unit size cap for free market residential units as outlined below. (Please refer to Table 1 for all dimensions of the project). Exhibit A—PUD Review Criteria Hotel Aspen— 110 W.Main Street 10/15/13 Page 5 of 15 P13 Table 2: Requested variations Requested Allowable in MU/LP zone Difference variance districts 36,500 sf 27,000 sf floor area(1:1) ability 9,500 sf floor Maximum Cumulative Floor (1.35:1) to increase to 33,750 sf floor area over the Area area (1.25:1) through Special allowable Review 23,500 sf 20,250 (0.75:1) ability to 3,250 sf floor Maximum Lodge Floor Area increase to 27,000 (1:1) area over through Special Review allowable 11,000 sf 10,419 sf floor area or 60% of 581 sf floor Maximum Free Market Multi- total net livable area for lodge area over family Housing Floor Area units and affordable housing allowable units (a total of 17,365 sf nla for lodge units and ah units) Unit 1: 3,750 2,000 sf maximum net livable Between 1,400 Maximum net livable unit size Unit 2: 3,400 area (nla) per unit, ability to and 1,750 sf cap for Free Market Multi- Unit 3: 3,400 increase to 2,500 sf nla by over the family Housing Unit 4: 3,750 landing a TDR allowable without a TDR Side yard Setback(Garmisch St.) 0' 5' 5' Front yard Setback(Bleeker St.) 9'9" 10' 3" There are no known natural or man-made hazards on the site. The property is flat and already developed. The proposal includes increasing lodge units from 45 to 54 and removing the on-street parking spaces. A subgrade parking garage is proposed to have 15 parking spaces that will serve the lodge, affordable housing, and free market residential units. The applicant proposes to have a guest courtesy van and a bike fleet to serve guests. The property is located adjacent to a bus stop, a Wecycle station, and a car-to-go station. Staff finds that the proposed dimensional requirements are appropriate and compatible with the man- made characteristics of the property such as noise, traffic, transit, parking due to the location of the project to transportation options and to downtown Aspen. The project does not contain any historic resource. Historic landmarks are located adjacent to the property, and it is partially located within the Historic District. HPC has conceptually approved the project. Staff recommends that the applicant continue to develop the free market residential units to better relate to the adjacent landmarks. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. HPC reduced the amount of public amenity space required on the site during their Conceptual review of the project: 4,857 square feet is required and 4,030 square feet is Exhibit A—PUD Review Criteria Hotel Aspen—110 W.Main Street 10/15/13 Page 6 of 15 P14 proposed (a reduction of 18% to 15%). The public amenity space is provided along Main Street in the form of a little seating area accessed from the hotel cafe. The proposed amenity space is much more organized and planned than what currently exists today. There is a slight increase to the existing site coverage proposed: 82% existing to 87% proposed. Overall, Staff finds that the proposed open space is appropriate for the proposed PUD and the neighborhood. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any nonresidential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the City. The Land Use Code permits a redevelopment to maintain an existing deficit of parking. Currently, there are no parking spaces for the Hotel which equals a deficit of 22.5 spaces for the lodge (.5 spaces/lodge unit) and a deficit of 1 space for the affordable housing unit. The applicant proposes a subgrade parking garage with 15 parking spaces. The new proposed development requires a total of 11.5 parking spaces: 7 spaces for the residential portion(3 for AH and 4 for FM) and 4.5 for the lodge portion (9 new lodge units * .5 spaces). The application meets the required number of parking spaces according to the Code. The Engineering Department prefers to convert the head-in parking to parallel parking along Garmisch Street, which will increase safety along the street and decrease parking spaces that are currently used mainly by the Hotel. The applicant proposes to have a guest courtesy van and a bike-fleet to serve lodge guests. The property is located adjacent to a bus stop, a Wecycle station, and a car-to-go station. Staff is supportive of the proposed parking due to the other available transit options. Staff recommends that 3 parking spaces be reserved for the Affordable Housing Units and 4 spaces be reserved for the Free Market Residential Units (1 space/unit) to ensure that the residential portion of the project is parked onsite. Staff finds the criteria above to be met. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance to the proposed development. Exhibit A—PUD Review Criteria Hotel Aspen— 110 W.Main Street 10/15/13 Page 7 of 15 P15 Sufficient infrastructure capabilities and roads exist on the site, which is already developed with a lodge. The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) requires that the existing District owned main sanitary sewer line that runs through the middle of Block 58 be relocated by the applicant. The applicant agrees to this condition. ACSD comments on the flows of the project include: "where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line)." These issues are included as conditions of approval for the project. Staff finds that the criteria are met. