Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20141203 AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING December 03, 2014 5:00 PM City Council Meeting Room 130 S. Galena St. 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISITS II. INTRODUCTION (10 MIN.) A. Roll call B. Approval of minutes Nov. 12, 2014 minutes C. Public Comments D. Commissioner member comments E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) F. Project Monitoring G. Staff comments H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued I. Submit public notice for agenda items III. OLD BUSINESS A. A. 101 W. Main St. Aka Molly Gibson Lodge And Lot 2 Of 125 W. Main St. Historic Landmark Lot Split (5:10) Planned Development Project Review, Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Commercial Design Conceptual Review, Design Variances, Growth Management, Subdivision, CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 12TH B. B. 232 E. Main Street (5:40) Planned Development- Project Review, Growth Management, Conceptual Commercial Design, Conceptual Major Development in a Historic District, Waivers And Variances, CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 19TH IV. NEW BUSINESS V. ADJOURN (7:00 PM) Next Resolution Number: Resolution #35 TYPICAL PROCEEDING- 1 HOUR, 10 MINUTES FOR MAJOR AGENDA ITEM, NEW BUSINESS Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) Staff presentation ( 5 minutes ) Board questions and clarifications ( 5 minutes ) Applicant presentation ( 20 minutes ) Board questions and clarifications ( 5 minutes ) Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) ( 5 minutes ) Applicant Rebuttal Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed (5 minutes ) HPC discussion ( 15 minutes ) Motion ( 5 minutes ) *Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met. No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes of the members of the commission then present and voting. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2014 1 Vice-chair, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Nora Berko, John Whipple, Jim DeFrancia and Patrick Sagal. Absent was Sallie Golden. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Sara Adams, Senior Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 229 W. Smuggler/426 N. Second – Conceptual Major Development, On- Site Relocation and Variances, Continue Public Hearing to a date certain MOTION: Jim made the motion to continue 229 W. Smuggler/426 N. Second to January 7 th , second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. 101 W. Main St. aka Molly Gibson Lodge and Lot 2 of 125 W. Main St. Historic Landmark Lot Split – Planned Development Project Review, Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Commercial Design Conceptual Review, Design Variances, Growth Management, Subdivision Debbie said the affidavit of posting is in order including the public outreach and the applicant can proceed - Exhibit I. Exhibit II – Staff Presentation power point Applicant power point Exhibit III Sara Adams said the parcel along Main Street is in the mixed use zone and the portion along Hopkins is zoned R-6 and the entire property has the lodge preservation overlay on it. Sara said the reviews will be the demolition of the existing lodge along Main Street, Conceptual Major development review, Conceptual commercial design review, residential design standard review for the single family homes along Hopkins. A planned development referral with city council for a project review. A project review is where all the dimensional requirements are established. HPC is also asked to do growth management review for affordable housing mitigation and you are asked to make a recommendation P1 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2014 2 to City Council on subdivision. The subdivision review relates to merging the Molly Gibson lodge with the vacant lot that is adjacent to it. The purpose of the lodge preservation overlay is to encourage development that is compatible with the neighborhood and respective of the manner that the property was historically operated. It applies to lodges that are usually in residential zone districts. It allows flexibility in dimensional requirements to allow boards to find a balance to allow more floor area in exchange for in this case small lodge rooms and the development that meets the context of the neighborhood. The proposal is for Parcel 1 along Main Street and Parcel 2 will be the two single family homes along Hopkins. The proposal is the demolition of the entire lodge and staff is supportive of the demolition along Main Street. It does meet the review criteria for demolition. They intend to add a two story building above grade with a basement. They have surface parking off the alley and have one affordable housing unit to meet their on-site affordable housing requirement. They have one free market residential unit on the third floor of the lodge. They purpose a three story lodge which will be a great addition to Main Street. The modules and overall style of the project is exciting and will compliment Main Street. The Main Street parcel including the vacant lot is 18,000 square feet. We are also supportive of the height of 32 feet. The mixed use zone district has a height limit of 28 feet but you can increase to 32 feet through commercial design review. There are some setback variations along Garmisch Street for roof overhangs and a variation along the alley. Staff feels these setbacks are appropriate considering the lodging use on the parcel. We are extremely supportive of the site plan. The applicant is proposing to break the property up and have residential along Hopkins and have the lodge use along the Main Street. They are asking for a variance for their cumulative floor area from 18,000 the underlying mixed use zone district to about 27,000 square feet. If you take into account putting lodge on both parcels their overall floor area which is based on how big your lot is much much larger. One of the reasons we are supportive for the proposal along Main Street is because we are supportive of the site plan to all lodge use along Main Street as opposed to breaking it up which they could do and put lodge along Hopkins. Their growth management is a calculation of FTE “full time equivalents” is determined and needs mitigated and the applicant needs to tell us how they are going to do