Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.apz.20140805
AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TUESDAY, August 5, 2014 REGULAR SESSION: 4:30pm. Sister Cities Room 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen I. ROLL CALL II. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public III. MINUTES A. July 1, 2014 B. July 15, 2014 IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A) 601 E Hopkins Ave. — Commercial Design Standards VI. OTHER BUSINESS A) Discussion on conducting public hearings VII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 12 Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clarifications of applicant 7) Public comments 8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of hearing 10) Staff rebuttal/clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 11) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met or not met. Revised April 2, 2014 "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 Not for publication.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-1 St and 3rd Tues. @ 4:30 PM, HPC-2nd & 4th Wed. @ 5:00 PM. BOA Thurs. @ 4 Week of July 28, 2014 8/5 P&Z (cD-4:30 (closed) Notice: 7/14 601 E. Hopkins Ave —JH/JP How to conduct a public hearing training 8/12 P&Z Special Meeting, Council Chambers 0.4:30 (closed) Notice: 7/21 Boomerang PD Amendment - SA (continued from 7/1) 8/19 P&Z 0-4:30 (Closed) Notice: 7/28 620 E. Hyman, Com. Design Review— SN Sky Hotel Review, PD - JG 9/2 P&Z (x)-4:30 (Closed) Notice: 8/11 Sky Hotel Review, PD - JG 9/9 P&Z (a-)-4:30 — Potential Special meeting Notice: Sky Hotel Review, PD - JG 9/16 P&Z A-4:30 (Closed) Notice: 8/25 Midland Park, PD Amendment—JP Community Development Update July 2014 Project: Maroon Creek Club PD Amendment Contact: Jennifer Phelan Status: Pending Review by Council Closing Date: Undetermined Description: The Maroon Creek Club Planned Development (PD) is a site specific development plan that contains a combination of uses on the site including recreation, open space, single family homes, townhomes and affordable housing. As site specific approval, the subdivision is not �permitted to extinguish Transferable Development Rights_(TDR) within the subdivision unless the-PD is amended. The HOA is requesting the ability to extinguish TDR's on the single family lots within the subdivision. Update: First Reading has been scheduled before City Council on August 11tH Next Steps: Second Reading has been scheduled before City Council on September 8th Project: 301 Lake Avenue Contact: Amy Simon Status: Pending Review by City Council Closing Date: Undetermined Description: This project is a voluntary designation of the residence with the Aspen Modern program. The applicants have also proposed an addition to the existing home. Negotiations involve fees and incentives. Update: HPC has reviewed the proposed design and have provided a recommendation of approval to City Council. Next Steps: First Reading has been scheduled before Council on July 28th, with Second Reading scheduled for August 25tH Project: 434 E. Cooper Ave (Bidwell) Contact: Sara Adams Status: Pending Review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish and replace the building at 434 E Cooper, commonly known as the Bidwell building, with a new commercial building. No residential space is proposed as part of the redevelopment. Update: HPC approved the conceptual design on December 12th, 2012. City Council did not call the project up. The applicant received an extension of their vested rights for six months. Page 1 of 5 Next Steps: HPC will review the matter for an Amendment to Conceptual Design Review on September 10tH Project: 709 E. Durant - Sky Hotel Contact: Jessica Garrow Status: Pending Review by P&Z Closing Date: Undetermined Description: The applicant is proposing to redevelop the property with a mixed-use lodge building consisting of 100 lodge units, 5 affordable housing units, 8 free-market residential units, and 3,380 sq. ft. of commercial space. The building is commonly known as the Sky Hotel. Update: Staff has conducted a Development Review Committee meeting with City referral departments. Next Steps: Planning and Zoning Commission review is scheduled for August 19th and September 2nd Project: 219 E. Durant (Dancing Bear Ped Tunnel) Contact: Hillary Seminick Status: Pending Review by Council Closing Date: Undetermined Description: The applicant proposes to amend prior PD approvals for both the Dancing Bear and Chart House to construct a subterranean pedestrian tunnel connecting the existing Dancing Bear Hotel (311 S. Monarch) to the former Chart House Lodge; where Dancing Bear plans to expand its lodge. Update: The applicant submitted the Land Use Application for the PD amendment on March 19, 2014. The Design Review Committee will meet on April 9, 2014 to discuss any potential issues. The applicant received a recommendation for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission during a public hearing on May 6, 2014. First Reading was approved by City Council on July 14tH Next Steps: Second Reading has been scheduled for August 25th. Project: Boomerang Lodge Contact: Sara Adams Status: Pending review by P&Z Closing Date: Undetermined Description: The applicant is proposing to change the design and unit mix of the previously approved Boomerang Lodge in order to address the current demands of Aspen visitors for economy and mid-market lodging. The applicant is proposing increases to the number of lodge rooms, free market residential units, and affordable housing units. Update: The project went before P&Z on June 17th for Design Review. Page 2 of 5 Next Steps: The case has been continued and is scheduled before P&Z on July 1St with a Special Meeting continuation date scheduled for August 12th. Review by City Council will be scheduled after the P&Z recommendation is made. Project: Red Butte Cemetery PD Amendment Contact: Justin Barker Status: Tabled Closing Date: Tabled Description: On June 23`d, City Council considered an application submitted by the Red Butte Cemetery Association requesting a Planned Development Amendment and GMQS review in order to allow an employee to sleep within the existing maintenance facility. Update: -City Council continued the hearing on Second Reading until July 14tH Next Steps: During Second Reading the matter was tabled due to neighbor opposition, with Councilman Romero offering to work with the both parties to find an alternate solution. Project: Lodging Study Contact: Jessica Garrow Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Undetermined Description: One of City Council's 2012 Top Ten Goals was to "examine the desirability and sustainability of preserving existing lodging and producing more lodging in Aspen." As part of this effort, staff conducted a great deal of background work and stakeholder meetings to gain an understanding of Aspen's lodging sector. The background phase was completed in early May. All the reports are available online at: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and- Zoning/Long-Range-Planning/ In December, City Council identified three (3) goals to focus on: Enabling upgrades to condominium units while maintaining those units in the short-term rental pool, enabling upgrades to existing lodges, and enabling new lodge product. These goals were reaffirmed at a June 25th work session. Council has included a 2013 Top Ten Goal related to adopting a lodging incentive program. Staff has conducted significant outreach with the lodging and condominium community, as well as ACRA, P&Z and HPC to gain feedback on a potential incentive program. Staff has also held public open houses. Update: City Council affirmed the goals related to supporting condominiums, existing lodges, and new lodges, and provided direction to move into public hearings. City Council met in their regular May 27th meeting to review a Policy Resolution on the proposed incentive program. The main areas identified in City studies on lodging as needing to be included in an incentive program are: allowing fourth floors in limited area, lowering affordable housing mitigation, and allowing free-market residential uses. First Page 3 of 5 Reading was scheduled before City Council on June 23rd. Second reading began on 7/14, and was continued to a further date. Next Steps: Second reading dates have been scheduled for 7/28 and 8/11. Project: SCI Zone District Code Amendment Contact: Sara Nadolny Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Undetermined Description: City Council requested staff to examine amendments to the SCI zone district to better address the current functioning of the zone. SCI is the only zone district that lists specific allowed uses (e.g. Coffee Roaster), rather than relying on general use categories (e.g. Commercial Uses). Update: Staff has met initially with business owners in the different SCI buildings, as well as with the P&Z to gain feedback on what goals they have for the zone district. Staff presented the findings and asked for initial Council direction at an April 23rd work session. Staff met with two members of the Obermeyer HOA Board on April 23rd to discuss whether they are interested in pursuing the rezoning, and again on May 29th to address concerns and initiate a pre-application conference summary for the Obermeyer Place HOA. Next Steps: Staff expects to bring this before Council during a work session late spring/early summer. Obermeyer Place is expected to come in as a separate application, with a desire to change their zoning to SCI/NC for Obermeyer Place. Project: ESA Code Amendment Contact: Jessica Garrow Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Summer 2014 Description: City Council requested staff to update the Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Chapter of the Land Use Code to simplify and clarify the review processes. Update: In March staff met with the Planning and Zoning Commission to get their feedback on potential changes. Staff is coordinating with the Parks and Engineering Department on changes related to the Stream Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, and 8040 Greenline reviews. Next Steps: Due to work load in the engineering department, staff has not had an opportunity to refine code language. Staff continues to make progress on this code amendment, and anticipates requesting formal policy direction from City Council in the near future. Project: Rubey Park Remodel Contact: Justin Barker Status: Pending Review by Council Closing Date: Undetermined Page 4 of 5 Description: The applicant proposes to redevelop the existing building and property at 420 E. Durant Ave and add two new one-story structures with a roof that will connect all three structures. The remodel will provide enhanced amenities for users, as well as a separate office for RFTA employees. Update: The applicant will be required to undergo Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design reviews before HPC, and Planned Development and Growth Management review before P&Z and City Council. The applicant is required to submit an application for final design review before HPC within one year's time. This matter was approved by HPC for Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design reviews in February. On January 15th the Applicant went before P&Z for Planned Development and Growth Management Reviews, which resulted in a recommendation of approval by P&Z to Council. Next Steps: First Reading has been scheduled before City Council for Planned Development and Growth Management reviews on July 28th. Second Reading has been scheduled for August 25tH Project: TDR Code Amendment Contact: Sara Adams Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Summer 2014 Description: On June 9th City Council is asked to consider a policy resolution that would increase the number of TDR's that can land on lots of specific sizes and locations. Generally only one TDR per residence is allowed in residential zone districts. Update: First Reading was scheduled before City Council on June 9th Next Steps: Second Reading will be scheduled before Council on a future date to be determined. Page 5 of 5 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission July 1,2014 U Erspamer,Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Stan Gibbs,Jasmine Tygre, Brian McNellis, Keith Goode and 011ie Nieuwland-Zlotnicki present. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn,Jennifer Phelan and Sara Adams. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. McNellis commented on a special event involving the Dancing Bear and the Aspen Community School off Durant Ave. Mr. McNellis stated the event fell slightly short for a number of reasons, but one things hindering the event involved cars parked in the special event area during the event.The event committee paid $400-plus for the permit process and completed a traffic study done at the request of the city to ensure the re-routing of traffic worked. Stakes were placed prior to the event stating no parking on the day of the event,tow-away zone. On the day of the event, there were cars parked in the no parking zone.A call was placed to the city and the city refused to tow the cars and refused to allow the event personnel to call a private company to tow the cars. He felt this hindered the amount of money that could have been raised for the event. He also stated if folks are required to complete the application process, there needs to be follow-through on the behalf of the city. He was hoping there could be correspondence between staff regarding this issue. Mr. Erspamer asked specifically where the parking issue was located and Mr. McNellis thought it was off of Aspen St next to the construction area. He also stated there were three cars parked in the 100 feet of the street shut down for the event. Mr. Erspamer suggested speaking with the Chief of Police or the City Manager. Mr. Erspamer spoke of an event he recently attended on the subject of"walkability". He felt the speaker was very good and plans to look into the subject more thoroughly.The speaker identified reasons for walkability and specifically discussed parking as a solution to walkability involving circulation and cycling. He feels this is one issue to be brought before the Aspen City Council(Council)to identify a more comprehensive parking plan to resolve the circulation issue. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki identified the name of the speaker as Jeff Speck. Mr. Erspamer intends to follow up with Mr. Speck. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan asked the commissioners to consider scheduling a special meeting on Tuesday,August 12tH, 2014 in Council chambers for the possible continuance on tonight's agenda item. If the special meeting is not scheduled,the continuance for tonight's meeting would be mid-September. Mr. Erspamer asked if the meeting should be discussed now or at the end of the meeting. Ms. Quinn asked if there was an additional need for a special meeting and Ms. Phelan replied no. Ms. Quinn suggested it would be best to wait until the end of tonight's meeting to make the decision regarding the special meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES - June 3, 2014 Ms.Tygre moved to approve the June 3, 2014 minutes, seconded by Mr. McNellis. All in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were none. 1 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 1,2014 Public Hearing - 500 W. Hopkins, Boomerang Lodge, PUD Amendment, GMQS Review Mr. Erspamer opened the public hearing. Ms. Quinn stated the legal notice was previously approved at the June 17, 2014 meeting when the continuance was granted. Ms. Adams presented the project to the board for the redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge. It is a 27,000 square foot(sf) lodge, zoned R-6 with the Lodge Preservation (LP)Overlay.The applicants request is to amend the previously granted 2006 PUD approval of which they have vested rights through October 20, 2015.They are subject to the code which was in place when they originally submitted their application on December 31, 2005. The Planning&Zoning Commission was asked to review four items in this hearing. The first is an amendment to the Growth Management Review granted for the 2006 approval and the second is a commercial design review is being requested. Both items are under the purview of the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z),so the board will be the final review for each item.The third and fourth items are an amendment to the subdivision and an amendment to the PUD. For the third and fourth items, P&Z is asked to make a recommendation to Council. The proposal for amending the 2006 approval includes increasing the density of the overall project.The 2006 approval had a total of 54 units including lodge,free-market and affordable housing.The proposal includes the following. • Increases the total number from 54 to 70 units • Decrease the overall project floor area by about 3,500 sf • Increase the free market residential unit count from 5 units to 14 units and increase the floor area of the free-market residential component from about 13,500 to 22,300(actual numbers in application) • Increase the number of lodge units from 47 to 56 units, decreasing the average size of these units from about 500 to 240 sf of net livable per unit • Decreasing the lodge floor area from about 29,600 to 15,300(actual numbers in application) • Increase affordable housing from 2 to 5 units.They are meeting their affordable housing requirements on-site The architecture is largely the same as what was approved in 2006. It's mostly a three story building with a four story component for the lodge rooms.The setbacks approved in 2006 have been slightly changed making the building a bit closer to Hopkins by a few feet.They are maintaining the parking garage approved in 2006.The application represents 33 parking spaces in the garage.The plans identify 32 spaces. Perhaps the applicant could clarify the difference, but either way they are meeting their parking onsite requirement of 30 spaces. Ms.Adams provided a number of tables in the staff memo for the meeting that she reviewed with the commissioners.These tables were described as follows: Table 1—Shows comparison focusing on the floor area of the uses. Compares 2006 approvals with the values proposed by the applicant for the June 17th meeting,the values for the current July 15t meeting and the Hotel Aspen values recently approved PUC by City Council approximately two months ago. From the staffs opinion, she pointed out the following: 2 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission July 1, 2014 • Percentage of lodge floor area compared to the total project: 0 2006=About 66% o Current proposal=About 37% • Free Market Residential floor area compared to the total project: 0 2006=About 30% o Current proposal=About 54 Table 2—Identifies all other pieces changed from the 2006 approval. Table 3—Compares the R-6 zoned district(underlying zoned district), lodge zoned district, 2006 approval and the current proposal.The lodge zoned district is included for information because the property is zoned R-6 with the lodge preservation (LP)overlay is not subject to the lodge zone district. Ms. Adams then discussed the Growth Management Review. Under the Growth Management amendment being requested, the project qualifies for the 2005-2006 lodge incentive program based on the number of lodging units per lot size of a project. She emphasized the purpose of the lodge incentive and the lodge preservation zone district programs is to incentivize lodge development by reducing the required affordable housing mitigation and allowing the project to go through a PUD to establish dimensional requirements.The codes recognize the needs to be considered for a lodge project by providing some flexibility and relief of the requirements that a typical mixed-use project would need to meet. The purpose of the LP overlay is to incentivize lodge development.There are very specific criteria to be met when establishing free market residential floor area included on page 30 in the packet in Exhibit B of the PUD review criteria of the staff memo.She pointed this out because the review criteria determining the amount of free market space is appropriate for a project in the LP overlay.The review criteria focus on the lodge operations,diversity of lodge units, and the quality of the lodge units. Staff have found the review criteria do not warrant the amount of free market flooring being requested (54%). The project is vested under what Ms.Adams referred to as the "old code". Based on when the project was initially submitted, it is subject to the 2000 Area Community Plan (ACP) as a regulatory document. The project is also subject to the 2012 ACP as a guiding document.So both ACPs are included as Exhibit A of the packet in the Grown Management Section. Staff found policies outlined in both the 2000 ACP and 2012 ACP are not met. Considering the decrease of the lodge floor area and lodge use,the increase of the free market residential floor area and residential use, and the impacts of the changes on the community, staff finds this is no longer a lodge project. Instead,staff finds it is a free market residential condominium project which has a lodge component.The free market residential is 50%larger than the lodge component. In the 2006 approval,the lodge component was 100% larger than the free market component in regards to floor area. The project is primarily a three story with a four story component located in a two story neighborhood. This was acceptable in 2006 because it was for a lodge project,and Ms.Adams felt the City Council and the community felt there was enough trade off and community benefit for a lodge project in this neighborhood to have the dimensional requirements and variances granted for the project. There were a range of lodge rooms, it was mostly lodge,the proposed increase in free market residential FAR and the free market residential unit numbers and the decrease in the lodge floor area 3 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 1,2014 really no longer has a community benefit based on staff's opinion to support the proposed variances to the underlying zoned district. For example,the maximum height of the project is 17 feet taller than what is allowed in the R6 zoned district. In the supplement to the application provided for tonight's meeting by the applicants,they represent the free market residential units will be rented, they