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if.• a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mudflow, rockfalls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. The maximum allowable density is not proposed to be reduced. The land is already developed with a lodge. There are no natural hazards or natural site features on the property. Staff finds the criteria are met. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if a) The increase in density serves one or more adopted goals of the community as expressed in an applicable adopted regulatory master plan. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those characteristics mitigated. Exhibit A—PUD Review Criteria Hotel Aspen— 110 W.Main Street 10/15/13 Page 8 of 15 P16 c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics. Notes: a) Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher or lower rate than specified in the underlying Zone District as long as, on average, the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density provisions of the respective Zone District or as otherwise established as the maximum allowable density pursuant to a final PUD Development Plan. b) The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are required to be reflected in the final PUD development plans. The applicant does not propose an increase to the maximum allowable density in the underlying zone district. C. Site design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Preservation of Aspen's small lodging base is very important to the community and to town's identity. The applicant proposes to maintain and to update the lodge. Half of the property is located within the Historic District and as such is reviewed by the HPC for compliance with historic preservation design guidelines. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. No significant open spaces or vistas exist on the site which requires the clustering of structures. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. The structures are located perpendicular to public streets to contribute to the residential and mixed use context of the adjacent neighborhoods. Staff recommends the applicant look into increasing setback for the free market residential buildings to better contribute to the neighborhood context as discussed below. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Exhibit A—PUD Review Criteria Hotel Aspen— 110 W. Main Street 10/15/13 Page 9 of 15 P17 The project shall meet Fire and Building Codes. Staff finds that this criterion is met. S. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. The project shall meet Building Codes regarding accessibility. Elevators and ADA lodging rooms are proposed. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. The property shall meet the requirements of the Urban Run-off Management Plan. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 7. For nonresidential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. The lodge buildings are designed to accommodate the lodge function, similar to the current configuration. Staff finds that this criterion is met. D. Landscape plan. The purpose of this standard,is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the City, with surrounding parcels and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well-designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. HPC will review the landscape plan in detail during Final Commercial Design Review. The proposed plan includes enhanced street plantings along Garmisch Street, new sidewalks along both Garmisch and Main Streets,-and a patio/cafe area along Main Street. The project is required to meet Parks Department requirements for protection of existing vegetation and for new plantings in the right of way. Staff finds the criteria are met. E. Architectural character. 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. Exhibit A—PUD Review Criteria Hotel Aspen— 110 W.Main Street 10/15/13 µ Page 10 of 15 P18 The map below shows adjacent historic resources in white shading and the star indicates the subject property. Al Figure 1:Map of adjacent historic resources. on of the project is appropriate for Main Street, where the Staff finds that the lodge porti context supports a flat roof and the proposed massing. A third of the overall floor area is proposed in the form of the free market residential units along Bleeker Street. The large unit sizes and allowable floor area create a challenge regarding compatibility with the neighborhood and surrounding historic landmarks (landmarks along Bleeker Street are shown below). Staff and HPC struggled with how the amount of proposed floor area fit into the context without compromising the lodge redevelopment and without adverse impacts to the neighborhood. Exhibit A—PUD Review Criteria Hotel Aspen—110 W.Main Street 10/15/13 Page 11 of 15 P19 i 3 , i � lllil � i �� f , Photos (clockwise from top left): 2 story t'. Victorian directly adjacent to Hotel Aspen property; Victorian on the corner of Bleeker and First Streets; Victorian located between the top two photos. 