it. They are providing one on-site unit which will be a one bedroom rental and they will buy housing credits to make up the difference. P2 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2014 3 Staff is supportive of their growth management proposal. Staff feels there can be some restudy of the Main Street parcel setbacks. Most of the building is five feet back and the required is ten feet. Through special review you can decrease that to five feet. Some of the upper floors encroach 2 ½ feet into the setback. The existing building encroaches into the right-of- way so any improvement would be a great improvement to what exists now. The commercial design review requires a delivery area that needs to be along the alley and delineated. There needs to be some information as to how they are going to receive deliveries. The biggest issue for staff is to restudy the two story module which is adjacent to the historic landmark. They have dropped down the height and set it back to align with the historic landmark. Because they want to merge the two lots together we feel the purpose of the landmark lot split is not met because it is basically creating one long building. There is a step down for the two story module but we feel they can go a little further. Maybe make it appear that it is detached or detach it to reflect the different patterns on Main Street. Parcel 2 – two single family residences. Sara said staff is supportive of the residential use. This is a 9,000 square foot lot. Staff is supportive of the architectural style and we support the growth management review. We are recommending a restudy of the neighborhood context. There are concerns about the requested floor area. The maximum floor area for those homes is 4,080 square feet and they are proposing 9,000 square feet to be split between the two homes. Staff feels that is too much floor area on the site and that impacts their ability to meet the residential design standards and the ability to meet the maximum site coverage and side yard setbacks. We feel there should be a slight reduction to better relate to the neighborhood. Staff is recommending a continuation to resolve some of the issues. Stan Clauson & Associates CCY Architects Michael Brown, owner thanked staff for a great ongoing dialogue on the project. We worked hard on the western exposure of the hotel. We feel the project is sensitive to community needs and the surroundings of the Molly Gibson Lodge. The Molly is one of the few remaining locally owned hotels. I have owned the hotel since 2007. This project is a culmination of the Hotel Aspen experience and the feedback we got from the community and various boards. Our ownership has continually invested back into the hotel. P3 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2014 4 Michael said this project is the lowest floor area density and lowest height of any lodging project presently proposed in the city. The current hotel is 53 rooms and we are replacing it with 64 new rooms which is over a 20% increase to the current bed base. There are two free market homes on the Hopkins side and the lodge condominium is just under 1,500 square feet. The project has no requests for building fee waivers, affordable housing waivers or parking waivers. It conforms to the height of both respective zone districts. There is a need for a meeting space inside the hotel. We also intend to use local artists throughout the hotel. We have attempted to respect the neighborhood. We were also one of the early adopters of bikes for our guests to get them connected to Aspen. We also supply our staff with bus passes and complimentary airport transportation as well. John Cottle, CCY architects The rooms are small and smart, just over 300 square feet. The core of the hotel needs to be efficient and simple. The larger rooms have double queens and kings. The average size of the Limelite room is 450 square feet. The eastern part of the hotel on the ground level faces Paepcke Park and that area is public space. With the Hotel Aspen they have a full size pool. On the Molly we have a large hot tub which is 16 feet long as a private space for guests. With the historical society we are creating a Molly Gibson history corner. The building is 90 feet long facing Paepcke Park and 50 feet of it is two stories. Our intent is focusing on year round activities. The hotel fits within the grain of the town. Porches on small lodges are important. We are pulling the hotel five feet back in order to have a detached sidewalk and allow the street trees to continue. All of Aspen is built on 30, 60 and 90 foot modules. We tried to design this building around that in order to fit into Aspen. The materials are durable. We are proposing a wood siding with a metal. The residences are 112 and 114 Hopkins. There is a ground level bedroom, porch, stair roof and a secondary roof. All of those elements are between 16 and 25 feet wide. We are significantly reducing the scale on the street. Hopkins Street is a very varied street. 112 is the western house that has a first floor bedroom 16 feet wide and the gable is set back 60 feet from the curb line. 114 has a flat roof and is 7 feet lower than 112 and the flat roof is set back 60 from the street. We are requesting two variances one for a front door which is set back 13 feet and the requirement is ten feet. The other is the height of the break in the glass. We are asking 8 to 10 feet rather than 9 to 12 feet. P4 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2014 5 Stan Clauson said the bones of the building which was the Smuggler Motor Lodge was built in 1954. In the 70’s it was changed to a hotel. At the open house the only concerns were about construction and construction management plans. There were no concerns about the building and size etc. The AACP plan gives us guidance and calls upon the community to replenish the lodging base. The average room is slightly over 300 square feet. Since the 1990’s the bed base has been lost. With the lodge preservation program that exists today allows free market development to be associated with the lodge as an incentive as a way of financing the development. You have the lodge, amenities and free market units and unfortunately the addition of those three components frequently does not compute. It essentially brings you to have larger numbers than the underlying zoning and brings you into the PUD process