provide a lot of background and a lot of really helpful information about how the units would be rented.The company they want to bring on to manage the rentals has a history in Aspen. However, there is no guarantee the units will be rented.The applicant has offered two units would be possibly rented consistent with the vacation residences program currently with council now and would become part of the new lodge program.Staff thinks is a step in the right direction and their efforts are appreciated, but they don't think it is enough to guarantee the units are required to be rented as rental units.The trade- offs considering the proposed ratio of the uses in relationship to the requested dimensions are not in the best interest of the community. They do not meet the growth management review criteria.They do not meet the PUD amendment review criteria or the subdivision review criteria.As previously mentioned the staff appreciates the willingness to look into renting two of the 14 free market, but would need to see a guarantee for more than provided. In conclusion, staff does not support the proposed increase in the free market residential and the decrease in the lodge uses.We recommend the P&Z commission continue this hearing with direction for the applicant to reduce the free market component or to provide a guarantee that the free market residential units will be rented. If the applicant is unable to reduce the free market component any further, we would have recommend denial of the growth management review.A resolution denying the growth management review was included in the packet. If the growth management review is not approved,the proposal will not continue to city council for their PUD and subdivision amendments. Mr. Erspamer asked if Ms.Adams covered the PUD review.She replied that it was included with the growth management portion of her opinion. Mr. Erspamer then asked if she reviewed Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) and commercial design, at which Ms.Adams replied she did not.She stated in order the subdivision review criteria mirrored a lot of the PUD criteria,you have to find the ACP criteria is met, which was not found as a common thread through the growth management review criteria.Your PUD criteria and your subdivision review criteria were not met in regards to ACP goes as a regulatory document. Commercial design review is a formality this project has to go through because it's required in the code for a mixed use project. Ms.Adams stated that all applicable commercial design review were met. Mr. Erspamer thanked Ms.Adams for her presentation and asked the commissioners if they had questions for staff. Ms.Tygre asked if there was a maximum residential free market floor area in a lodge project. Ms.Adams replied there is not a maximum.She continued that the P&Z,through the PUD review is asked to do apply specific criteria 1-6 on page 30 to determine how much free market area is appropriate. Because this project is underlying zone of R6 with a LP overlay, R6 does not permit multi-family residential or lodge uses in.The LP overlay permits these uses via the PUD review. Ms.Tygre believed she heard Ms.Adams state the maximum allowable free market residential FAR was 40%at which Ms.Adams stated no. Both Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki and Mr. Gibbs found references in the packet to other amounts, but they were not the references Ms.Tygre believed she heard. It was not verified where Ms.Tygre believed she previously heard the reference to 40%. 4 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission July 1,2014 Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki stated there was a question to be established regarding the reasonableness of the amount of free market residential allowed with this lodge and he thought Ms.Tygre was thinking of a discussion that occurred in a previous session covering the density or size of the hotel rooms provided a certain bonus. He confirmed with Ms.Adams this proposal is not subject to the lodge zone district. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki asked Ms.Adams what it would be for this proposal just as a benchmark. Ms. Adams replied she did not know. She did point out a comparison in Table 3 on page 16 of the lodge zone district allowances, but it does not reflect any bonuses based on density.The table does show for a free market residential allowed per lot size. If this project was zoned as lodge district, it would be allowed to have 6,750 sf of free market space or.25:1.The proposal requests 22,300 sf of free market space or .83:1. Mr. Erspamer questioned if the employee housing parking and storage areas were clearly defined in the proposal. Ms.Adams confirmed the proposal includes one assigned parking space and storage area for each affordable housing unit in the parking garage. Mr. Erspamer referred to the packet on June 17th packet and asked if lock offs are part of the lodge criteria. Ms.Adams and Mr. Erspamer concluded it would be best to have the applicant discuss the lock offs proposed. Mr. Erspamer asked Ms.Adams to define "generous amenities". Ms.Adams replied that it is up to the P&Z Committee to determine what should be considered as generous amenities.Staff did not feel the proposal did not include generous amenities. Ms.Adams explained that criteria is supposed to inform the P&Z commission how much free market floor area is allowed. Mr. Erspamer referred to page 9 of the June 17th packet regarding the purpose of PUD review designation.Staff replied the information is no longer applicable because the applicant has since changed the proposal to address staff's concerns. Mr. Erspamer asked for clarification regarding staff's concerns of the height and mass of the project. Ms. Adams replied the height and mass approved in the 2006 proposal is basically the same as what is being currently proposed.She also stated staff feels there was no longer a community benefit to warrant the variances granted in 2006 because the project has changed from a lodging project to a free market residential project. Mr. Gibbs asked if there were a list of the variances approved in 2006. Ms. Adams referred him to page 16 which compares the 2006 approval to the underlying R-6 zone district. Certain dimensional standards adopted in the 2006 approval don't relate to the R-6 zoned district because they are uses that were only allowed in the R-6 zone district at that time with the LP overlay. These items include lodging floor area, affordable housing floor area and unit density. Ms.Adams felt the relevant variances include height, overall floor area and setbacks. Mr. Erspamer turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr.James DeFrancia with Lowe Enterprises is representing the owner and applicant for this proposal. He was joined by Mr. Michael Hoffman of Garfield and Hecht P.C., attorney for the project and Steve Stunda, one of the partners in the ownership. He was also joined by Charles Cunniffe Architects. Mr. DeFrancia expressed his thanks to staff for a cordial, professional working relationship over the past few months. 5 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission July 1,2014 Mr. DeFrancia expressed the backdrop for reviewing the proposal are the clearly expressed findings of the city.Those findings, as published in a variety of documents including Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP),are as follows • Experienced the loss of 27%of bed base in lodge and rental condominium units • Rental condominium base is aging and declining(40%of bed base is condominiums) • Present quality and diversity of the bed base is rated as low • The price point of value for our bed base is rated as low Mr. DeFrancia feels this brings to public focus is our longer capability to attract guest is at risk and the number and diversity of lodging being offered needs to be increased. In short, we are losing bed base and eroding our lodging offerings.These findings are more formally and officially addressed in the AACP. The AACP states: • Small and mid-size lodges have been converted to other uses • We need to replenish the lodging base • We need a diverse lodging inventory to server a broader demographic • Our visitor based economy depends on remaining an accessible and affordable place As a consequence of those considerations, a resulting public policy stating to replenish our lodging inventory,to emphasize diverse price points and to protect or restore our existing lodges. Mr. DeFrancia feels we need to increase both the number and the diversity of our lodging stock and what this project is all about.The first point of conceptual disagreement with staff who states this is no longer a lodging project,we counter propose that this in fact is all about lodging.The key to lodging is keys.What is being proposed is an economy lodge and rental condominiums, which both offer diversity. We are offering a total of 84 keys including 56 lodge keys and 28 rental condominium keys when you consider each of the 14 rental condo has lock-off capacity.A lock-off capacity is defined as a unit with more than one bedroom has the ability to lock-off a bedroom so it has direct access to the exterior and can server as a 'hotel room. Another important item is the lodge units are economy by design sized at approximately 210 sf.These designs have been tested successfully in other markets including flat screen TVs, narrow built-in cabinetry, hanging lamps. The rental condos are designed as rental condos have been historically available in Aspen for decades. The size and design of the rental condos is reflective of the applicant and the community what prevents the condos from going into a rental pool. The ratio of units is 56 lodge units, 14 rental condo units and five affordable housing units.The ratio is 4:1 of lodge units to condo units.Again, Mr. DeFrancia stated he wants to focus on keys and history shows the rental of condos designed to be rental has proven itself over the past 40-50 years. He noted the following examples of existing businesses with units available for rent by design and operation, not imposed guarantees.They operate as hotels. • Aspen Square is 100%free market condos in the rental pool • Aspen Alps (around for 50+years) has 65%of the units are in the rental pool • The Gant(around for 40+years) has 86%of the units are in a rental pool 6 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission July 1,2014 The Boomerang is characterized as the Boomerang Lodge and Condominiums with a diverse mix, unified operations,economy rooms, lock off rooms,two and three bedroom condominiums. The rental condominiums are very much modeled after the Gant. He noted staff refers to The Gant in their new incentive lodging code as the model of the product. Mr. DeFrancia stated there was an offer to take a couple of the condominium units and voluntarily impose restrictions akin to those in the new code where they would be referred to as vacation residences where the use by a single owner would be restricted to demonstrate the capability of the units to be rentals and to evaluate the depression of unit's value based on the restrictions. The diversity also includes amenity offerings shared by both the lodge and the rental condominiums. These amenities include the historic pool,guest only lounge,the Patterson room, hot tub, pool deck. While the staff stated the amenities were not generous, the amenities are in line with economy lodges and the ultimate amenity is price. You can't have an economy lodge that is rich with amenities.Their goal is to diversify lodging offerings and the amenity package is suitable for both the condominium and lodge. Mr. DeFrancia feels they are restoring the Boomerang Lodge to its original use as a lodge. It had been previously voluntarily designated as historic by the ownership and a terrific example of mid-century modern design. Charlie Patterson was consulted with to understand the original function and his concepts. Mr. DeFrancia feels restoring the lodge as a lodge is important to the community and to our history which is important to our character which is important to our tourism. In summation,the proposal is exactly what has been identified at what is needed by the community by public policy through the public process.The AACP supports this type of proposal and the staff's own reports in support of the new codes.They are offering keys, diversity and historic preservation. Mr. DeFrancia asked the architect,Charles Cunniffe, and his team to review the physical architect of the project. He emphasized the proposal seeks to amend an existing approval including height, mass,width and depth definitions.The proposal seeks to amend the use of the space previously defined. Mr.Cunniffe, Marina Skiles and Rich Pavicek are representing Charles Cunniffe Architects as the architect of the project in the proposal. Mr. Cunniffe noted the lodge existed long before the neighborhood developed as much as it did. It should not be compared to other projects in specific zoned districts because it was a stand-alone project when it was built and contributes a lot of amenities to the neighborhood. Based on slides presented, Mr. Cunniffe stated the former site plan was one solid mass and not well thought out in regards to the structure density and the delicacy of the existing historic building.The new site plan breaks up the site into six distinct buildings. He stated that one point, there was attempt to amend the project to make it affordable housing.This was objected to by the neighbors even though it was approved. In taking the project in front of council, it was heard to break up the mass.The new site plan includes walkways allowing for light and air between the portions of the buildings.A skylight was included over the center walkway.The roof plan includes low-pitched roofs to emulate the same low-pitch as the historic Boomerang Lodge.The pool and spa is included as it was in the original structure.The entire proposed design falls below the approved height.There is a small section that has four stories of the addition wing to the historic lodge building.To be consistent with the lodge,the rooms in this section has similar ceiling height which allows for four stories. 7 Regular Meetim! Planning& Zoning Commission July 1,2014 The amenities include the pool, spa, lounge,game room, Patterson room for breakfast, lobby, underground parking, provision of bikes and shuttles. Ms. Skiles reviewed slides covering the proposed materials and physical qualities of the building as they relate to the original historic design. Mr. Pavicek reviewed the floor plans including areas identified for affordable housing, lodge room, rental condominiums and project amenity spaces.The lodge rooms average about 210 sf each and will be rented as a single bed economy units.Additionally, half of these units have connecting doors so they could be rented as tow bedroom economy units at about 420 sf.The rental condominiums appear as three bedroom units at about 1,400 sf and two bedroom units at about 1,200 sf.These can also be rented minus one lock off bedroom with the three bedroom reduced to two bedrooms at about 960 sf or 800 sf and the two bedroom reduced to a one bedroom unit at about 430 sf.The eight lodge units on the second floor of the center building along the alley will be large enough to accommodate two queen beds or one king bed with a sitting area.Their sizes range from 365—445 sf. Mr. Pavicek reviewed slides of the amenity spaces including the pool, pool deck, spa, lounge, laundry facility, public restrooms and Patterson room including the fireplace. Mr. Pavicek also reviewed the layout of the parking area containing 33 parking spaces and 19 storage units. Mr. DeFrancia asked Donnie Lee,to address the experience with projects of this nature including operations to maximize rentals and occupancy. Mr. Donnie Lee, General Manager of The Gant,Vice President of Destination Hotels & Resorts and current Chair of the Aspen Chamber Resort Association. Mr. Lee and Steve Stunda have spent the past two years working with the chamber,staff and the community to culminate what is now the Lodge Incentive Program currently in front of City Council for review. Mr. Lee stated lodge incentive program conversations assisted with the manifestation of today's application which preserves the historic lodge, rehabilitates and modernizes the lodge rooms. Its lodging incorporates both lodge and condominium units.The condominium model put forth in the proposal is following a proven path of success with onsite amenities, services and staff for on-demand services providing a built-in incentive for the home owners to rent as proven at The Gant,Alps, North of Nell and Aspen Square. Mr. Lee then discussed how The Gant is considered free market residential based on the nature of what it is and how the code is written. It clearly operates as a hotel and the same can be said for Aspen Square. He stated the distinctive hotel-type amenities provided in these development haven't seen the erosion of rental units experienced by other developments.The dues are higher and the owners want to offset the cost of the amenities with rental activity. He considers this the model of success.The plan for the proposed development is to be operated as one integrated property. From this aspect, Mr. Lee feels it provides a lot to the community. Mr. Lee discussed the background and experience Destination Hotels& Resorts(DH&R)over the past 40 plus years in both condominiums and hotels.Their model of success is to build a brand out of the property being managed. As for The Gant,you do not see DH&R on the door.The culture they want to bring includes warm, authentic service and the willingness to do the right thing for the property as well as be mindful of the surroundings and engaged in the community.The Gant's management and 8 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission July 1, 2014 leadership staff and as regional corporate resources(sales, marketing, reservations, human resources, IT systems) will be utilized. In closing, Mr. Lee believes this proposed development preserves and restores a historic location, puts back into service a hotel to increase the lodging base and adds a lot for the community. Mr. DeFrancia concluded with a point that this truly is a lodge project offering a diversity of lodging, particularly economy lodging, which is sorely needed. It also offers a diversity of lodging in condominiums.The applicant accepts and acknowledges there is no guarantee of those rental condominiums renting. He feels the decades of experience with the other developments shows the design models success and the project will be operated as a hotel. Mr. Erspamer opened for questions from the commissioners. Mr. Erspamer asked the applicant to confirm what the rental figures represent.The applicant responded that 86%of the condominiums in The Gant rent and 65%of the condos in the Alps rent.The broader bed count of the area was not included other than references from the AACP and other studies regarding a 27%decline in bed base according to whatever base was considered for the studies. Mr. Erspamer asked if the applicants considered the new SKICO study to which the applicant replied no. Mr. Erspamer asked if the two condos placed in the rental pool were successful,would the other condos be placed in the rental pool. Mr. DeFrancia replied that just by adding the two condos drops the rental condo proportion to 38%of the project. Mr.Cunniffe replied if they were successful, then the other condos would be rented as well. He reiterated that by design,the owners would want to rent the condos. Mr. Erspamer reiterated a statement by one of the applicants. "If we have a rental condo, it will have less value if its other than a regular, privately owned condo not rented." Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. Lee in regard to his experience at The Gant,do the rental units sell for less than one that is not rented. Mr. DeFrancia interjected that wasn't the statement he made. His statement was that if you have an imposed restriction on use,which you can only use it six months of the year and then it has to be rented,that would prospectively depress value. Mr. Erspamer asked if the employee housing will be in a separate HOA. Mr. DeFrancia replied they would have a separate HOA or would otherwise be exempted or capped from certain elements of the HOA requirements for the broader project. Mr. Erspamer followed with asking if there would be an umbrella HOA. He asked how the employee housing occupants be protected from egregious fees or special assessments. Mr. DeFrancia suggested a cap at which Mr. Erspamer asked if a resolution would define the cap. Both Mr. DeFrancia and Ms.Adams replied yes. Mr. Erspamer asked if a transportation development management plan (TDM) will be included. Ms. Adams replied it was part of the original submittal. Mr. DeFrancia noted one change as of July 1, 2014 was to include a WE-Cycle station.The TDM includes scheduled shuttle van,close bike path proximity, and bike racks. Mr. Erspamer asked how the light reflection from the windows would be handled at which Mr. Cunniffe replied the actual solar studies have not been done, but the building largely faces away from the sun. The upper portion of the windows will have a sun shading device as part of the design. Mr. Erspamer asked staff if there is a minimum sf average in the code at which Ms.Adams replied no. 9 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission July 1,2014 Mr. Erspamer asked the applicant's representative to confirm who can use the amenity spaces. Mr. DeFrancia replied the amenity spaces are available to both lodge guests and rental condominiums occupants and their guests. Mr. Erspamer asked the applicant's representative where the majority of the foot traffic would be in the development. Mr. Cunniffe explained it would be where it's been historically, on 4th street. Mr. Gibbs asked the applicant's representative how big the units where in the original Boomerang. Mr. Cunniffe and Mr. DeFrancia did not know specifically, but they do know they were somewhat larger because they included living rooms. Mr. Gibbs asked the applicant's representative how big the units are in The Gant. Mr. Lee said the two bedrooms are roughly a 1,000 sf and three bedrooms are 1,200 to 1,300 sf. Mr. Erspamer stated Pierre Wille was showing him units at the Tyrolean when he was thinking about the lodging ordinance. He asked the applicant's representative if they are aware how big the units at the Tyrolean or the St. Moritz at which Mr. DeFrancia replied he did not know. Mr.,DeFrancia stated the design reflects examples that have successful in other markets. Mr. Cunniffe stated they are designed to be economy, efficient and not oversized. Mr. Goode inquired if the conference room would also serve as a breakfast area. Mr.Cunniffe replied yes,that would be in the Patterson room located on the second floor. Mr. Goode then asked if there would be a kitchen for preparing food at which Mr. Cunniffe replied no. Mr. DeFrancia stated traditionally the meal was served as a European cold breakfast.A microwave and toaster will be available for use. Mr. McNellis inquired if the historic portion of the Boomerang designated historic as part of the 2006 application? Both Mr. DeFrancia and Ms.Adams replied yes. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki asked the applicant's representative if they knew the price point of the condominiums. Mr. DeFrancia stated probably mid-market with sales starting around $1,200 per sf and progressively moving up to$1,400 or$1,500 per sf over three years. Mr. Cunniffe stated they would be lower mid-market in terms of price point. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki asked where the back of house spaces to allow for employee changing rooms, employee bathrooms, laundry rooms are located in the design. Mr. Cunniffe explained where a laundry room would be located, but both the rental condominiums and the hotel would be serviced by the same company off site. Mr. Lee explained the intention is to have maintenance and housekeeping services on site. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki asked the applicant's representative why fractionals or something else would ensure the units were rented was not considered or included in the proposal. Mr. DeFrancia felt the full ownership condominiums were a better product. Mr. Cunniffe stated fractionals are better suited for a higher end property in prime location, not for an economy location. Mr. Gibbs asked staff to clarify their response on page 27, part e)was in regards to units available to the public or for employees? Ms.Adams confirmed they would be available for employees of the lodge. Mr. Erspamer asked where the TDM and the traffic study where located in the packet. Mr. Cunniffe stated TDM was reviewed and approved by Council on the original approval. Ms.Adams stated an update to the TDM was included in the packet. 10 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission July 1, 2014 Mr. Erspamer opened the meeting for public comment. Ron Erickson, Chairman of the Housing Board, has over 30 years of experience with lodging in Aspen. From APCHA perspective,this proposal meets all their qualifications and it was approved unanimously. From a lodging perspective, he agrees they mentioned three of the most successful ones in town. He is in favor of the condo-hotel and feels Aspen could use more. He has reviewed the project and as a future neighbor, is real impressed with the proposal. He also stated he has reviewed the article and believes the project meets the most important points of the lodge incentive program. He is sad to see the Boomerang in its current condition. Cheryl Goldenberg lives near the Boomerang.She demonstrated where she lived on the layout displayed. She asked if the parking shown on the layout was public or private. Mr. DeFrancia state it was public parking. Her likes the vitality of the project but is concerned about parking. She would like to have the underground parking expanded and wanted to know if parking spaces could be sold or rented. She also questioned the setbacks at which Ms. Phelan clarified the buildings are two feet from the property line. Ms.-Goldenberg feels owners of the condominium may park their cars permanently leaving no space for the renters. Michael Brown introduced himself as an owner of three hotels in Aspen (one being Hotel Aspen) and his office is less than 100 ft.from the proposed development on 5th St.fronting Main St. He is flabbergasted at the height of the proposal in a zoned district allowing 25 ft. He understands they are applying under an old set of code, but feels the current entitlements are not buildable. He feels it is not a financeable project which is why they are trying to modify it now. He referred to the ratios listed on page 14 of the staff's memo which reward development that provide more lodging than free market. They have triple the amount of free market than Hotel Aspen. He stated it isn't their decision to make the units rentable or not, it is the decision of the unit owner. He then stated he opened his office in this area because parking is so easy to come and go. He feels this will not be preserved. He states there are 84 keys against 33 parking spots and the project is asking for 24 from the city in the right of way. He is concerned there will be no parking available.He said you really need to focus on the sf and how much is free market vs how much is actual lodge. Steve Goldenberg lives near the Boomerang. He said if they removed the top floor of every building then there would be reasonable density and the parking would not be so bad. He is concerned the parking identified in the basement is not adequate. Previous layouts of the same sf identified 30-31 spaces, so he feels 33 is not right. He also pointed out the area identified for 12 spaces will only hold ten cars based on the same sized area in front of the Christiana. He is also concerned there will be no place to park once the synagogue opens. Mr. Erspamer closed the public comment. Mr. Erspamer opened rebuttal from staff. Ms. Adams pointed out there were two letters from the public included in the application and there were two emails sent out after the packet had been submitted.The letters were from Rick Head, Hailey Dart, Rabbi Mintz and Junee Kirk.All the letters were in support of the project.These letters are submitted as Exhibit G. Mr. Erspamer and Ms.Adams wanted to clarify a statement in Ms. Dart's letter regarding the City is proposing the changes,that the City is not proposing the changes. 11 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission July 1,2014 Ms. Phelan stated the proposals for project twist the amount of floor area of free market to the lodge. She acknowledged there are more keys, but the amount of additional sf for free market condominiums are not guaranteed to be in the rental pool. Ms.Adams added the applicant made a very good presentation on why we need lodge rooms and their importance. Staff agrees with this need and stated this is the purpose of the lodge incentive program. Supporting the lodge incentive program means the rentals are guaranteed.She stated Mr. Brown's comment in regards to the owner deciding if the unit is rentable is absolutely true. Mr. Erspamer closed rebuttal from staff. Mr. Erspamer opened rebuttal from the applicant. Mr. Cunniffe stated this project is unique and there is nothing to compare it to. It's not in a zoned district specifically for lodging.The building has a lot of history to it and the proposal is partly in response to a 2006 proposal and an affordable housing proposal subsequently approved. He feels P&Z should evaluate the proposal on its own merits as a community benefit. In regards to parking, an economy lodge by nature does not tend to attract cars. Less and less people come in cars.At the time of reservation,the customer would be informed of the parking situation and the other transportation modes including the bus, bike paths and shuttle service. Mr. DeFrancia reinforced that the operating policy will always direct all parking first to the 33 spaces in the garage.They will also looking restricting permanent parking by the rental condominium owners. He thought it would be difficult to expand the parking area as suggested by Ms. Goldenberg.There will also be a van service available on a scheduled basis. He felt the parking issues raised could be addressed to a degree that people would not be displeased with the outcome. Mr. Erspamer closed rebuttal from the applicant. Mr. Erspamer opened for the commissioner's comments. Ms.Tygre stated there a lot things about the project that represents an improvement.Although she feels the condominium hotel model is a good one based on her experience. She pointed out the studies of visitors show that by far today's market wants condominiums rather than lodges.She feels the economy lodges are a good addition. However, she also agrees with staff that the project will be imbalanced if you cannot guarantee the condominiums will be available for rental. She disagrees the economy people will not use cars.She urged the applicant to guarantee the condominiums as rental units. Mr. Erspamer asked Ms.Tygre for clarification regarding her stance restricting occupancy of the condominium.She clarified her position there is limited maximum owner occupancy and it must be rented when the owner is not using it. Mr. Goode stated he would be in favor of Ms.Tygre's position. He believes The Gant has year round occupancy and this project is based off The Gant,which he feels is the most successful project in town for many years. He does side with staff's opinion for the project. He also agreed with Ms.Tygre's thoughts for improving the proposal but stated he would hate to discourage someone from living here year round. Mr. Erspamer likes Ms.Tygre's position but also finds it difficult to restrict someone from living here year round. He feels if the owners are restricted,they will stay for the peak season and make it 12 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 1,2014 available for rental in the off season. He has not drawn his final conclusion, but wants to make it fair for everyone.The other issue is parking. He feels if parking is limited, then you create a problem for people to walk around. He thought a parking space rental may be a good idea. Parking is about$20,000 per slot. His feeling is the economy people will be driving to Aspen. He would like to see more parking, but understands the applicant is meeting the code. He won't withhold because of the parking, but would like to see it. He would also like to the buildings as three floors, not four. He would also like see to the average over 300 sf, but understands it is not required by the code. Mr. Erspamer asked for clarification regarding how many public parking spaces are being requested. He thought they have 12 and are asking for more, but Mr. DeFrancia stated they are not dedicated. Ms. Adams stated staff is not supportive of granting any privatization of the public spaces. Mr. McNellis previously lived near the Boomerang and is saddened to see the hotel go into disrepair. He taken back by the four stories and feels three stories is out of scale for a residential neighborhood. He feels the mandate to make the units rentable directly opposes the parking problem. He feels it is a perfect location for an economy type hotel. His greatest concern is preserving the original lodge unit. The mass and scale of the new portion is overwhelming the original, historic portion and is too large for the neighborhood. Mr. McNellis motioned to extend the meeting until 7:20pm. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki. Roll call vote: Mr.McNellis,yes; Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki, yes; Mr. Goode,yes; Mr. Erspamer,yes; Ms.Tygre, no; Mr. Gibbs no. Four in favor,two not in favor, motion carried. Mr. Gibbs asked staff what the lodge overlay district provides beyond R-6 zoned district. Ms.Adams stated it allows the proposed uses including the multi-family free market residential, affordable housing and lodge. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki commend the applicant for choosing to preserve the Boomerang which is a great resource to this town and community. He also appreciates the economy lodge approach. However, he feels the dimensional increase is a dramatic departure from initially proposed.The size and number of keys is commendable,but the ratio of free market to lodging is troubling. He concurs with staffs response. Mr. Gibbs generally in agreement with the rest of the commission. He is also troubled by the fact of no guarantee of rental condominiums. He would prefer to see more lodging the condominiums. He also acknowledges this development will change the feel of the neighborhood. He wants to see a real, significant attempt to say this will be a lodge. He does like the design including the diversity of sizes and amenities, but he wants the development to stay a lodge. Mr. Erspamer summarized the commissioner's comments by stating the commissioners generally agree with the staffs response in regards to free market floor area is too much for the lodge as per the GMQS requirement. In regards to the PUD review,the height and massing is not in concept with the neighborhood.The affordable housing requirement has been met. Ms.Tygre moved to continue the hearing on the Boomerang Lodge until August 12.2014, seconded by Mr. Goode. Roll call vote; Mr. Goode,yes; Mr. McNellis,yes; Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki, yes; Mr. Erspamer,yes; Ms.Tygre,yes; Mr. Gibbs,yes. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:20 pm. 13 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 1, 2014 Cindy Klob City Clerk's Office, Records Manager 14 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission July 15,2014 U Erspamer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Stan Gibbs,Jasmine Tygre, Keith Goode, Ryan Watlerscheid, Brian McNellis, 011ie Nieuwland-Zlotnicki and Jason Elliot (alternate) present. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn,Jennifer Phelan,Sara Nadolny and Justin Barker. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Erspamer stated he attended the lodge meeting on July 14th and encouraged anyone with an opinion about land use and the code should attend the next meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan informed the commissioners of an upcoming lunch meeting to discuss potential code amendments. Jessica Garrow will be sending out an email in the next couple of weeks. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr.McNellis stated he had worked for B1ueGreen several years ago but he felt it would not influence his ability to review the application(Rubey Park Remodel)objectively. Mr.Erspamer stated upon driving by the property and a neighbor spoke of a current HPC application for the property across the street. Public Hearing- 320 Midland Ave. - Residential Design Standards Variance Mr. Erspamer opened the public hearing for a variance request for 320 Midland Ave. Ms. Quinn stated the legal notice as shown in Exhibit F in the staff memo was appropriately provided. Ms. Nadolny presented the project to the commissioners for the requested variance to the residential design standard regarding the build-to lines at 320 Midland Ave.The property is located in the R-15A zone district(moderate density residential), part of the East Meadows Subdivision, bordered by three streets and currently a vacant lot.Smuggler Grove Road was determined at an earlier time to be the front yard of this lot. On parcels less than 50,000 square feet(sf),of which this lot is just under 10,000 sf, at least 60%of the front facade should be within 5 feet(ft)of the minimum front yard setback.The setback for the front yard for this zone district is 25 ft. Per the code, we are expecting 60%of the front facade to be within 30 ft of this line. As a reminder,there are two criteria for granting a variance.The first is that a variance will provide an appropriate design or pattern development in consideration of the neighborhood context.The second is the variance is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness or the property has site specific constraints. 1 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission July 15,2014 Ms. Nadolny displayed the original site plan and explained her memo was written based on the original site plan. From the displayed original site plan, no portion of the facade of the building was located within the 5 foot setback line.The design was amended as shown as the addendum in Exhibit G of the packet.The addendum places the porch element within 5 ft of the setback line or 26% is meeting the intended standard. The purpose of the residential design standard is to preserve neighborhood scale and character and create neighborhoods conducive to walking, promote a consistent fagade line and encourage a relationship between the building and the street. Staff has examined the proposed building in terms of the two criteria for granting a variance. Staff ruled out the second criteria quickly due to the flat rectangular site.There are a number of trees in the front of the property, but none that are not able to be removed per the Parks Department with a tree permit. Staff then examined the first criteria in regards to the Smuggler Grove Road neighborhood. A neighborhood map was displayed and Ms. Nadolny explained there were a lot of different setbacks in the immediate neighborhood. She wanted to note the residential design standard was adopted in 2005. The majority of the properties in this neighborhood were built well before 2005.She noted a couple of properties were built since the standard was adopted.One being 63 Smuggler Road constructed in 2007. An administrative variance was denied for this property by the Board of Adjustment(BOA) in regards to build-to lines.At 73 Smuggler Road, constructed in 2006, a setback variance was granted by the BOA (closer to the street). Ms. Nadolny measured all the properties on Smuggler Grove Road using GIS.The property at 55 Smuggler Grove Road is excluded from this standard because the lot size.The remainder of the properties on the street are located closer to the street rather than further away.Any new development must be reviewed based on the standard. In conclusion, staff feels this new development has an opportunity to meet the standards. Staff wants to eliminate nonconformities within the city wherever possible.The new development within this lot is a good opportunity to meet the standards. Staff did not find the requested variance meets the criteria necessary for granting the variance.Staff recommends denial of the request for the residential design standard variance. Mr. Erspamer asked the commissioners for questions to the staff for this agenda item. Mr. Watlerscheid asked that because it is a corner lot, is it only evaluated for the side designated as the front of the property against standards at which Ms. Nadolny replied yes. Mr. Erspamer believed he read that the longest lot line would be considered the front of the property. Ms. Phelan replied that typically they look at the entire city block including the length to the alley to make the determination, but an administrative determination was made in this case to make Smuggler Grove Road the front. Mr. Gibbs asked if someone made the request to make Smuggler Grove Road the front. Ms. Nadolny replied it was an administrative determination.The applicant did not make the request. Mr. Erspamer asked for confirmation of another lot that previously requested and received a setback variance. Ms. Nadolny confirmed it was 73 (Smuggler Grove Rd)that received a variance from BOA due to a number of utilities located on the property along with other items. Ms. Nadolny also confirmed lot 73 has a duplex on the lot. 2 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 15,2014 Mr. Erspamer asked why this request was not brought in front of the BOA at which Ms. Phelan replied residential design standard variances are handled by the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z). Mr. Gibbs asked for clarification regarding why 73 (Smuggler Grove Rd) did not go before the BOA at which Ms. Nadolny recollected the request was a setback variance, not a residential design standard variance. Mr. Erspamer turned the floor over to the applicant for this agenda item. Mr. Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning is representing the HTM Properties LLC,the applicant. Sitting with Mr. Haas is Bob Walker who assisted with the design of the building. Regarding 73 (Smuggler Grove Rd), Mr. Haas stated the applicant did go to P&Z for a residential design variance for the one store element. He represented the applicant in this case and knows it was granted. He speculated the staffs interpretation regarding the granting of a setback variance also applying to the build-to lines.The same type of variance was granted last week at 28 Smuggler Grove. Mr. Haas stated the two previously mentioned criteria is an either or situation. He felt standard one has largely been ignored and the staff's position has been one of noncompliance of the standard because it is a vacant lot,therefore the variance was not granted. He feels this is not the standard. Whether you can comply or not as nothing to do with a residential design variance should be granted.All you need to show is that your design meets the purpose of the standard and considering the context of development, provides an appropriate solution to addressing that purpose.Whether or not you can comply is irrelevant. He feels the need for the review is unfortunate.The application was submitted in April and his client was hoping to be building by now.They are only asking for one variance when you are allowed to ask for up to three variances administratively. He feels it should have been granted administratively. Mr. Haas felt the application clearly stated how the standard was addressed; the purpose of it and it complies with the requirement for a variance. Using the same map previously displayed by staff, Mr. Haas explained the standard for the variance was to provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development was proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Mr. Haas state the lot is in a neighborhood where there is not much of an established pattern or context.Smuggler Grove is a private easement paid for and maintained by the homes that use it,There are no sidewalks and cars are parked along the north side of Smuggler Grove Road head in fronting the building with fences behind the cars and then the houses are set back beyond the fences.There is not a clear distinction between public realm, semi-public realm and private realm as found in the west end or other neighborhoods in town.The semi-public/semi-private realm is largely hard to find behind the parked cars and fences. His client is seeking to increase the front setback which will increase the area of semi-public realm. It will help to preserve a lot of trees. He understands the Parks Department would issue permits to remove the trees, but because you can remove means you should remove. The Parks Department referral stated that Mitch Haas was correct in the assumption that the Parks Department would like to preserve the trees located on this property. Mr. Haas said his client feels the same. If forced to move the house more towards the front would mean 10-17 trees would have to be removed which would otherwise be able to be kept.The neighbors appreciate the increased front setback and the ability to preserve the trees. Keeping the house back on the property increases the public experience and a greater semi-public realm between the street and the house.All the outdoor living and yard space will be in the front rather than the back corner on Mascotte Lane which is more 3 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission July 15,2014 private lane.The applicant is not even allowed to use the private Mascotte Lane by the owner for access. Per the city, they are also not allowed to use Midland Avenue for access either. Mr. Haas then reviewed the purpose of the standard.The code for site design standards states the intent is to encourage residential buildings that address the street in a manner which creates a consistent facade line and defines the public and semi-public realms. He stated there is no consistent facade line in this neighborhood.The context is quite haphazard on the north of the property which is in unincorporated Pitkin County.There are several duplexes and multi-family nearby that do not address any of the residential design standards.The front set back in the neighborhood in R-15A zone is 25 ft. This requires at least 60%of the facade to be at least within 30 ft of the property line. Everything surrounding Smuggler Grove Road in the East Meadows Subdivision maintains different zoning designations and different front yard setback requirements.The opportunity for consistent setbacks in this context pretty much does not exist.The only context worth considering is Smuggler Grove Road. Including the subject property,there are eight properties that front on the road. Mr. Haas then described each property on the road identifying each having a different set back and each having multiple compliance issues(three to six issues on each)in regards to the residential design standards (including building orientation, build-to lines, setbacks,fence height,fence requirement,first story element, entry porch, windows,front facade area and light wells,garage doors).These includes lots 23, 43(duplex), 63(built since design standard adoptions), 73(received setback variance),55, 28(received set back and orientation variance from HPC within past the week,where staff stated "the neighborhood in large part does not meet this standard" in their memo) and 312. Mr. Haas stated staff's only argument is irrelevant for the applicant's property to meet the design standards because it is a vacant lot. He referred to his statement on page 2 or 3 of his submittal which stated "To be clear, as written and codified, the two criteria under which a variance may be granted have nothing at all to do with whether compliance with a particular design standard can be achieved. Thus the fact that the subject parcel is a vacant lot should not be a consideration." He feels that it was the only consideration and it shouldn't have factored in. Mr. Haas feels there are consistent with context as well as all the other residential design standards and fully addressing standards relative to Midland Ave.as to provide for the purpose of the standard including addressing the context, public and semi-public realms and pedestrian experience. It was also pointed out in the application(possibly erroneously), calling the trees a site specific constraint, but the trees are a part of their context. He feels a requirement to keep trees whether the city would require you to keep them or not is irrelevant. Mr. Haas feels they are dealing with a haphazard neighborhood which doesn't provide the context for a consistent facade line as the standard goes for, but the spirit of the design standards have been addressed as a whole and the build-to line standard and other standards in particular to Midland Ave. Mr. Haas feels the revised design goes even further towards trying to meet the spirit of the standards. These include pulling forward another piece of the building forward to meet the 25 ft front setback line, increasing the size of the front porch to more than 50 sf and six ft deep and placing a hole will be placed in the front porch to allow three or four trees to remain. In closing, Mr. Haas feels the proposal complies with the spirit and intent of the design standards, complies with the letter of all but one of the applicable design standards, limits the extent of the requested variance and justified in the context of the development and promotes the purpose of the standards, particularly along Midland Ave. 4 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 15,2014 Mr. Erspamer asked the commissioners if they had any questions for the applicant or staff for this agenda item. Ms.Tygre asked if there would be a sidewalk along Midland Ave. at which Mr. Haas replied there are no sidewalks in the whole neighborhood. Smuggler Grove is a private street. Mr. Erspamer asked staff if the applicant was required to place the house where it's supposed to be if he would have to obtain and pay for the permits to remove the trees. He referred to the Parks Department comments regarding a permit is required and the cost is based on the size of the tree. Ms. Phelan thought option would be for them to replant trees of the same height to offset the cost of the ones removed. Ms. Phelan said she did not know the diameter requirements for the trees. Mr. Walker stated the cost of mitigation could be ten times the cost of tree depending on the diameter. He stated there is a significant difference between the replacement and permit costs. Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. Haas how he obtained the information on the setbacks of the other properties he mentioned previously. Mr. Haas said he utilized GIS and other houses he worked on previously. He said it's difficult to get a precise measurement on house 63 because of the angle. Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. Haas to confirm the existence and placement of the garage at which Mr. Haas answered it would be off Smuggler Grove Road set back on the west side (left)of the lot in the northwest corner. It will be a single car garage. Mr. Erspamer asked the applicant what percentage was meeting on the setback requirement. Both Mr. Haas and Mr.Walker replied it meets 26%as opposed to 60%. Mr. Haas they meet the requirement a 100%at 10 ft on the Midland side. Mr. Watlerscheid asked when the determination was made that Smuggler Grove Rd would be the front, what criteria was used to make the determination between Midland Ave. and Smuggler Grove Road. Mr. Haas thought it was based on the longer block length. Mr. Walker stated it wasn't the lot, it's the entire block. Ms. Phelan was not sure what the actual approval said, but block length may have been the consideration. Mr. Gibbs asked for clarification regarding the side loaded garage. Ms. Phelan stated there is a requirement to access off the alley when you have access from an alley. She believed a side loaded garage is permitted on a larger lot size. Mr. Haas stated if you don't have an alley,your garage doors have to be at least 10 ft recessed behind the front most fagade or wall of your building.The proposed garage is more than 10 ft further back than the front of the building as viewed from Smuggler Grove Road. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki asked why the garage could not be accessed from Midland Ave. Mr. Haas and Mr. Walker stated it was the city's decision for the access to be off of Smuggler Road. Mr.Walker stated the city waived the 50 ft setback of the access drive from a corner. Mr. Erspamer opened the meeting for public comment for this agenda item. Mr.Steve Hach from 23 Smuggler Grove,agreed with Mr. Haas in that when the subdivision was platted they did not have to comply with any of the standards.The setback variances at 73 do not impact the street because it is the end of the road and there were other issues to address. He feels it is an anti- setback variance.The applicant wants to go further back than the set back and from his perspective the street would have been wider and the view from my house would have been much preserved until the 5 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission July 15, 2014 city made them move part of it out to the street.The change has a negative impact on him as owner of his lot. He is supportive of the development and thinks they are being persecuted because they are not building to 100%of their FAR(floor area ratio) like everybody else does.They are building a design to live in and a design works for them and so far what they've been asked to do makes it worse for the neighborhood. He reiterated he is supportive of their proposal. Mr. Erspamer closed the meeting for public comment for this agenda item. Mr. Erspamer opened rebuttal from staff for this agenda item. Ms. Phelan wanted to address two items. First, she did not believe there was a hardship in regards to site specific constraints and secondly,the intent of the standards is to ensure there is a relationship between the house and the street and what the applicant is asking for is to push the house even further back from the street,therefore reducing the relationship it has with the street. And as the applicant's representative has mentioned, a lot of these house are even closer than 30 ft, so what you are doing is actually pushing this house back from the existing context.This really privatizes and closes off the building to the street. She feels it creates less consistency by pushing it further back. Ms. Nadolny wanted reiterate that any redevelopment of the properties on Smuggler Grove Road would be subject to the same review of the present design standards and would be expected to apply for a variance if necessary.She does believe 63 does meet the standard.She does not believe they received a setback variance, she has not found any evidence of a variance.She calculates the measurement at just over 25 ft but agreed with Mr. Haas that it is a difficult property to measure. She feels the standard is met for 63. Mr. Erspamer closed rebuttal from staff for this agenda item. Mr. Erspamer opened rebuttal from the applicant for this agenda item. Mr. Haas said he thought about the idea that every house that wants to redevelop must comply.Then there has been three other design requests since the design standards have been approved including house at 53 clearly does not comply with most of the standards, the house 73 was granted a first story element and front yard setback variance so it did not have to comply with the build-to line standards and the house 58 is currently under review and pending with staff's recommendation to grant it the same variance.So he does not see a pattern of redeveloped properties having to comply with the standards. It seems to be exactly the opposite. He is not directing his frustrations directly at Ms. Nadolny; she has been perfectly fine and reasonable. His frustration is the code gives the Community Development Director an authority that they just don't use. He feels the standard is not being followed when his one request was not dealt with administratively. He feels the context clearly supports the request. Mr. Erspamer closed rebuttal from the applicant for this agenda item. Mr. Erspamer opened for the commissioner's comments for this agenda item. Mr. Erspamer feels both Mr. Haas and staff are right, making the decision challenging. He believes the code can create narrow and cavernous properties by having everything up to the front. His thought is to consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures.The adjacent structures are encroaching one way or another so he feels this is a continuation.At this point, he does not have a problem with the way it currently sits. 6 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission July 15,2014 Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki understands the purpose of the residential design standards is to foster a better public realm for the city of Aspen predicated on a relationship between the front door and the front of the house to the street that makes a better public realm.The properties as he sees them still have a relatively close relationship to the street.The importance is the relationship of the front of the house to the street and he doesn't think the variance should be granted. He does not agree with the argument is that the context does not support the standard.These standards were established in 2006 after many of the buildings were built and that as new buildings are built,they will be built to these standards. Because some of the older buildings do not meet the standard does not allow for the new development to not go by the standard. Mr. Goode mentioned lot 26 being reviewed and not to the standards. He believes good neighbors make good neighborhoods and the neighbors are supporting this development. He is partial to grant the request. Mr. Watlerscheid feels torn, but because it is on a corner, he is more likely to go along with the variance request. If he was reviewing the lot 23, he probably wouldn't grant the variance request.They are meeting the standards on the Midland Ave. side. Mr. McNellis understands the staff's position that they need to give a recommendation based on intent of the code especially in the context of the west end. But this is not the west end and it is very different. The properties were previously in the county and it's reflected in the way the houses are built on the lots.This neighborhood embodies messy vitality and there is a character associated with that. He does not have a ton of heartburn regarding the request especially considering trees will be preserved. He also recognizes that with it being a corner lot,there is more to consider. He also noted there are not objections from adjacent property owners. Ms.Tygre stated whether the motion passes or fails, it is important for precedence to indicate if we are voting yes or no based on which of the two standards. It doesn't have to be both. Are we voting yes or no based on context or based on hardship of site specific constraints? Ms. Quinn stated the commissioners should be very clear which proposal is considered;the original one or the subsequent submittal.She assumes it is the subsequent submittal and not the original. Mr. Haas stated he prefers the subsequent submittal be considered. Mr. Erspamer assumed it was the most recent submittal as well.Although both were discussed, the subsequent submittal including the 26%of the front facade within the required front yard setback line will be considered for the vote. Ms. Quinn and Ms. Nadolny noted the resolution included in the packet was written for the original submittal and will need to be modified to reference the subsequent submittal including a new Exhibit A (currently Exhibit G in the packet).The measurement references in Section 1 should be modified to reflect the revised site plan (approximately 26%.of the front fagade within five feet of the required setback...). Mr.Watlerscheid moved to approve Resolution#10,Series 2014 recommending approval of the request for variance from the Residential Design Standard found in Section 26.410.020.D.2.a, seconded by Ms. Tygre. Ms.Tygre reiterated she would like the motion to indicate which of the two standards was considered. Mr. Watlerscheid stated he wanted the motion to be about the context, not site constraints. Ms.Tygre stated she wanted the resolution to state clearly what the commissioners based their decision on in the resolution. Ms. Quinn suggested adding the applicable 26.410.020.D subsection of code to the last 7 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission July 15,2014 WHEREAS paragraph. Ms.Tygre seconded the corrected motion. Roll call vote; Mr. Erspamer,yes; Mr. Gibbs, yes; Ms.Tygre, no; Mr. Goode,yes; Mr. Watlerscheid, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Nieuwland- Zlotnicki, no. Motion carried with a count of yes-5 and no-2. Public Hearing - Rubey Park Remodel - Planned Development Amendment Mr. Erspamer opened the public hearing_for_a PUD amendment for the Rubey Park remodel. Ms. Quinn stated she had a couple of questions of the applicant regarding posting the notice.The affidavit states the notice was posted on May 27, 2014. Ms. Quinn believes it should have been dated June, which the applicant agreed. Ms. Quinn then asked if the posted notice been maintained the day of its posting to today at which the applicant replied yes. Ms. Quinn stated with that clarification,the notice is appropriate. Mr. Barker clarified the additional handouts included since the packet was delivered to the commissioners. Page one is a revised employee generation numbers requested by APCHA to include all the drivers working hours, not just the time spent at Rubey Park(Agenda Exhibit G).The other two pages are the exhibits to the proposed resolution that were neglected to be included in the packet (Agenda Exhibit H). Mr. Barker stated this request is a planned development amendment and growth management review for an essential public facility; Rubey Park Transit facility, located on Durant between South Mill and South Galena street. It is a 27,000 sf lot or one-half of a block. It is zoned public with a plan development overlay and located just in the very far edge of the commercial core historic district. Because it is located in the district, the HPC did have conceptual design and commercial design review for the project. Under the newly amended code as of December, 2013; it would have the opportunity to review the plan development and growth management concurrently, but it was staff's decision that P&Z should also be creating a recommendation to City Council.This project will go before council and then it will go before the HPC for the final review and the HPC will handle the final review and final plan review which is technical in nature.This review tonight is covering the project mass and scale dimensions. HPC did have one item to pass on to both P&Z and Council over there concerns for the proposed bus parking on the south side of Durant and the operations.They are requesting this review to look at this specifically and note any concerns. This project will be a renovation of the existing structure currently on site with the inclusion of two new structures,one on each side of the existing building. One of the new structures is for RFTA facilities and the other new building is for expanded public restrooms.There will also be a new glass roof connecting all three structures together.The site and adjacent right-of-ways are also proposed to be enhanced and improved as part of this project in order to create better bus functionality and a better pedestrian experience overall.This does include the relocation of some of the parking spots in the area as well. In order to maintain service on the site,they are proposing to do six phases of construction including the location of a temporary facility on-site for the ticketing and restrooms during the renovation. In regards to the planned development review, staff has found it meets all the applicable criteria. Many of the city departments have been involved in the design process over time including engineering, parks, 8 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission July 15,2014 community development.All been working throughout the process to ensure compliance with the standards during the design. The dimensions for the project are set through this process.Since it is located in a public zoned district there are no baseline numbers.The existing set and the surrounding properties are included which staff has addressed in how the review criteria is met. Staff has one item of concern regarding the requirement to improve pedestrian and bicycle transit facilities in the PUD review criteria. In many ways the applicant has met this from the existing facilities, but staff feels there could be a better emphasis on the proposed pedestrian connection between the existing malls and where the proposed facilities will be located. Staff wants the applicant to look at this going forward. For the growth management review this is designated as an essential public facility. P&Z's role is to determine the employee generation for the site and provide a recommendation for council.The City Council will determine what the mitigation is when it is delivered to them including waive or partially wave any requirements that might Staff recommends the employee generation is what is represented in the packet.Staff also recommends an audit to be conducted two years after the certificate of occupancy(CO)for this project to confirm or deny the employee generation numbers and initiate mitigation if necessary. Overall, staff recommends the P&Z Commission to determine the employee generation to be an increase of 0.18 as shown in the application and recommend to City Council to approve the request for planned development amendment and growth management review for the essential public facility. Mr. Erspamer asked if P&Z can make recommendations. Mr. Barker replied yes. He then asked which parking spaces will be eliminated by McDonalds. Mr. Barker said some parking will possibly be relocated as part of the proposal. He also stated the applicant will cover this in more detail. Mr.John Krueger, City of Aspen Director of Transportation, introduced the applicant's representatives at this meeting including Sheri Sanzone of BlueGreen; Gilbert Sanchez of Studio B; Samuel Baucum of BlueGreen; Lynn Rumbaugh,City of Aspen Transportation Program Manager; and Mike Herms and Nick Senn of the Roaring Fork Transit Authority(RFTA). Mr. Krueger stated the Rubey Park was built over 30 years ago and described how it was only a little shack in hayfield at one time shown by pictures available at the historical society. It has served the community well. It was built in 1987 and served a couple hundred thousand riders a year. Now with the implementation of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) last fall,the city carries over a million passengers on its eight route system with most of them going through this facility. RFTA sends about another four million through the facility on an annual basis.The facility is hanging on, but most of the infrastructure is failing and it's in desperate need of renovation. Council recognized this need perhaps two years ago and made it a top ten goal for staff to start looking at ways to renovate and make improvements to the facility. City staff started this process and obtained local funding from the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC)to engage Studio B and BlueGreen to compete a big portion of the design work. Grant funds in the amount$3 million dollars have also been obtained from the state of Colorado and Federal Government. 