'l 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. The applicant proposes to update the existing mechanical system and has not provided specific details as to how this will occur. Metal sun shades are proposed on the lodge to increase energy efficiency. There are no large eave overhangs or other natural heating/cooling measures represented in the application for the southern elevation of the free market residential units or the affordable housing units. Exhibit A—PUD Review Criteria Hotel Aspen— 110 W.Main Street 10/15/13 Page 12 of 15 P20 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. The applicant represents that snow shedding and storage will be accommodated in a safe and appropriate manner. The flat roof buildings will retain most of the snow load throughout the winter and pathways are proposed to have a snowmelt system. The applicant does not expect a large amount of snow removal on the property due to the flat roof buildings. 4. Emphasize quality construction and design characteristics, such as exterior materials, weathering, snow shedding and storage, and energy efficiency. The applicant proposes high quality materials including wood, stone, metal and glass. Materials will be reviewed by HPC during Final Design review for compatibility with the Historic District and compliance with the Commercial Design Standards. Generally,. staff finds that the criterion is met. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both Public Safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner.. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. The applicant represents that the lighting will meet all applicable lighting standards in the Municipal Code. A lighting plan is not included in the application and will be subject to HPC Final design review after PUD approval is granted. G. Common park, open space or recreation area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location and design of the common park, open space or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property,provides visual relief to the property's built form and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number.of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. ,I Exhibit A—PUD Review Criteria Hotel Aspen—110 W.Main Street 10/15/13 Page 13 of 15 I P21 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial or industrial development. A common park, open space or recreation area is not proposed for this development. H. Utilities and public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Referral departments represent that adequate facilities exist or need to be improved upon by the developer to accommodate the development, as described in the DRC comments attached to the staff memo. Staff finds the criteria are met. I. Access and circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way or other area dedicated to public or private use. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. 4. The recommendations of adopted specific regulatory master plans, as applicable, regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. Exhibit A—PUD Review Criteria Hotel Aspen— 110 W.Main Street 10/15/13 Page 14 of 15 P22 6. Security gates, guard posts or other entryway expressions for the PUD or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. The buildings are located with adequate access to public streets. The development proposes a minor change in density to the existing lodge. The applicant represents that the project will have a minimal impact on traffic patterns. The Engineering and Parking Departments recommend that the existing head-in parking along Garmisch be converted back to parallel parking for safety reasons and for consistency in the neighborhood. Staff finds the criteria are met. J. Phasing of development plan. (does not apply to conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. The applicant represents that they will construct this project in one phase. Exhibit A—PUD Review Criteria Hotel Aspen— 110 W.Main Street 10/15/13 Page 15 of 15 P23 Exhibit B - Subdivision Review Criteria 26.480.050. Review standards. A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: A. General requirements. 1. The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space, as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan. Please refer to Exhibit A—PUD Review Criteria. 2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. The proposal is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. The Main Street Historic District includes lodges, commercial and residential uses. The character of Bleeker Street is a mix of residential and public uses. The proposed lodge and residential uses are appropriate. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. The proposal shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. The uses are consistent with underlying zoning and the neighborhood. 4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. The proposed subdivision is in compliance with the requirements of the Land Use Code. B. Suitability of land for subdivision. 1. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. Exhibit B—Subdivision Review Criteria Hotel Aspen— 110 W.Main Street 10/15/13 Page 1 of 3 P24 2. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. The proposed subdivision meets the requirements for land suitability. The property is already developed with a lodge and it located in downtown Aspen. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with an applicable adopted regulatory plan, Title 28, the municipal code, the existing, neighboring development areas andlor the goals of the community. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. The proposed subdivision meets the review criteria above. Simultaneously with Subdivision Review, the applicant is applying for a PUD review to vary the FAR and setback requirement for the project. C. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Section 26.470.070.5, Demolition or redevelopment of multi family housing. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26470, Growth Management Quota System. The project is required to apply for Growth Management review and allotments for the new lodge units, free market residential units, and the affordable housing units. The applicant proposes three onsite units and cash in lieu payment for the remaining mitigation requirement. Growth Management Review shall occur after PUD approval is granted. The applicant is required to submit the GMQS application on either Feb. 15th or Aug. 15th. Receipt of GMQS allotments and approvals is included as a condition of approval in the draft Resolution. Failure to receive growth management shall void the PUD/Subdivision/Rezoning approval. D. School land dedication. Compliance with the School land dedication standards set forth at Chapter 26.620. Exhibit B—Subdivision Review Criteria Hotel Aspen— 110 W. Main Street 10/15/13 Page 2 of 3 P25 The applicant is required to pay School Land Dedication fee prior to issuance of a building permit. The fee is calculated based on the Land Use Code in place at the time of building permit submittal. F. Growth management approval Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH-PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. The project is required to apply for Growth Management review and allotments for the new lodge units, free market residential units, and the affordable housing units. The applicant proposes three onsite units and cash in lieu payment for the remaining mitigation requirement. Growth Management Review shall occur after PUD approval is granted. The applicant is required to submit the GMQS application on either Feb. 15th or Aug. 15th. Receipt of GMQS allotments and approvals is included as a condition of approval in the draft Resolution. Failure to receive growth management shall void the PUD/Subdivision/Rezoning approval. Exhibit B—Subdivision Review Criteria Hotel Aspen—110 W.Main Street 10/15/13 Page 3 of 3 P26 Exhibit C—Rezoning 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. The adoption of a planned unit development (PUD) requires a rezoning of the property. In addition, Community Development recommends that the R-6 Zone District portion of the property be rezoned to Mixed Use (MU) to provide one underlying zone district for the entire property. Changing the back portion of the property to MU does not change the allowable uses due to the Lodge Preservation Overlay designation over the entire property, which Staff proposes remain in place. The PUD dictates the dimensional requirements for the project. Removing the R-6 zone district simplifies the application of the underlying zoning to the parcel. o":--J PUB B- ,s' en+ aaa } r _tit it •. ot0 na t 124 "° ' ^_• lys k. MU h' U - r U .>: 2106 J R_G j P ° R.6 i R-8 Figure 1:Current zone district map.Arrow indicates subject property. Exhibit C—Rezoning Review Criteria Hotel Aspen— 110 W.Main Street 10/15/13 Page 1 of 2 P27 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. Exhibit A — PUD Review Criteria addresses impacts of the project on public facilities. Adopting a PUD and MU zoning for the entire parcel does not result in demands that exceed the maximum capacity of public facilities. The applicant agrees to update aging facilities and to relocate an existing sewer line as part of the project. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the Parks Development Impact fee and the Transportation Demand Management Impact fee which mitigate impacts on parks and transit. Fee waivers are subject to Council review. C. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. The proposed rezoning does not have any adverse impacts on the natural environment. 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. The proposed rezoning is consistent with community character and in harmony with the public interest. It provides flexibility for the redevelopment of a lodge which is a community goal. Staff finds this criterion is met. Exhibit C—Rezoning Review Criteria Hotel Aspen— 110 W.Main Street 10/15/13 Page 2 of 2 P28 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE COMMENTS Environmental Health After reviewing the proposed plans for 101 West Main Street — Hotel Aspen, Environmental Health requests the plans be changed to ensure the trash and recycling area measure, at the minimum, ten by twenty feet to meet Section 26.575.060 of the City of Aspen code. The current plans show a proposed trash and recycling area that measures approximately 15 feet by 10 feet. Separate from the City of Aspen code, the Environmental Health Department encourages the applicant to consider that best practices in waste management show the minimum space requirement for trash and recycling will not be large enough to handle the proposed size of the Hotel Aspen development. City staff strongly recommends the area be increased greatly in size to accommodate the bins listed below or that the applicant consider making space for a secondary trash and recycling collection area in another area of the development. This would create easier access for all users in all sections of the development. A development of this size will require the following bins in order to properly collect waste - One (1) 6-10 yard trash container or two (2) four yard containers - Three to four (3-4) toters for comingled recycling - One (1) toter for office paper recycling - Two (2) toters for newspaper and magazines - One.(1) 6 yard bin for cardboard collection or a 4 yard container with area to stack extra - Space to grow to include one (1) 4 yard compost collection bin to further reduce trash generation and costs Water The development seems pretty conceptual at this point, Water requests individual taps to individual buildings, and location for a transformer w/ associated easement on their property. Parks Landscaping within the Public Right of WU: Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW requirements, Chapter 21.20. There shall be no plantings within the City ROW which are not approved'by the City Parks Department and the Engineering Department. Where space permits, the applicant should recommend a tree species based on the trees recommended in the City of Aspen Arbor guide. The Parks Department will work with the applicant on the final approved tree species. Irrigation will be required with a specific planting medium appropriate for tree growth. Tree Permit: Per City Code 13.20 an approved tree permit will be required before any tree is removed or impacted under the drip line of the tree. Parks is requesting that the tree removal permit be approved prior to approval of building permits. If a permit is necessary, contact the Parks Department at 920-5120 or download the permit at www.aspenpitkin.com on the Natural P29 Resource page, click on the tree permit tab. Mitigation for removals will be paid cash in lieu or as an on-site planting per City Code 13.20. Parks will approve a final landscape plan during the review of the tree removal permit based on the landscape estimates. Impact Fees: The Parks Department does not support the applicant's position to request a waiver for Park Impact Fees. The development includes improvements to the City's right of way and an increase in lodging and free market space. Both of which will add impacts to public park space requiring additional financial and maintenance responsibilities. Zoning It is difficult to review the project to without underlying zoning or an approved PUD. The dimensional standards are as of yet unknown;for example, the allowable floor area, the height, setbacks. It is not accurate to list the residential component as `duplex' they are multi-family units. Transportation The Transportation Department Staff offers the following comments/questions regarding this application: REGULATORY COMMENTS: 1. The project will provide TDM/Air Quality Fees as required by the Land Use Code, Section 26.610.090 Current Impact Fees. Fees are estimated at $6,713.66. PROJECT COMMENTS: 1. The outbound Main Street bus lane may not be impacted by the project's construction and/or parking requirements. 2. The adjacent bus stop may not be impacted by the project's construction. QUESTIONS: 1. Has a trip generation for this project been determined? 2. Will a traffic generation study and TDM plan be completed as part of this project? 3. Will a guest courtesy van continue to be provided by the applicant? 4. Are any changes proposed to parking on Main Street, Garmisch Street, or Bleeker Street? P30 Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District The applicant for this proposed development would have to commit to relocating the existing District owned main sanitary sewer line, which currently runs through the middle of Block 58. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. Elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line). A "Line Extension Request" and a "Collection System Agreement" are required for this application. Both are ACSD Board of Director's action items. P31 The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed building and utility plans are available. Fire Department This project shall meet all of the codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District. This includes but is not limited to Fire Department Access (International Fire Code 2009 Edition Section 503), and the installation of approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC 2009 Sections 903 and 907 as amended). P32 Date: January 17, 2013 Project: 110 W Main City of Aspen Engineering Department DRC Comments These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project packet submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting. Drainage: General note: The design for the site must meet the Urban Runoff Management Plan Requirements. Staff was not able to determine whether or not the site will meet these requirements. A full review will be completed when adequate information is provided. A compliant drainage plan must be submitted with a building permit application. This includes detaining and providing water quality for the entire site. If the site chooses fee- in-lieu of detention (FIL), it can only be applied to existing impervious areas. All new impervious areas will need to discharge at historic rates. Staff was unable to determine whether or not the site is able to meet all the Drainage Principals: 1.Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. 2.Use the entire site when planning for stormwater quality treatment. 3.Avoid unnecessary impervious area. 4.Reduce runoff rates and volumes to more closely match natural conditions. 5.Integrate stormwater quality management and flood control. 6.Develop stormwater quality facilities that enhance the site, the community, and the environment. 7.Use a treatment train approach. 8.Design sustainable facilities that can be safely maintained. 9. Design and maintain facilities with public safety in mind. Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter: General note: All sidewalk, curb and gutter must meet the Engineering Standards as outlined in Title 21. A number of issues should be examined. This includes the following: 1. Curb and Gutter: a. Curb and gutter along Main Street should be replaced. b. Curb and gutter along Garmisch Street may require replacement. c. Curb and gutter along Bleeker Street may require replacement. 2. Sidewalks: a. In general, the sidewalks are in good condition. The maximum tolerance for vertical displacement is 1/4 inch. Damaged sidewalks exceeding this tolerance should be replaced. b. The sidewalk parallel to Bleeker Street should be extended to the P33 property line. 3. Sidewalk Ramps: a. The ramp parallel to Garmisch Street located at the northeast corner of the property should be realigned to match the ramp located across Bleeker Street. b. A ramp should be added at the southeast corner of the property to enable access across Main Street. c. All ramps should be upgraded to meet current standards. By way of example, detectable warning pads should be added to the ramps. Construction Management—Engineering is concerned about the Construction Impacts of this site. The plan shall describe mitigation for: parking, staging/encroachments, and truck traffic. Note that the current code does not allow for any encroachments during the on-seasons (November 1 —April 15 and June l - Labor Day). Excavation Stabilization —Due to the proximity of the neighboring property and the excavation of the building the City will require an excavation stabilization plan prior to building permit submittal. Fee in Lieu—This project is considered a Major project and can opt to pay the Fee in Lieu for a portion of the detention requirements. Please refer to Section 2.12.140 of the Municipal Code. t STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES INC landscape architecture planning resort design 412 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 t.970/925.2323 f.970/92o-1628 info@scaplanning.com www.scaplanning.com 27 February 2013 Mr.Tom Bracewell, Line Superintendent Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District 565 North Mill Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Hotel Aspen / Proposed Sewer Relocation Dear Tom: On behalf of our clients, Garmisch Lodging LLC, this letter will serve to confirm our understanding concerning the required relocation of the sewer line which currently passes under the Hotel Aspen property and along the former alignment of the Townsite Block 58 Alley. The sanitary sewer line will need to be relocated to accommodate the expanded subgrade area as part of the proposed redevelopment of the Hotel Aspen. You have been in contact with this office,and we have discussed the particulars of the possible relocation, including preferred alignments of the relocated line and the estimated cost to perform the work. We have discussed these issues with our clients. They have confirmed that, following approval and in connection with any redevelopment of the Hotel Aspen affecting or disrupting the existing sanitary sewer, the line will be relocated at their expense and in a manner which generally conforms to our discussions and is acceptable to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. I I am copying Amy Guthrie at the City of Aspen to indicate that this issue has been acknowledged for purposes of the land use approval process. Please call me with any I questions. j Very truly yours, I I Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA i Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. I Cc: Michael Brown, Garmisch Lodging LLC Amy Guthrie, City of Aspen I P35 Sara Adams From: Stan Clauson <stan @scaplanning.com> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 3:03 PM To: Patrick Rawley Subject: FW: Hotel Aspen - Enlarged Trash/Recycling/Utility Plan Attachments: 22013-00_HotelAspen_TrashPlan20130221.pdf Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES INC From: Ashley Perl [ma i Ito:Ashley.Perl(&cityofaspen.com] Sent: 27 February 2013 14:45 To: Amy Guthrie Cc: Stan Clauson Subject: FW: Hotel Aspen - Enlarged Trash/Recycling/Utility Plan Hi Amy, I just spoke to Stan regarding the trash area for the Hotel Aspen. Even though the proposed trash area is smaller than what is required in the code, I believe we can make it work given that one of two conditions is met.Those conditions are as follows: Option 1–The transformer is either not required or is located somewhere else on the property, not inside the trash enclosure Option 2–The transformer remains where it is but the Hotel Aspen agrees to not use a trash compactor(a permanent structure) and instead uses a 2 yard trash bin (moveable), leaving more