9 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission July 15,2014 Ms.Sanzone stated when they initiated the design work,the team was shocked at how many people use the facility. One of the initial efforts by the team was to look at the existing conditions. Some items the noted were buses parked for drivers on break, buses staged for loading and unloading passengers,very unsafe conditions and it is not very functional for today's needs.The amenities for users are fairly inadequate.The waiting room is fairly small,the restrooms are undersized and do not meet the American with Disabilities Act(ADA) requirements,the outdoor space is uncomfortable for waiting, inadequate bike parking. Based on the surveys conducted, people really enjoy sitting outside with great views in a centrally located place. A number of outreach days(three during schematic design &two during final design) were conducted at Rubey Park to help ensure a collaborative approach with the people using the facilities.The team collected great input from both riders, people walking by, drivers, other RFTA employees.The team also provided previews for appointed and elected officials.Surveys were conducted with bus riders, in person riders, online other outreach activities including a project web page from the beginning of the project and working with the media. One of the key survey results included an almost 98%response regarding keeping the facility at the current location. Respondents included a broad range including residents of the valley and visitors. The design process documented the how the spaces are currently allocated for usage and what was needed.This process identified that additional space was not necessary, but rightsizing and making the current spaces function better than today. With the design, the team attempted to utilize existing bus spaces well, eliminate conflicts and accommodate additional bus spaces as well.Two additional spaces were made available in the design. They also took a close look at the building itself to determine how it is used and how it needs to function in the future.The proposal includes only an additional 606 sf.This space is split between the public waiting area and what the staff uses.The staff is currently using the space (no ventilation) in the gable roof as an ad hoc lounge area for the drivers. The proposal attempts to provide adequate space waiting, staff lounge areas as well as ADA requirements. Some of the comments heard during the outreach were from individuals who had previously attend sessions and were happy with the design and excited for it to start now! Ms. Sanzone displayed the schematic design selected by Council as their preferred design out of the four presented. In regards to the parking spaces described in the memo, Ms. Sanzone stated on Mill St,there are nine spaces total near McDonalds.They are proposing to relocate six of those spaces.Three will remain and they will likely be ADA spaces. Ms.Sanzone stated they plan to meet with the parking department to nail down where the parking spaces will go. One option is move metered spaces to Galena through some realignment of the curb.Another option is to create a fifth spot on S. Mill St. south of Durant where there are currently four spaces.These spaces would also be changed to meter parking. In regards to buses parking on Durant St south of Wagner Park, RFTA currently utilizes this parking area for staging 10 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 15,2014 buses special events, parking buses during layovers and breaks.The proposal identifies these parking spaces for special events. In the design approved by Historic Preservation Commission (HPC)which is presented this evening,the building in the center that exists today will remain.The addition on the back will be removed and the two wings of the building will be reconstructed based on some structural review and analysis. It will essentially be the same footprint as the building exists today.The public commented they love the clock tower and believe it's an iconic Aspen image and want to keep it moving forward.The center building will include an enlarged waiting area, an improved clerk's space to allow up to two clerks working when necessary, new windows.On the right hand side is a new building to be connected by a continuous roof to the center building which will include new restrooms.The new building on the left side is the home for RFTA which will be right-sized and ADA compliant.The trash and recycle bins will also be accommodated within this building.The current site includes six diagonal parking spaces along the alley for buses which causes a lot of conflicts with neighboring units trying to use the alley.The new plan separates the alley from the parking spaces.Another safety and annoyance issue of the beeper when buses backing up will be eliminated with the new design.The bike parking will increased and the WE- Cycle station will be maintained. Rubey Park will also have a park-like space as an extension of the pedestrian mail on the left where people can wait and relax.The two new bus parking spaces added along with two current spaces in the back will be for drivers who are on break or layovers.The buses parked around Rubey Park and on Durant are actively staged for riders to load and unload.The new design shows spaces for 20 buses which would be for peak conditions. Ms.Sanzone described how the connection between pedestrian mall and Rubey Park allows for people to diagonally cross through the parking area creating an unsafe condition.The new design is intended to provide visual cues so pedestrians should know where they should be going. Concrete designs will be used to communicate a crosswalk for the pedestrians between the mall and the parking area. Mill St will be created as an extension to the mall to reduce the number of cars allowed to park in the area.The sidewalk along Wagner Park has been widened about two times the width it is currently providing a space easier for people to negotiate towards the mall. The architecture of the HPC approved design included in the proposal includes the gable form, clock tower and facade is similar to the existing building today.The two building and attaching wings will now have a flat roof.All three buildings will be linked by a continuous canopy providing extra shade and cover. Looking at the area from above, a green roof is proposed for the flat roofs. Solar panels on the flat roofs are also included in the proposal.These two work well together in a sustainable approach managing storm water and energy efficiencies.Along the back is a continuous bioretention area required by city engineering of projects. Water hitting the roof will partially be absorbed by the plants and then move along the surface of the paving and eventually end up in the bioretention areas including plants that will assist with removing poisons and toxins from the water before making its way to Rio Grande and Roaring Fork River. Ms. Sanzone displayed a view of the front fagade showing the materials being considered including brick, metal,wood and glass as well as the transparency of the building making it open to take advantage of the views and using sustainable plants. 11 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission July 15,2014 Mr. Sanchez then provided information regarding the size and scale of the building.The current tower is 32 ft 2 inches to the peak and the gable is about 22 ft to the peak.The current side wings with gable roofs are about 18 ft to the peak.The proposal includes an inverted roof, not really flat, a glass canopy connecting all three proposed buildings.The green roofs will help deal with storm water issues and increase the permeable surface on site.Another intention is to be subservient to the iconic forms.The new elements are very horizontal,very low.The height of the side wing roof will drop to 12.5 ft as compared to 18 ft. the form of the roof should also minimize the snow shedding safety issues existing with the current building.The new roof is designed to hold the snow. Ms. Sanzone then reviewed the plan going forward for a sense of the big picture. Their last outreach day was last week.They have just completed their 60% level of design and going through a cost estimating process to ensure they are still aligned with the budget.The P&Z review is this meeting and next month the plan is to meet with City Council. Then Mr. Krueger will go back the EOTC in October to request the additional money for the project to move forward.The final review is tentatively scheduled for November with HPC and then submit for a building permit in December.The construction will start as soon as the mountain closes in the spring with a tentative re-opening date by Thanksgiving for the next ski season.This is a very tight process to get everything completed. Mr. Erspamer asked the commissioners if they had any questions for the applicant for this agenda item. Mr. Erspamer asked if the planted trees would block the sun from the solar panels. Ms.Sanzone stated they have planned for the separation and height to not block the sun from the panels. Cottonwoods will be planted at the back of the facility for screening and bioretention and smaller trees will be planted near the front of the facility. Mr. Erspamer asked how they plan to shovel the snow from the roof at which Mr. Sanchez stated they do not plan to shovel the snow and the roof is designed to hold the snow.Some form of heat tapes will also be used to assist with melting ice. Mr.Sanchez also stated the canopy will capture the snow coming off the gable and keep it from falling to the sidewalk as it does now. In regards to the parking on Mill St north of Durant, Mr. Erspamer wanted to know if the management of McDonalds have been contacted and informed and are they concerned. Ms.Sanzone stated they have been invited to the outreach days and they have spoken with them. Mr. Elliot then asked about the two parking spaces across from CP Burger. He said there are two meter spots currently there that were not accounted for in the parking mitigation. Ms.Sanzone understood those spots were for official parking, but she stated she would confirm and if so,they will find additional parking. Mr. Erspamer asked who parks on the south side of Durant facing Independence Pass. Mr. Krueger stated currently the east end ride, Burlingame and the cross town shuttle park there. Mr. Erspamer asked for confirmation on the number of men's and women's toilets at which Mr. Sanchez replied there will five fixtures in each. Mr. Erspamer asked if there was space allocated for courtesy, shuttle,taxi and lodge drop-offs. Ms. Sanzone stated there is one space currently included in the proposal on the corner of Galena and Durant. 12 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission July 15,2014 Mr. Goode asked if the new design has fewer buses parked along the alley. Ms. Sanzone stated the new design has room for four buses where now up to six buses park along the alley. Mr. Krueger stated the new sawtooth design for parking behind Rubey Park eliminates the eight-ten point turns to back out of the existing spaces along the alley. Mr. Gibbs asked for clarification on how the new design attempts to channel pedestrians at both ends of Rubey Park. Ms. Sanzone stated the current sidewalk along Wagner Park is undersized for the amount of pedestrians accessing the mall from the south side of Durant.The new sidewalk will be widened to assist pedestrians to access the mall. She states there will be some pedestrians attempting the diagonal cut through the back parking area so the plan will include paving features to delineate between the pedestrian and bus parking areas. Mr. Elliot asked if they make the Mill St. appear like a mall will people use the area as a pedestrian mall and increase bus—people interactions. Ms.Sanzone feels the new design cuts off the diagonal traffic and the design will allow vehicles to recognize people may be in the area. Mr. Krueger stated the design eliminates car—bus and car—people interactions that currently exist on the Mill St. side. Mr.Watlerscheid asked if the bioretention area will be recessed. Ms.Sanzone replied it will be recessed, but not to the extent of the areas near the Gondola Plaza. He also asked if the pedestrian walkways would be raised. Ms.Sanzone stated the areas are not proposed to be raised primarily due to how buses move. Raised areas would rock the bus while they make the turns into Rubey Park. Mr. Krueger stated raised areas would increase the noise of the buses while they make the turns. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki asked how much bicycle parking is proposed. Ms. Sanzone stated the plan doubles the amount of bicycle parking currently available.A different rack system will be used allowing more bicycles. Mr. McNellis asked if the Parks Department will be tasked to maintain the green areas, including roofs, and have they been a part of the design process. Ms.Sanzone replied the department has been involved in the design and they are aware and understand it will be part of their program. Mr. McNellis asked if the 20 buses accommodated with the new design is for maximum use. Ms. Sanzone stated the design was about compromising and identifying a balance use of the park space.This number allows RFTA to meet a lot of operational needs but it also allows the other needs from neighbors and the community to be met. Mr. Gibbs asked where the crosstown shuttle would be located. Mr. Krueger stated the plans have not been finalized with RFTA operations. He feels there is an opportunity for improvement. Mr. Erspamer opened and closed the meeting for public comment for this item because there were no members of the public attending. Mr. Erspamer opened for the commissioner's comments for this agenda item. Mr. Goode asked if the design discussions included making Durant a one way street. Ms. Sanzone and Mr. Krueger stated there had been quite a bit of discussion.This is a primary area for people to move 13 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission July 15,2014 around the core of the city. It was decided making Durant one way would compromise the grid system and circulation of traffic.The members of the design team decided no for making Durant one way. Mr. Watlerscheid asked if they were going to bulb-out the corners. Ms. Sanzone state there would be none because it is too restrictive on the buses making the turns. Ms. Sanzone and Mr. Krueger stated there were three bus turning tests conducted to make sure the buses could make the turning radiuses. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki asked if bulb-outs were considered on the ends of the bioswales. Ms. Sanzone stated this was part of the original design, but they were moved after the turning test was completed. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki suggested indicating with color the pedestrian's path. Ms.Sanzone stated they will be marking the four cross walks at Durant and the mall. Mr. Krueger described the pedestrian area at the end of Mills as a jailbreak area because there is nothing to direct the pedestrians. He hopes the new design will help eliminate these issues. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki stated extending the pavement patters should make drivers more aware of pedestrians. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki felt widening the sidewalk was actually an opportunity to plant more trees where the parking spots were eliminated to add more greenscape to the area. Mr. Krueger stated the Parks Department is reworking Wagner Park(mostly irrigation and electrical)but he did not know if that could be part of it. He stated they could mention it to the members of the design team from the department. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki feels this building is such an important public institution; a gateway to Aspen; the first sight of Aspen for many visitors. He strongly suggested to Mr. Krueger, HPC and to City Council that it goes through some kind of architectural design review.When he looks at the design, it looks a lot like high school in the boring suburb outside of Philadelphia. He thinks this city has a legacy of great architects doing meaningful public architecture and he thinks Lake Tahoe just did their bus depot which is a lot more forward looking in their design and environmental system it integrates. He commends the bioswales and the solar panels but this can do and be more. When people arrive in Aspen,they should think they are arriving somewhere special and he feels he would be arriving somewhere between a weird post-modern reinterpretation of our past Disneyland in anyplace rather than a truly distinct place. As a P&Z member, he feels it could be way more forward looking instead of the safest possible approach.These materials are not of Aspen and they are not of our rustic character and they are not modern.When you arrive,you should feel you are in a mountain town or an ecologically advanced forward looking building. Instead he feels he would be arriving at his high school from ten years ago. Mr. Erspamer stated he agrees with Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki's statement. Mr.Sanchez disagreed with a lot of Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki's statement. He feels they have not had an opportunity to discuss all the minutiae of the project and all the parameters and restrictions of the project. In many ways he does agree with Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki's statements and he would have loved to have a broader design opportunity presented, but there are certain restrictions that compelled him to approach the way it was done. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki countered he understands and that is why he directed his statements towards a broader audience. Ms. Sanzone added that a lot of the public comment collected included statements from people stating they love the building the way it is and could more space be just added to it.The design has involved 14 Remular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission July 15, 2014 knowing people really love the clock tower and really love the gable form which is one reason they were preserved. Mr. Krueger stated some of the funding partners providing grants asked the City to make sure it was a renovation, not a scrape and redo.This includes$3 million in funding received.This restricted Mr. Sanchez from taking the design where he may have liked to take it. Mr. Krueger states he understands Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki's comments. Mr. McNellis stated he is struggling with the design to continue the mall on both ends of Rubey Park. He understands what the design is trying to do, but feels the areas are confusing to kids and tourists. He feels it can be dangerous to navigate across the areas. He urged them to reconsider extending the mall area and to make sure there are good barriers at the end of the mall to delineate the end of the mall as well as delineate the passages from the mall to the terminal island. Ms. Quinn reminded the commissioners that there is action to be taken for this agenda item.There is a draft of Resolution#11 included in the packet. Mr. Barker reminded them their role is to confirm the 0.18 increase of employee generation. In reviewing Resolution#11, Mr. Gibbs noted the language used to describe the increase of employees in Section 2 is confusing and should be edited for clarify an increase of 0.18 employees. Mr. Watlerscheid asked if the brick will be reused or not. Mr.Sanchez replied the bricks would not be reused.All new brick will be used so all three buildings will match.The design team is looking at a variety of bricks and he said it would not be a typical standard size. Mr.Watlerscheid asked the commissioners wanted to include additional recommendations other than what is stated in Section 3 (1). Mr. Gibbs stated he thought the recommendation stated in Section 3 (1) should be edited to include text to make it very clear and well-marked where pedestrians can walk and to both pedestrians as well as bus and other drivers into the alley. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki motioned to extend the meeting until 7:20pm. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gibbs. Roll call vote; Mr. Erspamer,yes; Mr. Gibbs,yes; Ms.Tygre, no; Mr. Goode,yes; Mr. Watlerscheid,yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki,yes. Motion carried with a count of yes-6 and no-1. The commissioners agreed to change the language of Section 3 (1)to include lighting, replace the Mill St and Galena St mall areas defined with transit facility and to change the word accommodate to delineate. Mr. McNellis and Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki asked if a review of the architecture or an outside design review should be included as an additional recommendation. Mr.Gibbs was not sure the commission had purview to make the recommendation and noted HPC has approved the design. Mr. Gibbs further stated this would have been a good opportunity to have a joint meeting with HPC to bring up some of these concerns and felt it was too late to bring up as a recommendation at this point in time. Mr. Barker reminded the commissioners that HPC has already approved the conceptual design including mass and scale and proportions of the project.When the proposed design goes to Council, in which Council can direct it to back for a conceptual review, but otherwise the conceptual design is locked in. If so only 15 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 15,2014 materials, landscape, lighting, and other finishing products. Mr. McNellis stated the best course would be for Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki to attend the City Council meeting and make his comments at that time. Mr. Erspamer closed the commissioner's comments for this agenda item. Ms.Tygre made a motion to approve Resolution#11 with the changes defined. Mr. McNellis seconded the motion. Mr. Gibbs asked Mr. Barker to make the changes in the last sentence if Section 3 (1) so they both reflect an increase of 0.18. Ms.Tygre made a motion to include the additional changes stated by Mr. Gibbs. Mr. McNellis seconded the amended motion. Roll call vote; Mr. Erspamer, yes; Mr.Gibbs,yes; Ms.Tygre,yes; Mr. Goode,yes; Mr. Watlerscheid, yes; Mr. McNellis,yes; Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki,yes. Motion carried with a count of yes-7 and no-0. Ms.Tygre left the meeting. Mr. Erspamer asked if there was other business to discuss. Mr. Gibbs asked if at some point, the commission could discuss how they take public comment. He had attended a meeting last week that he felt was poorly handled. He feels it would be important for all the commissioners to review this subject because how the public is treated is an incredibly important issue and how the City government is perceived. He asked if the subject could be discussed at a future meeting. Mr. Erspamer commented he attended a couple of City Council meetings and noticed they are having dialogue with the public. He was not sure why they are handling it differently than in the past. He stated the State of Colorado advises how to run meetings. Both Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Erspamer agree it is difficult at times to handle public comments. Ms. Phelan state she would look at the schedule in the future to plan for a discussion on public comment. Meeting adjourned at 7:20 pm. Cindy Klob City Clerk's Office, Records Manager 16 P1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jonathan Hayden, Planning Intern THROUGH: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: 601 E Hopkins—Final Commercial Design Review Resolution No._, Series of 2014 MEETING DATE: August 5, 2014 APPLICANT/OWNER: Bass Cahn 601, LLC Horsefins, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Michael Hassig, RA A4 Architects, LLC LOCATION: ` 601 E Hopkins Ave. Lots A Y. &B, Block 99, City and .�- Townsite of Aspen CURRENT ZONING: Photos: 601 E Hopkins building and location. C-1, Commercial zone "3 , Fr district rn SUMMARY: The Applicant requests final r commercial design review e e l for exterior renovations to the three-story building and adjacent garden level at 601 E. Hopkins Ave. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ;} Approval,with conditions. Aafl 601 E. Hopkins Ave—Final Commercial Design P&Z Memo Page 1 of 4 P2 REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission to redevelop the site: • Final Commercial Design Review for development involving commercial uses, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412.050, Commercial Review, and pursuant to the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority.) BACKGROUND AND PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant proposes minor exterior renovations to a three-story, split-level commercial building that include replacing siding, removing copper cladding, and repairing garden level amenities. The property is located on the southeast corner of East Hopkins Avenue and South Hunter Street. Existing Conditions: The existing structure consists of three stories, the.lowest of which is recessed approximately two feet from the sidewalk level and is connected to a similarly recessed public amenity space. All three building levels contain commercial space exclusively. There are two main entrances to the buildings: 1) Access from East Hopkins Avenue includes a short flight of stairs up to a lobby on the second level; and 2) Access from South Hunter Street by means of exterior stairs or ADA compliant ramp down to the recessed first level. The building's exterior was originally finished in stucco, brick, wood trim, and a steep mansard roof. In 1993, a 7-foot high decorative weathered-copper wainscot was added to portions of the north, west, and south building elevations. This wainscot encroaches onto the sidewalk right of way approximately 5 inches,which necessitated an encroachment license from the city in 1993. Proposed Development: The applicant proposes to renovate select aspects of the building exterior and public amenity space, including: • Removal of the copper wainscot and its backup framing and sheathing • Installation of 14-foot-tall "Parklex Facade"high-density timber-faced siding panels • Replacement of existing damaged concrete stairs to recessed public amenity space • Replacement of existing log guardrail between sidewalk and recessed public amenity space • Replacement of existing 5-foot wood fence between garden level and alley parking areas with a 3'6"-high fence • Installation of two new picnic tables in the public amenity space • Removal of a small awning on the first floor of the south-facing facade 601 E. Hopkins Ave—Final Commercial Design P&Z Memo Page 2 of 4 P3 STAFF COMMENTS: FINAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW: The project is required to comply with the standards set forth in section 26.412.060, Commercial Design Standards, as well as the Final Review Guidelines of the Commercial section of the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines: The project must comply with standards in three main areas: Building Design &Articulation,Architectural Materials, Paving and Landscaping. Building Design and Articulation: As noted in the guidelines, form and scale of a building is further articulated by the vertical expression of a"base, middle, and cap." The current weathered-copper wainscot—extending just five feet above sidewalk level—creates the perception of an abbreviated first floor or"base."The proposed replacement of this copper wainscoat with timber-composite siding panels that rise fourteen feet above sidewalk level will provide a much more pronounced "base" consistent with other well-articulated commercial frontages in the area. This will then allow for a more well- proportioned"middle"that extends up to an existing parapet or"cap." With regard to street level character the design guidelines emphasize that the building should "respect the heights of traditional building design" with distinguishable differences in levels of the buildings. This includes a street level that is generally taller than upper floors, including storefronts of "13 to 15 feet high." While the existing structure's split-level layout does not include a traditional "street level," the proposed timber-composite siding will create the appearance of a traditional commercial first-floor, rising to 14 feet above sidewalk level. Architectural Materials: The guidelines recommend that durable, quality materials be used in the development of new buildings and that "the palette of materials adopted for all facades of a building should reflect, complement and enhance the evolving form and character of the center city." The proposed addition of timber-composite paneling constitutes a high-quality material that is both durable and aesthetically appealing. Although not traditional materials to the Victorian era, this material is a throwback to older Aspen structures constructed of wood. Staff is concerned, however, with applicant's proposal to cover only select facades with this paneling. Large portions of the exterior on northeast and southeast sides of the building will remain covered with existing stucco only, and applicant's proposal does not contemplate removing or replacing the existing copper roof covering the entryway. Further inconsistency is evident in the building's cornice, which is simply painted plywood. Staff is primarily worried that this creates an amalgamation of different styles and materials that doesn't convey the sort of character appropriate in the downtown commercial area. As the Commercial Character Area Design Guidelines point out, "A single building with multiple style imitations to break up the fagade of the building is inappropriate." Paving and Landscaping: The guidelines encourage paving and landscaping that enhances the immediate setting of the project. In this case, the public amenity is adjacent to the street right of way within a courtyard. The project proposes the replacement or repair of existing elements like concrete stairs, guardrails, and fencing, as well as the addition of two new picnic tables for public use in the garden area. 601 E. Hopkins Ave–Final Commercial Design P&Z Memo Page 3 of 4 P4 RECOMMENDATION: Overall, Staff supports the changes in materials that have been presented, but would like to see a more comprehensive implementation of these materials. The materials and proposed treatment of them provide features that are more akin to the design guidelines than current conditions, but the proposal does not constitute a design treatment that incorporates high-quality materials throughout. Staff recommends approval of the project, under the condition that the paneling is extended to cover a greater proportion of building facades, and that the existing copper roof above the entryway is removed and replaced with materials that are consistent with the proposed paneling. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution # Series 2014, approving Final Commercial Design Review for the project located at 601 E Hopkins Ave." Attachments: Exhibit A—Staff Findings, Final Commercial Design Review Criteria Exhibit B —Staff Findings, Final Commercial Design Guidelines Exhibit C—Application Exhibit D—Elevation drawings 601 E. Hopkins Ave—Final Commercial Design P&Z Memo Page 4 of 4 P5 RESOLUTION#XX, SERIES OF 2014 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION (P&Z) APPROVING FINAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR 601 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2737-073-80-000 through-004, WHEREAS, the applicant, Bass Cahn 601, LLC, represented by Michael Hassig, RA, of A4 Architects, LLC, has requested Final Commercial Design Review approval for 601 E. Hopkins Ave. Lots A& B, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the property is located within the C-1 Commercial Zone District; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "[the] Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for final development plan approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this, and a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission...shall be scheduled" and WHEREAS, for Final Commercial Design Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines per Section 26.412.040.A.2, Commercial Design Standards Review Procedure, of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The Planning and Zoning Commission may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, Jonathan Hayden, in his staff report dated July 31, 2014, perfonned an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards, the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines are met with conditions; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 5, 2014, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the applicable review standards and approved the application by a vote of xx=x, with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Final Commercial Design Review for the property located at 601 E. Hopkins Ave. Lots A &B, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado,with the following conditions: 1. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved. Section 1• P&Z Resolution No. xx, Series of 2014 601 East Hopkins Ave. Page 1 of 4 P6 All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 5: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 6• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause,phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 5th day of August, 2014. LJ Erspamer, Chair Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn,Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Cindy Klob,Records Manager List of Exhibits: • 1(a)—Exterior Elevations • 1(b)—Site Plan P&Z Resolution No. xx, Series of 2014 601 East Hopkins Ave. Page 2 of 4 CL - a� o o bjO � � M O � O � x z � r•�,°mow» ,o �.. .. 4 - - � W ; o W !)NOR ELEVATION �1 WESTELEVATION J F— — — 80,EfuNF101na AVe. NORTHWESTCORNER-EXISTING A+Gen,Colorado �W SOUTH ELEVATION SOUTHWEST COflNER-EXISTING A 3.1 > t4-4� o yN-+ �t LEGEND .1 bn cn GRAPHIC SCALE m-�r m,Pro p-q I "• — / ® CPU�m.nr I q IX ,.y I /' % j :.1 rracrvnr.,c��/�aNr6raor ( i�:`..,..:,_.:•..,.,:..., r sI h Cj' i 601 E. HgMlns Ave. '.1 - I G,auexl FloPi UJocy pepe0 _ \ � City Site Plan A 1.1 00 CL P9 Exhibit A Commercial Design Review—Land Use Code Review Criteria 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 Finding: The proposed development meets most Commercial Design Standards required of Section 26412.060 of the Land Use Code, but does not adequately address the Standards in a comprehensive manner (see Exhibit B). B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Conn-nercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the fagade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. Staff Finding: Staff finds this criterion to be inapplicable. The building currently contains commercial space and will contain commercial space after the remodel and addition. 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 detennine 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 Finding: The proposed development is submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for Final Commercial Design Review. Staff finds most applicable guidelines are met or can be met with a conditioned approval. Please see Exhibit B for a more detailed analysis of this project's compliance with Commercial Design Guidelines. Staff finds the criterion is not fully met. 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: Exhibit A—Commercial Design Review—Land Use Code Review Criteria Page 1 of 4 P10 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. Staff Finding: Pursuant to Section 26.575.030.8, the proposed redevelopment is exempt from Public Amenity provisions because the project proposes no change to the building footprint. 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 Finding:Regulation inapplicable pursuant to Section 26.575.030.B 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 Finding: Regulation inapplicable pursuant to Section 26.575.030.B 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 Finding:Regulation inapplicable pursuant to Section 26.575.030.B 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 Finding:Regulation inapplicable pursuant to Section 26.575.030.B 5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection 26.5 75.03 O.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. Staff Finding: Regulation inapplicable pursuant to Section 26.575.030.B 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 Exhibit A—Commercial Design Review—Land Use Code Review Criteria Page 2 of 4 P11 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 Finding: No changes to existing utility, trash, or recycle service areas are proposed, and current areas are compliant with the above regulation. Staff finds the criterion is 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 Finding: No changes to existing service pedestals are proposed, and current pedestals are compliant with the above regulation. Staff f nds the criterion is met. 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 Finding: No changes to existing service areas are proposed, and current service areas are compliant with the above regulation. Staff finds the criterion is met. 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 Finding: No changes to existing mechanical exhaust systems are proposed, and current systems are compliant with the above regulation. Staff finds the criterion is 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 Finding: No changes to existing mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting are proposed, and current equipment and ducting are compliant with the above regulation. Staff finds the criterion is met. See. 26.412.070.Suggested design elements. The following guidelines are building practices suggested by the City, but are not mandatory. In many circumstances, compliance with these practices may not produce the most desired development, and project designers should use their best judgment. Exhibit A—Commercial Design Review—Land Use Code Review Criteria Page 3 of 4 P12 A. Signage. Signage should be integrated with the building to the extent possible. Integrated signage areas already meeting the City's requirements for size, etc.,may minimize new tenant signage compliance issues. Common tenant listing areas also serves a public way-finding function, especially for office uses. Signs should not block design details of the building on which they are placed. Compliance with the City's sign code is mandatory. B. Display windows. Display windows provide pedestrian interest and can contribute to the success of the retail space. Providing windows that reveal inside activity of the store can provide this pedestrian interest. C. Lighting. Well-lit (meaning quality, not quantity) display windows along the first floor create pedestrian interest after business hours. Dynamic lighting methods designed to catch attention can cheapen the quality of the downtown retail enviromnent. Illuminating certain important building elements can provide an interesting effect. Significant light trespass should be avoided. Illuminating the entire building should be avoided. Compliance with the City's Outdoor lighting code, Section 26.575.150 of this Title, is mandatory. Staff Finding:Any signage and outdoor lighting will be regulated via building permit review and issuance. The current building includes horizontal windows on the ground level that are relatively short in stature, rising only 5 feet above sidewalk level. While this does not reflect the character of a traditional retail commercial frontage, the windows are still fairly large and allow for-a high level of fagade transparency, which can contribute to the appearance of a retail environment. Stafffinds this criterion is met. Exhibit A—Conu-nercial Design Review—Land Use Code Review Criteria Page 4 of 4 P13 Exhibit B Commercial Design Guidelines—Final Design Review Guidelines for the Commercial Character Area Commercial Character Area Design Objectives: These are key design objectives for the Commercial Area. The City must fmd that any new work will help to meet them: 1. Strengthen the sense of relatedness with the Commercial Core Historic District. Staff Finding.• The Commercial Character Area is adjacent to the Commercial Core Historic District. The proposed renovations will replace a weathered-copper wainscot exterior with a timber-laminate paneling that is more consistent with structures in the Commercial Core Historic District. Stafffinds this criterion is met. 2. Maintain a retail orientation. Staff Finding: The proposed redevelopment maintains commercial service uses along the ground floor, and the installation of high-density timber faced paneling (see below) will provide pedestrian interest and can contribute to the successful perception of retail space. Stafffinds this criterion is met. 3. Promote creative, contemporary design. Designs should seek creative new solutions that convey the community's continuing interest in exploring innovations. At the same time, the fundamental principles of traditional design must be respected. This means that each project should strike a balance in the design variables that are presented in the following pages. Staff Finding: The proposed exterior renovations will replace an outdated decorative weathered-copper wainscot with a more contemporary high-density timber faced paneling that will align with the cornice of the main building entrance to visually establish a taller "first floor" that will become a "base"for the building that forms a stronger relationship to the street. Applicant's proposal covers only select facades with this paneling however. Large portions of the exterior on northeast and southeast sides of the building will remain clad with existing stucco only, and applicant's proposal does not contemplate removing or replacing the existing copper roof covering the entryway. Staff is primarily worried that this creates an amalgamation of different styles and materials that doesn't convey the sort of character appropriate in the downtown commercial area. Stafffinds this criterion is not met. 4. Encourage a well-defined street wall. The intent is to more clearly establish a strongly defined street wall,but with some greater variety than in the Commercial Core Historic District since the historic building edge is not as defined. A stronger street facade definition should be achieved while at the same time recognizing the value of public dining and landscaped space. Staff Finding: The proposed high-density timber faced paneling will strengthen the street wall definition by providing better articulation of the street facing facades, but again,failure Exhibit B—Commercial Design Review—Commercial Design Guidelines, Conunercial Character Area Page 1 of 6 P14 to apply this material to all facades will create "gaps" in the street wall. Staff finds this criterion is not met. 5. Reflect the variety in building heights seen traditionally. It is important that a range and variation in building height and scale in the Commercial Area be recognized in future developments. Larger buildings should be varied in height and reflect original lot widths. Staff Finding: No changes to building height or scale are proposed, so Guideline S is inapplicable to the applicant's proposal. 