room for recycle bins. The reason for this, as I explained to Stan, is that a lodge like the Hotel Aspen should have, at the minimum,four recycle bins. As it's currently drawn, there is only space for two bins. Please let me know if you need more information. Thank You, Ashley (970)429-179$ From: Stan Clauson [ma ilto:stan2sca plan ning.com] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 2:54 PM To: Ashley Perl Cc: Patrick Rawley; Kim Weil (kweil(&billposs.com) Subject: FW: Hotel Aspen - Enlarged Trash/Recycling/Utility Plan Hi Ashley— Could you please review this drawing as part of a request for a somewhat reduced trash enclosure area. This request is based on the intended re-use of an existing trash compactor by the Hotel Aspen and its associated proposed residential development. I'd be happy to meet with you at your earliest convenience, if you think that would be helpful. In the end, we would like to provide confirmation to Amy Guthrie as to the acceptability of the proposed trash area. We are showing a possible transformer location as well, although at this stage of the planning process,there is no confirmation that an additional transformer will be required. Thanks, Stan 1 P36 Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES INC From: Patrick Rawley Sent: 21 February 2013 14:29 To: Stan Clauson Subject: FW: Hotel Aspen - Enlarged Trash/Recycling/Utility Plan From: Sean Houghton [mailto:shoughton @billposs.com] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 14:28 To: Patrick Rawley Cc: Kim Weil Subject: Hotel Aspen - Enlarged Trash/Recycling/Utility Plan Patrick, Attached is a plan showing how the various required (or possibly required) components would fit into the trash enclosure. Best, Sean posy 97" 92t II 1302 IF t..; :.ce.;r d tl"r;e: E m f r .P le a i. s ...:;r, Please note my new cityofaspen.com email address and update your records accordingly. My old ci.aspen.co.us address will be expiring soon. 2 P37 MEMORANDUM TO: Sara Adams, Community Development Department FROM: APCHA Board of Directors THRU: Tom McCabe, APCHA Executive Director Cindy Christensen,APCHA Operations Manager DATE: October 3, 2013 RE: Redevelopment of 110 West Main Street(Hotel Aspen) ISSUE: The applicant is seeking approval for the redevelopment of the Hotel Aspen property located at 110 West Main Street. BACKGROUND: The proposed project would reconfigure most of the existing lodge units to an average size of 292 square feet, along with the construction of two duplex units (four new free- market residential units). The addition of small lodge units is a goal of the Aspen Area Community Plan as well as a priority of City Council. The project will increase the number of lodge rooms from 45 units to 54 units, as well as provide 4 new free-market residential units, organized as two duplexes. The Hotel Aspen currently contains a Category 2 two-bedroom deed- restricted unit, mitigating for 2.25 FTE's. The redevelopment of the project will eliminate the existing two-bedroom unit. The redevelopment is proposed to include three affordable housing units— 1 studio and 2 one-bedroom units, providing mitigation for 4.75 FTE's; therefore, the new units would provide mitigation for an additional 2.50 FTE's. DISCUSSION: APCHA's referral will be based strictly on the required mitigation for the redevelopment. Mitigation for Additional Lodge Rooms: According to Section 26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, of the Land Use Code, sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development are to be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. Employee generation rates are calculated at the rate of.3 employees per lodging bedroom. There are 9 additional lodge rooms that are being proposed. At 100% mitigation, 2.7 FTE's would need to be mitigated; at the 60% requirement in the Code, 1.44 FTE's would be the mitigation rate. However, due to the smaller unit configuration, the mitigation percentage is decreased to 10%. By providing the smaller units, the actual mitigation requirement for the 9 additional lodge rooms is .27 FTE's. 100% Rate 2.7 FTE's 60% Rate 1.62 FTE's 10% Rate .27 FTE Hotel Aspen Land Use Referral Page 1 P38 Mitigation for the Four Residences: According to Section 26.470.050, the affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free market residential net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Similar to the mitigation for the expanded lodge, the free-market net livable area would also be allowed to be mitigated at the 10% rate. The 13,149 square feet of residential net livable area would result in 1,315 square feet of required mitigation for the equivalent of 3.29 FTE's. This takes into account that for every 400 square feet of new structure, 1 FTE is generated. At 100%, mitigation would be 32.87; at the 30%, mitigation would be 9.86 FTE's; and at the required 10%, mitigation for the four residential units is 3.29 FTE's. 100%Rate 32.87 FTE's 30% Rate 9.86 FTE's 10% Rate 3.29 FTE's Replacement of the Existing Two-Bedroom Deed-Restricted Unit: The redevelopment of the property will remove the existing two-bedroom employee unit that was established through the Condominium Declarations for the Hotel Aspen, recorded on February 28, 1985 in Book 482, Page 42. The applicant has stated that the existing unit is a studio unit based on the size; however, the