6. Accommodate outdoor public spaces while establishing a clear definition to the street edge. Providing space in association with individual buildings remains important,but should be balanced with much greater building street presence and corner definition. Staff Finding: The existing public amenity space is an accent to the established street wall that exists and is maintained. Proposed installation of two picnic tables for public use in the garden area will offer further opportunity for outdoor public use without interrupting the clear definition to the street edge. Staff finds this criterion is met. 7. Promote variety in the street level experience. Display cases, architectural details and landscaping are among the design elements that should be used. Staff Finding: The applicant proposes more variety in the project's street level experience than is currently present, with installation of taller paneling that visually establishes a stronger building "base," installation of two new picnic tables for public use in the garden area, and replacement of damaged and/or dilapidated stairs, guardrail, and fencing. Staff finds this criterion is met. Exhibit B—Commercial Design Review—Commercial Design Guidelines, Commercial Character Area Page 2 of 6 P15 Commercial Character Area Final Review Design Guidelines Building Design and Articulation Staff Finding: As noted in the guidelines,form and scale of a building is further articulated by the vertical expression of a "base, middle, and cap. " The current weathered-copper wainscot— extending just five feet above sidewalk level—creates the perception of an abbreviated first floor or "base. " The proposed replacement of this copper wainscoat with timber-composite siding panels that rise fourteen feet above sidewalk level will provide a much more pronounced "base" consistent with other well-articulated commercial frontages in the area. This will then allow for a more well-proportioned "middle"that extends up to an existing parapet or "cap. " With regard to street level character the design guidelines emphasize that the building should "respect the heights of traditional building design" with distinguishable differences in levels of the buildings. This includes a street level that is generally taller than upper floors, including storefronts of13 to 15 feet high. " While the existing structure's split-level layout does include a traditional "street level, " the proposed timber-composite siding will create the appearance of a traditional commercial first floor, rising to 14 feet above sidewalk level. The multiple style imitations that would result in partial application of the timber-composite siding, however, would break up the fagade of the building and fail to convey the sort of character appropriate in the downtown commercial area. Staff finds the following Guidelines are met: 1.30 The detailed design of the building facade should reflect the traditional scale and rhythm of the block. This should be achieved using: • The fenestration grouping • The modeling of the facade • The design framework for the first floor storefront • Variation in architectural detail/or the palette of facade materials 1.31 A building should reflect the architectural hierarchy and articulation inherent in the composition of the facade. • The design and definition of the traditionally tall first floor • The vertical proportions of the upper level fenestration pattern and ratio of solid wall to window area. 1.32 A building should reflect the three-dimensional characteristics of the street facade in the strength and depth of modeling, fenestration and architectural detail. 1.34 Maintain the distinction between the street level and upper floors. • The first floor should be the tallest floor to floor height in the building. • The first floor of the primary facade should be predominantly transparent glass. Exhibit B–Conunercial Design Review–Commercial Design Guidelines, Commercial Character Area Page 3 of 6 P16 • Upper floors should be perceived as being more opaque than the street level. Upper story windows should have a vertical emphasis. • Highly reflective or darkly tinted glass is inappropriate. • Express the traditional distinction in floor heights between street levels and upper levels through detailing, materials and fenestration. The presence of a belt course is an important feature in this relationship 1.36 Minimize the appearance of a tall third floor. 1.37 The first floor facade should be designed to concentrate interest on the first level,using the highest quality of design, detailing and materials 1.41 Where appropriate a building shall be designed to maintain the character and transparency of the traditional street level retail. 1.42 Design of the first floor storefront should include particular attention to the following: • The basic element and proportions of storefront design. • Depth and strength of modeling • The palette of materials and finishes used in both the structural framework and the storefront window • The concentration of architectural detail to ensure a rich visual experience • The complementary use of signage and lettering to enhance the retail and downtown character • The use of lighting to accentuate visual presence Staff finds the following Guidelines are not applicable: 1.29 A new building shall reflect the traditional lot width(30ft.) as expressed by two or more of the following: • Variation in height at internal lot lines • Variation in the plane of the front facade • Street facade composition • Variation in architectural detailing and materials to emphasize the building module 1.33 Any new building should be designed to maintain a minimum of 9 feet from floor to ceiling on all floors 1.35 A new building should be designed to maintain the stature of traditional street level frontage. 1.38 The retail entrance should be at sidewalk level. 1.39 Incorporate an airlock entry into the plan for all new structures Exhibit B—Commercial Design Review—Commercial Design Guidelines, Commercial Character Area Page 4 of 6 P17 1.43 Retail frontage facing onto side courts or rear alleys should follow similar design principles to the street frontage adjusted for the scale of space 1.44 A large building should reflect the traditional lot width in form and variation of its roof. This should be achieved through the following: • A set back of the top floor from the front facade • Reflect the traditional lot width in the roof plane 1.45 The roofscape should be designed with the same design attention as the secondary elevations of the building Staff finds the following Guideline is not met: 1.40 Window area along the first floor shall be a minimum of 60%of exterior street facade area when facing a principal street(s). Architectural Materials Staff Finding: The guidelines recommend that durable, quality materials be used in the development of new buildings and that "the palette of materials adopted for all facades of a building should reflect, complement and enhance the evolving form and character of the center city. " The proposed addition of timber-composite paneling constitutes a high-quality material that is both durable and aesthetically appealing. Although not traditional materials to the Victorian era, this material is a throwback to older Aspen structures constructed of wood. Application of these materials to only select portions of the building, however, creates an amalgamation of different styles and materials that doesn't convey the sort of character appropriate in the downtown commercial area. Staff finds the following Guidelines are met: 1.46 High quality, durable materials should be employed. 1.47 Building materials should have these features: • Convey the quality and range of materials seen traditionally. • Reduce the perceived scale of the building and enhance visual interest if the facade. • Covey a human scale. • Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within Aspen's climate. 1.48 A building or addition should reflect the quality and variation in material seen traditionally. 1.49 Where contemporary materials are use they shall be: • High quality durability and finish • Detailed to convey a human scale • Compatible with a traditional masonry palette Exhibit B—Commercial Design Review—Commercial Design Guidelines, Commercial Character Area Page 5 of 6 P18 Paving and Landscaping Staff Finding: The guidelines encourage paving and landscaping that enhances the immediate setting of the project. In this case, the public amenity is adjacent to the street right of way within a courtyard. The project proposes the replacement or repair of existing elements like concrete stairs, guardrails, and fencing, as well as the addition of two new pictnic tables for public use in the garden area. Staff finds the following Guideline is met: 1.51 Paving and landscaping should be designed to complement and enhance the immediate setting of the building area. Exhibit B—Commercial Design Review—Commercial Design Guidelines, Commercial Character Area Page 6 of 6 CITY OF ASPEN C PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY P Bir PLANNER: Jim Pomeroy, 970.429.2745 DATE•1aFr PROJECT: 601 E, Hopkins, Exterior Remodel REPRESENTATIVE: Mark Chain, enchain asopris.ner,970-309-3655 MAY 2 7 2014 CITY OF ASPEN DESCRIPTION: MAIM DEEM OR .- The applicant is interested in undertaking minor exterior changes to the building at 601 East Hopkins Ave, which is in the C- 1 Zone District. The potential scope includes removing some copper siding, and replacing it and other portions of the first floor with siding made of Ipe. Furthermore, the applicant may also be considering changing out some of the windows. I The project will need to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission per Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Review, but, due to the limited scope, the applicant may bypass conceptual review and be reviewed only for final design. Please note, when bypassing conceptual review, City Council must be notified of the Director's decision, and afforded the opportunity for call-up. Much of the work is occurring within an Encroachment Agreement granted by the City (Reception #353677) in 1993. Therefore, a referral to the Engineering Department will be required. The applicant will need to address, by way of site plan, elevations, and other graphics or means as necessary, how the changes relate to the Commercial Design standards illustrated in Chapter 26.412 as well as the City's Commercial Character Area as posted on the City of Aspen's website in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. A link to these documents is included below. Relevant Land Use Code Section(s): 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.412.040 Commercial Design Review, Review Procedure See Also: Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines A copy of the Land Use Code is available at: http://www.aspenpiti(in.com/Departments/Community_-DevelopmentlPlanning-and-Zoning/Title-26-Land-Use-Code/ Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines can be found here: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-DevelopmentlPlanning-and-Zoning/Current-Planning/ A copy of the Land Use Application is available at: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/2011%201 and%20use%20app%20form.pdf Review by: Staff for complete application Planning and Zoning Commission for approval of Commercial Design Review; Public Hearing Referral Agencies: Engineering Planning Fees: $4,550 for 14 hours of staff time (additional planning hours over deposit amount are billed at a rate of$325/hour) Referral Agency Fees: $265 (1 hour) Total Deposit: $4,615 To apply, submit the following information: ❑ Proof of ownership with payment. ❑ Signed fee agreement. ❑ Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. ❑ Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages,judgments, liens, easements,contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. ❑ HOA approval letter. ❑ Total deposit for review of the application. ❑ 10 Copies of the complete application packet and maps. ❑ An 81/2" by 11"vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. ❑ Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, including all easements and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community Development Department if the project is determined not to warrant a survey document.) ❑ A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written,graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed. ❑ Applications shall be provided in paper format(number of copies noted above) as well as the text only on either of the following digital formats. Compact Disk (CD)-preferred,Zip Disk or Floppy Disk. Microsoft Word format is preferred. Text format easily convertible to Word is acceptable or PDF. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement a y Application Fees Anagreement between the City of Aspen ("City")and Property Harris Cahn Phone No.:(970)920-0007 Owner("I"): Email:harris @cahnpartners.com Address of 601 East Hopkins Ave. Billing P.O. Box 4060 Property: Aspen, CO 81611 Address: (subject of p (send bills here) Aspen, CO 81612 application) I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. , Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and the payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $.0 flat fee for Select Dept 0 Select Dept $_ flat fee for $0 flat fee for Select Dept 0 Select Review $ flat fee for For deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review, and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for non-payment. agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render an application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $ 4,550 deposit for 14 hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at$325 per hour. $_265 deposit for 1 hours of Engineering Department staff time.Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at$265 per hour. City of Aspen: Property,Owner: Chris Bendon Michael Hassig, RA Community Development Director Name: Designated Representative for Owner City Use: 4815 Title: Fees Due:$ Received:$ 2013 City of Aspen 1 ` 1 920-5090 ATTACHMENT 2—LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: 601 East Hopkins Exterior Remodel Location: 601 E. Hopkins Ave., Aspen, CO 81611 (Indicate street address,lot&block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID#(REQUIRED) 2737-073-80-001 APPLICANT: Name: Bass Cahn - 601 LLC Address: 601 E. Hopkins Ave., Aspen, CO 81611 Phone#: (970) 920-0007 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Michael Hassig, RA Address: 242 North Seventh St., Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone#: (970) 963-6760 TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Temporary Use ❑ GMQS Allotment ❑ Final PUD(&PUD Amendment) ❑ Text/Map Amendment ❑ Special Review ❑ Subdivision ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ ESA—8040 Greenline,Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption(includes ❑ Final SPA(&SPA Margin,Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane ® Commercial Design Review ❑ Lot Split ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion ❑ Residential Design Variance ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Other: ❑ Conditional Use EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings,uses,previous approvals,etc.) Existing three story office building with existing encroachment license for exterior cladding. PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings,uses,modifications,etc.) Replace existing copper cladding with stratified timber panels per elevations submitted. Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ 4,815.00 ® Pre-Application Conference Summary ❑X Attachment#1, Signed Fee Agreement Response to Attachment 0,Dimensional Requirements Form Response to Attachment#4, Submittal Requirements-Including Written Responses to Review Standards 3-D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5"X 11"must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format)must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an -lectronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model. ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: 601 East Hopkins Exterior Remodel Applicant: Bass Cahn - 601 LLC Location: 601 E. Hopkins Ave., Aspen, CO 81611 Zone District: C-1 Lot Size: 60' by 100' Lot Area: 6,000 square feet (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area,Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: 6,290 sf Proposed.• NO CHANGE Number of residential units: Existing: NONE Proposed: NO CHANGE Number of bedrooms: Existing: NONE Proposed: NO CHANGE Proposed % of demolition(Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: NO CHANGES PROPOSED TO EXISTING DIMENSIONS Floor Area: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: Principal bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: Access. bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed. On-Site parking: Existing: Required: Proposed. % Site coverage: Existing: Required: Proposed: % Open Space: Existing: Required: Proposed: Front Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Rear Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Combined F/R: Existing: Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: Required. Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: Required. Proposed. Combined Sides: Existing: Required: Proposed. Distance Between Existing Required. Proposed: Buildings - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Existing non-conformities or encroachments: EXISTING ENCROACHMENT LICENSE FOR COPPER CLADDING ON WEST FACADE - SEE ATTACHED DETAILED SURVEY. Variations requested: NONE - City of Aspen - - - - - -General/Building Permit Contact Sheet 130 South Galena Street,Aspen,Colorado 81611 THE CITY of APE\ Phone (970)920-5090 Fax(970) 920-5440 PERMIT NO. PERMIT INFORMATION Job Address Permit Type 601 East Hopkins Ave., Unit 1, Aspen, CO 81611 Lot Block Tract or Subdivision Parcel ID(call 9 -5160) Legal Description 20 A& B 99 601 East Hopkins Condominiums 2737-073-80-001 CONTACT INFORMATION 11dress me Phone No. Alternate Phone No. Bass Cahn -601, LLC (970) 920-0007 ailing ad City Zip 601 East Hopkins Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 E-mail Address harris@cahnpartners.com Owner Name Phone No. Alternate Phone No. Michael Hassig, RA, A4 Architects, LLC (970) 963-6760 (970) 366-6476 Mailing address City Zip 242 North Seventh St. Carbondale, CO 81623 E-mail Address mhassig @a4arc.com General Contractor Name Phone No. Alternate Phone No. ' B & H General Contractors, Casey Wilkings, Project Mgr. (970) 945-0102 (970) 618-5439 Mailing address City Zip 5317 C.R. 154, Suite 206 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 E-mail Address casey@bhgencon.com iH2jjML1MjAg=m1 Phone No. Alternate Phone No. A4 Architects, LLC, Michael Hassig, RA, Partner in Charge (970) 963-6760 (970)366-6476 Mailing address City Zip 242 North Seventh St. Carbondale, CO 81623 E-mail Address mhassig @ a4arc.com landscape Architect Name Phone No. Alternate Phone No. Mailing address City Zip E-mail Address Engineer of Record Name Phone No. Alternate Phone No. SGM, Inc., John Boulden, PE (Structural) (970) 245-2571 (970) 623-0430 Mailing address - - - - - - - - - - City Zip - - - 2768 Compass Dr., Suite 102 Grand Junction, CO 81506 E-mail Address johnb@sgm-inc.com Other Name Phone No. Alternate Phone No. SGM, Inc., Tony Haschke, El, GEM, CBCP, CLEP (Mechanical) (970) 384-9070 (970)379-6316 Mailing address City Zip 118 W. Sixth St. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 E-mail Address tonyh @sgm-inc.com PLEASE PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT MAY HELP US CONTACT YOU FOR ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING YOUR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Tenant finish and improvement work is for FirstBank Holding Co., Inc.,Adam Snyder, Asst. Vice Pres. 12345 W. Colfax Ave., Lakewood, CO 80215 (303) 235-1324(office) (303) 919-1960 (cell) BASS CAHN - 6019 LLC PO.BOX 4060 ASPEN,COLORADO 81(;12 TEL:(970)920-0007 FAX:(970)930-4976 f_larri id.'aI lip _rtncrs, .m May 16,2014 To: City of Aspen, Community Development Department From: Harris A. Cahn Re: Exterior improvements to 601 East Hopkins Ave. This email confirms our designation of Michael Hassig, RA of A4 Architects, LLC as Owner's Representative for the purpose of pursuing Planning and Zoning Commission design review approvals for exterior renovations and improvements to the property we own at 601 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. Bass Cahn — 01, LLC i Harris A. Cahn, Manage A4 ARCHITECTS LLC 242 NORTH SEVENTH STREET CARBONDALE COLORADO 81623 970.963.6760 tro-l_w a4.arc-com OLivia Emery RA NichaeL Hassig, R.A. LEED AP Brad ZeigeL, AIA Project: FirstBank Aspen, Exterior Remodel Location: 601 East Hopkins Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 Owner: 601 East Hopkins Condominiums Legal Description: Lots A& B, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen Section 7,T. 10 S., R.84 W. of the 6th P.M. City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado Date: 8 April 2014 Zone District: C-1 Character Area: CA Application: Commercial Design Review Existing Conditions FirstBank currently leases the first floor(garden level) space in the three-story building located at 601 East Hopkins Avenue.The bank floor level is approximately two feet below sidewalk level and is accessed from South Hunter Street by means of an exterior stair or ADA compliant ramp. Access from East Hopkins Avenue requires climbing a short flight of stairs to the building lobby and then using interior stairs to descend to the bank. Upper floor tenants include a law office,a real estate broker and a title company. The building, purportedly built in the 1960's as a lodge, is constructed of exterior masonry bearing walls and wood joist floors and roof. Original exterior finishes were stucco, buff-colored brick, wood trim and a batten on plywood vertical roof mansard.At some time in 1993 a 7-foot high decorative weathered-copper wainscot was added to portions of the north, west and south building elevations.This wainscot encroaches onto the sidewalk right of way approximately 5 inches and was granted an encroachment license by the City in January of 1993. Proposed Work 1. Removal of the copper wainscot and its backup framing and sheathing. 2. Painting of building exterior. 3. Installation of"Parklex Facade" high-density timber-faced siding panels mounted on prefinished extruded aluminum vertical furring fastened to existing building wall. (See building elevations.) Existing bank signage and lighting to remain unchanged. 4. Replacement of existing damaged concrete stairs to garden level. 5. Replacement of existing log guardrail between sidewalk and garden level. 6. Replacement of repair of existing 5-foot wood fence between garden level and alley parking areas with a 3'-6" high fence (except at trash and meter enclosures). 7. Installation of two new picnic tables for public use in the garden area. 601 East Hopkins Ave. Commercial Design Standards The first floor garden-level arrangement of this three-story building immediately establishes an unfortunate architectural relationship to the street. No street-level entry is possible and the three sidewalk shop-front windows look down into the garden level tenant space.The existing west elevation,facing South Hunter Street,was originally an unarticulated brick facade, punctuated only by two horizontal shop windows.These windows begin just above sidewalk level and end at about 5 feet up.Their location and orientation only serve to accentuate the unfortunate and ungainly proportions of this elevation. The weathered-copper wainscot, installed in 1993,was intended to highlight a retail shop on the garden level first floor.This seven-foot high wainscot creates the perception of a very short first floor, something quite different from the floor stature recommendation made in the City's design objectives for the Commercial Character Area, which call for storefronts of 13 to 15 feet in height. (1.32) The proposed new wood veneer panel siding is approximately 14 feet in height above sidewalk level.The top of the panel siding aligns with the cornice of the main building entrance off East Hopkins Avenue and with the top of the second floor sliding glass balcony doors.This new cladding visually establishes a tall "first floor" and becomes a "base"for the building. The manufacturer's literature for Parklex Facade describes it as "...a high-density stratified timber panel manufactured from kraft paper treated with resins thermoset under high pressure and temperature,finished with natural timber veneers highly resistant to UV radiation and atmospheric agents."The panels are finished with a PVDF anti-graffiti overlay for further surface protection. A4 ARCHITECTS LLC 242 NORTH SEVENTH STREET I CARBONDALE COLORADO 89623 970.963.6760 I www.a4arc. com 200m 21 "Aspen 3Y?S, 7- A ILI 77 2-1 C�x M-apquest ,�2014 nlapQuest.game data @2014 ToinToin MAP PROJECT SITE: 601 EAST HOPKINS AVE. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION AND COMMENTS 601 E. Hopkins. Aspen 1. Documentation related to the Encroachment Agreement is attached, including the Certificate of Insurance. Agreement recorded at Reception No. 353677. 2. Proforma Title Report Included in application. There is one lienholder on the property ((First Colorado National Bank). List of Schedule B-2 Exceptions included. 3. The current Owner of the Property— Bass Cahn —601, LLC. , controls the HOA. 374468 8--762 P-9 09/23/94 10:25A PG 1 OF 1 REC DOC ND SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER 5.00 .-'12.00 GENERAL WARRANTY DEED GARY G. TROYER and LESLIE J. TROYER, whose address is 601 E. Hopkins, Aspen,CO 81611,as part of an Internal Revenue Code Section 1031 exchange, hereby transfer and convey to BASS CAHN PROPERTIES, a Colorado general partnership, whose address is 701 Gibson Avenue,Aspen, CO 81611,as to an undivided 2/3rds interest as tenant-in-common and HORSEFINS,LLC,a Colorado limited liability company,whose address is 601 E.Hopkins Ave.,Aspen,CO 81611,as to an undivided 1/3 interest as tenant-in-common,the following real property in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado: LOTS A AND B, BLOCK 99, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO, also known by street and number as: 601 E. Hopkins, Aspen, CO 81611, with all its appurtenances, and warrant the title to the same, subject to and except for: 4 1. General taxes for 1994 and thereafter payable in 1995 and thereafter; 2. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Multipurpose Easement Agreement, Electric and Communications Utilities, recorded in Book 379 at Page 954. 3. Terms and conditions of Encroachment Agreement recorded in Book 702 at Page 821. ALL REFERENCES BEING TO THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Signed this o72day of September 1994. Gary G. T yer J. oyer ` �x TATS OF COLORADO ) o T-COUNTY OF PITKIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this82day of September 1994, M by Gary G. Troyer and Leslie J. Troyer. �- o x Ci—� Wi hand and official seal. tai p n expires: /1/5/1?P O SE at UZ- t�7LC Notary Public V HC� Nay. My cmnlzm Expires 11)05/96 PROFORMA TITLE REPORT SCHEDULE A 1. Effective Date: April 18, 2014 at 8:00 AM Case No. PCT24040P 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: Proposed Insured: PROFORMA 3. Title to the FEE SIMPLE estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: BASS CAHN-601, LLC,A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is situated in the County of PITKIN State of COLORADO and is described as follows: UNITS 1, 2A AND 2B, 601 EAST HOPKINS CONDOMINIUMS,A COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITY, according to the Condominium Map thereof recorded December 20, 1994 in Plat Book 35 at Page 76 and Condominium Declaration for 601 East Hopkins Condominiums recorded December 20, 1994 in Book 769 at Page 931. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE,INC. 601 E.HOPKINS,ASPEN,CO.81611 970-925-1766 Phone/970-925-6527 Fax 877-217-3158 Toll Free AUTHORIZED AGENT Countersigned: SCHEDULE B-SECTION 1 REQUIREMENTS THIS REPORT IS FURNISHED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, IT IS NOT A CONTRACT TO ISSUE TITLE INSURANCE AND SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS SUCH. IN THE EVENT A PROPOSED INSURED IS NAMED THE COMPANY HEREBY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND/OR EXCEPTIONS AS DEEMED NECESSARY. THE RECIPIENT OF THIS INFORMATIONAL REPORT HEREBY AGREES THAT THE COMPANY HAS ISSUED THIS REPORT BY THEIR REQUEST AND ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS ACCURATE AND CORRECT, THE COMPANY SHALL NOT BE CHARGED WITH ANY FINANCIAL LIABILITY SHOULD THAT PROVE TO BE INCORRECT AND THE COMPANY IS NOT OBLIGATED TO ISSUE ANY POLICIES OF TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B SECTION 2 EXCEPTIONS The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien,for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created,first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessment, charge or lien imposed for water or sewer service or for any other special taxing district. 7. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Multipurpose Easement Agreement, Electric and Communications Utilities, recorded November 29, 1979 in Book 379 at Page 954. 8. Terms and conditions of Encroachment Agreement dated February 5, 1993 in Book 702 at Page 821. 9. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations, easements, restrictions and assessments as set forth in the Condominium Declaration for 601 East Hopkins Condominiums recorded December 20, 1994 in Book 769 at Page 931. 10. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Plat of subject property recorded December 20, 1994 in Plat Book 35 at Page 76. 11. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Subordination,Attornment and Non-Distrubance Agreement recorded May 22, 2013 as Reception No. 599720 12. Deed of Trust from : BASS CAHN 601, LLC,A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY To the Public Trustee of the County of PITKIN For the use of : FIRST COLORADO NATIONAL BANK Original Amount : $600,000.00 Dated : July 23, 2007 Recorded : July 26, 2007 Reception No. : 540341 6::w� '• 4 Ly '{+2 - 4 a d H i. Jf sal T t 4 ) it 35 Sb7? 02/O5l43 .Z L:44 Fee'k20.40 Citt: •702 P'W:821 .r. _•Silvia 1)avis9 Pii:kin Cnty G1erk;'poc''�.6v . .__..._...__.. .I ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT This agreement made and entered into this 29 , _ day of AJ�;! 1993,b and between the CITY OF ASPEN, Pitkin County, Colorado, hereinafter referred to as ' i "Aspen"and GARY G.TROYER AND LESLIE J.TROYER 601 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611, hereinafter referred to as "Licensee:" WHEREAS,Licensee is 11:,.owner of the following described property located in the x City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado:- 601 East Hopkins Avenue Lots A&B,B!ock 99 t City of Aspen, Pitkin County,Colorado; t; WHEREAS, said property abuts thr;following described public rights)-of--way: f Hunter Street and Hopkins Avenue; `c -WHEREAS,'Liccnsee desires to encroach upon said rights)-of way: ` "a Approximately 3"for a length of:.pproximately 33,5' as shown on Exhibit "A" t;rr copper siding and electric wiring and lightint; WHEREAS, Section 19.5 delegates the authority to the City Engineer to grant . A encroachment licenses WHEREAS,Aspen agrees to the grant of a private license of encroachment ns built subject to certain conditions. THEREFORE,in consideration t f the mutual agreement hereinafter contained,Aspen i and Licensee covenant and agree as follotvs: }a . i. A private revocable license is hereby granted to Licensee,to occupy,maintain and E utilize the above described portion of public right-of-way for the sole purpose described. S_ j 2. This license is granted for a perpetual term subject to being terminated a(any tin1f. and for any reason at the sole discretion of the Cir' Engineer of the Cite of Aspen, 3. This license shall be subot'dinate to the right of Aspen to use said area for an :art '. public purposes, b p Y ., 4. licensee is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the public right-of-way, X '.. together with improvements constructed therein, which Aspen, in the exercise of its discretion,shall determine to be necessary to keep the same in a safe and clean condition. i 7 �p 4`02. - `i �SS ':Yri t 'f�4't�a��.•A�<5�...���. ��f1�.�S� 1i��a��30"e`Y' dYt'�i � v i�'.•�?' ` �� r E'``�ftC :_sie.G +t 4353677 02/OS/93 13;44 Ri c' �2U.gU HK 70� FG X22 � c��55�r Silvia bavis, Fiticin Cnty Clerk, bac �,OU �'��'?� The Licensee shall obtain permits from the City Streets Department for any work to be performed in the r; - � P public right-of-way with design approvals for such work obtained from the City Parks and Engineering Departments as appropriate. . f ` t 5. Licensee shall at ail times during the term hereof,c.t t° t.:. 1't'.blie liability insurance for the benet'it of the City with limits of not less than those t by Section 24-10-11 4, C.R.S.,(currently$150,000 per person and$600,000 per occui._:.ce)its may be amended `'~ from time to time, naming the City as co-insured. Licensee shall maintain said coverage " in full force and effect during the term of this License and shall furnish the City with n copy Of such coverage or a certificate evidencing such coverage. All insurance policies maintained pursuant to this agreement shall contain the following endorsement: p �, '':•t. ! "It is herebv t:nderstood and agreed that this insurance policy may not be cancelled by the surety until thirty(30)days after receipt by the City, by registered mail,of tt written notice of such intention to cancel or not to renew_' The licensee shall show proof of this insurance to the City before this agreement is filed. 1,::; 6. Licensee shall save, defend and hold harmless against any and all claims for i damages, casts and expenses, to persons or property that may arise oe t of, or be _ I{ occasioned by the use,occupancy and maintenance of said property by Licensee,or from tiny net or omission of any representative,agent,customer and/or at of Licensee. 7, This license may be terminated by Licensee at any time and for any reason an thirty (30) days written notice of Licensee's intent to cancel. This license may be terminated by Aspen at any time and for any reason. Upon termination Licensee shall, at Licensee's expense, remove any improvements or encroachments from said property. The property shall be restored to a condition Satisfactory to Aspen. S. This license is subject to alt stale laws,the provisions of the Charter of the City of Aspen as it now exists or may hereafter he amended,and the ordinances of the City of Aspen now in effect or those which may hereafter be adopted. 9. Nothing herein shall be construed so as to prevent Aspen from granling such additional licenses or properly interests in or affecting said property is it deems necessary. 10. The conditions hereof imposed on the granted license of encroachment shall a constitute covenants running with the land, and binding upon Licensee, their heirs, successors and assigns. any legal action to enforce the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing T? 5 party shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney's fees. !2. if the structure for which this license was Issued is removed for any reason, t Licensee may not rebuild in the saute location without obtaining another encroachment `('' ! It 51 1 It F�i;�y. �`.i l'�'!. �.• KK`,�".;�� �l'S'4S::v: '�'•�:u.3�•i�=;S,-x:3,1'` "rri'. ,Y',�•_-.`i �:4n:3k �14• �Y t A'.� �' � A 4 �•tt ��i.1�Aii�3�. Y t )•!�,?i ^za 'S, .1-.fit i�1t�2x��s.. F��s� t5��syua3 its *353677 02/05/93 11;44 Rec $206100 HK 703 PG 523 ¢-i} i,, Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty CLer•k-i'.Doc 4.00, y,.t license prior ic, building. No existing encroachment shall be enlarged without obtairting an additic.nal license Prior to construction. 13. The licensee waives any and all claims against the City of Aspen for loss or damage to the improvements constructed within the encroachment area, IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties executed this agreement at Aspen the day and °r'%:4 year first written. CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO A City Engineer KOCH, City Clerk 'C Lice ee 'STATE OF COLORADO ) County of Pitkin _ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowled ed before the this ~T day of2e 19D by Licensee. WITNESS My HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL, t''';.`%4ycommissionexpires; 4 Notary Public— � ;, �u y'.• Address e jw4 n.rM.R R , 2 k :�-� = - S� /S� S�B'44.1...f}<.:, •.�il..r.3,,.;• _::h4!?.:_�_ .,....tisViTi`ht3. ry t 4 55 �i"y �a.'1V``*k.'IU^.�.G-�'�`�!.-i.�.ie n . °AHISIT "A" Z4'6 ENCR \ \\\\ i O 25.7 t;. j S 2 STORY W - } 0 L " . GARDEN LEVEL BSM T. \>> C \ 601 East Hopkins Avenue !! u: dam•U 2B}EUrR.- : 141 $y I °° a _ +Y T NO LM WOOD PUNTER 11 .. PA FOUND MAR NO CAP sEwi R'-iJNE.::.. Fl i"` �'�3 : it i 4u EXHIBIT V a d d ° © ° 4 Q d d d ° ° v O.¢, ° tO Park" ° a a d d < 4 � F ° � r; i a ;�, irj� ,/, ,/ 2�3 8, , j, a ° S 14'50'49" W 100.00' A 601 East Hopkins Condominiums ° , % 3.7' Lot B d ° a a < 4 . a St p © C j o ° ; SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: N I, David A Cooper, being a Registered Land Surveyor, licensed in the State of Colorado, do hereby certify that this exhibit map showing the westerly wall detail at 601 East Hopkins Condominiums was prepared on November m 27, 2013, from a survey performed on November 25, 2013, under my supervision and checking, and that both the survey and map are true anc.-,.-7�'-�—, _ _. accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. David A. Cooper Colo. Reg. P.L.S. # 29030 � For, and on r = 1 Sca le: 1" = 6' behalf of SGM y S" A, 601 E Hopkins Condos 1obNo. 2013-382.001 _ shr. 1 Drawn by: doc Exhibit Ma M Lots A & B, Block 99 Date_ 11727/13 p �i 118 West Sixth Street,Suite 200 A raved: West Wall I Deta i Glenwood Springs,CO 81601 PP Of 1 970.945.1004 www.sgm•inc.com City of Aspen File: N.B.nk45131120 OP ID: KO ,mac® CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE(MM/DDIYYYY) 05/16/14 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER,AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED,the policy(ies) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED,subject to the terms and conditions of the policy,certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). CONTACT PRODUCER 970-945-9111 NAME: Neil-Garing Agency,Inc. 970-945-2350 PHONE FAX PO Box 1576 AIC No Ext: A/C,No): Glenwood Springs,CO 81602 ADDRESS: John Wilkinson PRODUCER 601 EA-1 CUSTOMER ID#: INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC# INSURED 601 East Hopkins Condominium A INSURER A:Fireman's Fund Insurance CO 29181 PO Box 4060 INSURER B: Aspen,CO 81612 INSURERC: INSURER D: INSURER E: INSURER F: COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: 1 REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES.LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR TYPE OF INSURANCE ADDL SUBR POLICY EFF POLICY EXP LTR I R WVD POLICY NUMBER MMIDDIYYYY MM/DDIYYYY LIMITS GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ 2,000,000 A X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY X AZC80877070 09/22/13 09/22/14 DAMA ERE TED 100 000 PREMISES Ea occurrence) $ CLAIMS-MADE 1 I OCCUR MED EXP(Any one person) $ 10,000 PERSONAL&ADV INJURY $ 2,000,000 GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 4,000,000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: PRODUCTS-COMP/OP AGG $ 4,000,000 X I POLICY PRO LOC $ AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $ 2,000,000 A ANY AUTO AZC80877070 09/22/13 09/22/14 (Ea accident) BODILY INJURY(Per person) $ ALL OWNED AUTOS BODILY INJURY(Per accident) $ SCHEDULED AUTOS PROPERTY DAMAGE X HIREDAUTOS (Per accident) $ X NON-OWNEDAUTOS $ X UMBRELLA LIAR X OCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000 EXCESS LIAB CLAIMS-MADE AGGREGATE $ 2,000,000 A AZC80877070 09/22/13 09/22/14 DEDUCTIBLE $ X RETENTION $ $ WORKERS COMPENSATION WC STATU- OTH- AND EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY YIN TORY LIMITS ER ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE ❑ E.L.EACH ACCIDENT $ OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? NIA (Mandatory in NH) E.L.DISEASE-EA EMPLOYEE $ If yes,describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below E.L.DISEASE-POLICY LIMIT $ A Property Section AZC80877070 09/22/13 09/22/14 Buildings 4,472,000 Deduct 2,500 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS I VEHICLES(Attach ACORD 101,Additional Remarks Schedule,if more space is required) Holder is included as Additional Insured under General Liability only and only in respects to the Encroachment License. CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION CITYAS1 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE City of Aspen THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN 130 S.Galena ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. Aspen,CO 81611 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ©1988-2009 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 25(2009/09) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD 601 East Hopkins Condominium Association P.O. Box 4060 Aspen, CO 81612 May 22, 2014 To: City of Aspen, Community Development Department From: The 601 East Hopkins Condominium Association Re: Exterior improvements to 601 East Hopkins Ave. This email confirms that the 601 East Hopkins Condominium Association approves the designation by Bass Cahn— 601, LLC, owner of Unit 1 of the 601 East Hopkins Condominium Association, of Michael Hassig, RA of A4 Architects, LLC as Owner's Representative for the purpose of pursuing Planning and Zoning Commission design review approvals for exterior renovations and improvements to the property owned by Bass Cahn — 601, LLC at 601 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. The 601 East Hopkins Condominium Association By: Harris A. Cahn, Declarant and authorized Member of Executive Board of the 601 East Hopkins Condominium Association. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO CERTIFICATE I,Scott Gessler,as the Secretary of State of the State of Colorado,hereby certify that,according to the records of this office, THE 601 EAST HOPKINS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION is a Corporation formed or registered on 09/12/1994 under the law of Colorado,has complied with all applicable requirements of this office,and is in good standing with this office. This entity has been assigned entity identification number 19941102262. This certificate reflects facts established or disclosed by documents delivered to this office on paper through 05121/2014 that have been posted,and by documents delivered to this office electronically through 05/22/2014 @ 11:34:00. I have affixed hereto the Great Seal of the State of Colorado and duly generated,executed,authenticated, issued,delivered and communicated this official certificate at Denver,Colorado on 05/22/2014 @ 11:34:00 pursuant to and in accordance with applicable law. This certificate is assigned Confirmation Number 8856854. Secretary of State of the State of Colorado of A'atice:A certificate issued electronicalh'fram the Colorado Secretary of Stare's Web site is filly and invmediately valid and effective. However, as can option,the issuance and validity of a certificate obtained electronically maY he established by visiting the Certificate Confirmation Page of the Secretary of State's Web site, her_rAnvw.sos.shle.<n.:es/bi_;'Cerri icnr�cnrch('rireria.da entering the certificate's confirmation number displayed on the certificate, and following the instructions displayed. Confirming the issuance of a certiricate is nner•eh'optional and is not necessan^to the valid and e llective issuance ofaceronr ate. For more inJa-mation,visitour Web site, hap:'Ww w.sos.state.co.us!click Business Center and select"Frequently Asked Questions." CM GS D Revised 08 120.'2008 K Gs � Search For this Record... Filing history and documents Summary Get a certificate of good , standing File a form Subscribe to email notification Unsubscribe from email notification Details Name THE 601 EAST HOPKINS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Business Home Business Information Status Good Standing Formation date 09112/1994 Business Search ID number 19941102262 Form Corporation Jurisdiction Colorado Infor Glossary and Periodic report month April Information Term of duration Perpetual Principal office street address 346 DRAW DRIVE,ASPEN,CO 81612,United States Principal office mailing address n/a Registered Agent Name HARRIS A.CAHN Street address 346 DRAW DRIVE,P.O.BOX 4060,ASPEN,CO 81612,United States Mailing address n/a Filina history and documents Get a certificate of good standing File a form Set uo secure business filing Subscribe to email notification Unsubscribe from email notification Back__._.___..) i i Rubi wwmparldex.com Parkiea`Facade Dado qua Parklex esta constituido basicamente por maderas nobles, los colores y el veteado de las diferentes partidas pueden sufrir[as variaciones naturales de la madera. Parklex is manufactured from fine timber veneers,therefore the colour and grain of different batches will exhibit natural variations. ove � s � zed Z) lNvt /n c /K de c��