recorded document and existing floor plans reviewed by the Community Development Department and the APCHA Board showed the unit as a two-bedroom unit. The APCHA Board has agreed that the existing unit should be classified as a Category 2 two-bedroom unit. Proposed Affordable Housing Units: The proposal is to add three on-site mitigation units—one studio and two one-bedroom units—for a total of 4.75 FTE's (1.25 FTE for the Studio and 1.75 per each One-Bedroom). The studio is proposed at 401 square feet net livable and the one bedroom units at 603 and 642 square feet net livable. All of the units are proposed at the Category 2 level. The current minimum square footages for newly deed restricted units according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines for a Category 1 and 2 studio is 400 square feet and 600 square feet for a one-bedroom. Total Mitigation: Under the Land Use Code, the total mitigation required for the redevelopment of the Hotel Aspen property is 5.81 FTE's. The three additional units provide mitigation for 4.75 FTE's; however, the elimination of the existing two-bedroom unit at 2.25 FTE's leaves the proposed mitigation at a deficit of 1.06 FTE's. if mitigation were required at 100%, the development would create a mitigation requirement of 37.82 (includes the loss of the existing two-bedroom unit). Hotel Aspen Land Use Referral Page 2 P39 RECOMMENDATION.• Based on the Land Use Code and the mitigation requirement of 10%, the APCHA Board is recommending approval of the redevelopment of the Hotel Aspen property; however, the applicant shows a deficit amount of 1.06 FTE's. The APCHA Board recommends that the deficit be satisfied by the purchase of Affordable Housing Credits at Category 2 or by providing additional on-site housing. The APCHA Board is recommending against the deficit being satisfied by a fee-in-lieu. Hotel Aspen Land Use Referral Page 3 Poo RECEIVED ATTACHMENT 3 OCT 1 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM CITY OF ASPEN OOMMIXTY DEVELOPMENT Project: Hotel Aspen Final PUD Subdivision and Rezoning (FM component) Applicant: Hotel Aspen Location.: 110 West Main,Aspen , CO Zone District: Mixed-Use (MU), Medium-Density Residential (R-6)with Lodge Preservation Overlay(LP) Lot Size: 27,000 sq. ft. Lot Area: 27,000 sq. ft. (far the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high waiver mark, casements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Cade.) Commercial.net leasable: Existing: 0 sq. ft. Pr000sed.- 0 sq. ft. Number of residential units: Existing: o Pt-oposed. 4 Number of bedrooms: Existing: o Proposed: 14 Proposed %of demolition (Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: Floor Area.: Existing: 0 sq. ft. A..11oisFable: 10,500 sq. ft.Prvpased: 11,000 sq.ft. Principal bldg. height: Existing: 25-30' Allolvable: 32' Prol7osed., 32' Access. bldg. height: Ex:%stir?g: Allowable: Proposed. On-Site parking: Existing: 0 Required. 4 Proposed. 4 % Site coverage: Existing: 82% Required; n/a PrgJ)osed: 87% % Open Space: existing: 4,857 sq ftRequired: 4,857 sq.ft. P7-o1.)o.secl.• 4,030 sq. ft. Front Setback~ Exisfin<<; 10' Regldrerl• 10' Prolapse(k 9'9" Rear Setback: Existing: n/a Required: n/a Pr-ojposed: -n/a Combined FIR: Existing.: n/a Requh-ed: n/a Pl-ol.) .Secf. n/a Garmisch Side Setback: Fxisting: 5' Required:— 5' Prolapsed; 0' Side Setback: Existing: 5' Required: 5' Proposed: 5' C'ombiiied Sides: Existing; 10' Required. 10' Pr-ol?o.sed: 5' Distance Between Existing Required:_ 10' Proposed: 12'9" Buildings Existing non-conl:ori ities or encroachments: None. Variations requested: Cumulative floor area, maximum floor area, maximum unit size,front setback, side yard setback. _ __ RECEIVED ATTACHMENT 3 OCT 1 f i' DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM CITY OF ti6PL✓N DEVEL013MEN1 Project: Hotel Aspen Final PUD Subdivision and Rezoning (Lodge component) rOIHMUt�ITY Applicant: Hotel Aspen Location: 110 West Main,Aspen , CO Zone District: Mixed-Use (MU), Medium-Density Residential (R-6)with Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) Lot Size: 27,000 sq. ft. Lot Area: 27,000 sq. ft. (:for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high eater mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: L'xistirrg.• 18,454 sq. Pj•aj.)ose-d• 15,718 sq. ft. Number of residential units: Kvisting. 1 Pr(Vosed. 3 AH Number of bedrooms: Existing: 2 Pr°vposed.• 4 Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing 23,148 sq. ft.!illrlstable: 27,000 sq. ft.Pr(pose& 23,500 sq. ft. Principal bldg. height: Existing: 25-30' Allow(lble: 28' Proposed. 28' Access. bldg. height: F-risting: Allowable: Proposed- On-Site parking: Existing: 0 Required. 4.5 Proposed.- 11 % Site coverage: Existing: 82% Required n/a Proposed. 87% % Open Space: .Existing: 4,857 sg. ftRegtrire& 4,857 sq. ft. Proposed.- 4,030 sq ft. Front Setback: Ex stirrta.- 10' Regidred. 10' Proposed.- 10' Rear Setback: Existing: n/a Required: n/a Proposed: n/a Combined F/R: Existing: n/a Required: n/a Praptlsed. n/a Side Setback.: Existing: 5' Required. 5' Pr°opv.secj._ 5 Side Setback: Exisfing: 5' Required., 5' Proposed. 5' Combined Sides: Existing: 10' Required: 10' Pr-aj)ased: 10' Distance Between Existing Required: 10' Proposed: 16' Buildings Existing non-conformities or encroachments: None. Variations requested: Cumulative floor area. i