in order to bring forward a lodge plan. The City of Aspen’s top ten goal in 2013-2014 was to implement an incentive program for the short term bed base. Stan said the project is L-PUD in the front and LP-R-6 on the Hopkins side. The site is 27,000 square feet and the current zoning is R-6 on Hopkins and on Main Street it is Mixed Use with a lodge preservation overlay. The LP overlay determines the permitted uses and the maximum of the floor area for the residentials. The proposed project is almost 36,000 square feet but it does have a significant amount of affordable housing and on lot 1 a free market component and on lot 2 a 9,000 square foot component. Lot 2 has less floor area than across the street and fits with the lodge incentive program as well. The height of the hotel is at 32 feet which is the maximum. The lodge rooms are 304 square feet from 360 square feet and with new common spaces and energy efficiency. Stan said the LP protects existing small lodges and directs you to the L zone for free market parameters. The net livable lodge use is 19,000 and the average size room at 304 square feet permits 60% residential development and that means you would have an allowable floor area of 11, 491 square feet. This project is proposing 1,000 square feet less than what would be permitted by the lodging incentive free market development parameters in the code. Stan said there will be a five foot parkway and an 8 foot sidewalk which conforms to the engineering standards on Main Street. Parking on Garmisch will be parallel. This is the last property on Main Street that has an attached P5 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2014 6 sidewalk. There are bench seating insets along Main Street. There is also a little patio area along Garmisch. The guest parking is off the alley and there are 12 parking spaces that meets the requirement for parking based on the ability to retain the existing parking deficit. There is lots of landscaping along the parkway along Main Street and landscaping along Garmisch. We are maintaining the integrity of the historic district with the modularity and other factors. We have also maintained the building widths and we have maintained the roof forms. We step back and step down in scale. Nora inquired about further dialogue between the western module and the historic structure. John said one possibility would be to break the element further apart and consider changing the character of it. We would prefer not to change the character. We could study breaking it up further. Willis asked about the collaboration with the Hotel Aspen and the overhangs. Michael said there is an overlap and it is challenging to run a small lodge. We have shared staff and marketing as well as the shuttles. The pool can be shared and we have incorporated meeting space into the Molly Gibson. There are overhangs on the second floor that do not meet the five feet. The setback on level two and three is to accommodate queen queen configured rooms rather than just a king room which lends itself to the affordability of the lodge. The variance would be 2 ½ feet. The deliveries will be on the alley. Willis said Sara’s recommendation is that everything meet the five foot setback. Michael said if we reduce the setback the room becomes smaller and two queens won’t fit. Nora asked if there was a way that the side yard dimension be within the setbacks on Parcel I, the residential. Stan said in terms of the design that is the way it was developed and fits well on the site. There is a ten foot requirement between the buildings and that is dictated by the land use code and the building code. The ten feet is met. P6 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2014 7 Vice-chair, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Willis thanked staff for doing a great job presenting this which is highly complicated and HPC is not used to seeing. It is very digestible. Willis identified the issues: Restudy the 2 story module adjacent Meet a minimum of a 5’ setback along Main Street Provide information on delivery area Reduce the floor area of the residence along Hopkins Meet the RDS standards Meet the site coverage and setback requirement for single family homes Parcel II. Willis said this is an exciting project and crafted well. The two story module does not meet the intent of the lot split. The aesthetic being contemporary are OK but the dialogue should be split between the historic property and the hotel. Willis said he can support the mass and scale of the project. A connector piece might be an option. Meeting the five foot setback along Main Street seems easy to do. The two vertical windows over two vertical windows needs restudied. All the public spaces are in the right places. Possibly see more development of the public amenity space. Willis said on Parcel II these are two houses that need to conform to the RDS’s. The metrics in the code help to ensure the scale and that the context is respected. Patrick thanked the applicants for designing something that is close to fitting something that the public has longed for and that fits into most of the staff review. Possible introduce a connector to parcel I. I am in favor of the five foot setback and the RDS regulations. This project will benefit the community. John commented on the two story module on the historic lot split. With the inflection and the fact that the historic building is only one story in my opinion a more modern approach is fitting. If this lot was purchased by someone else and they tried to fit something on a 3,000 square foot lot we would have more issues. The design is fitting. I also enjoy the undulation of P7 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2014 8 the second story stepping out 2 ½ feet. I am not opposed to that and it breaks up the façade to have it step back rather than one sheer wall going up. I am also in favor of the increased square footage on Hopkins especially since you are not asking for a lot of other things. Hopkins Street should be residences. I feel the RDS standard are out dated. The few variances you are requesting one to change the window height and setting back the front door 13 feet are fine. Regarding the site coverage I am in favor of what is being proposed. This building still feels like the Molly Gibson and its fabrics. This is a well thought out project. They could be asking for huge height increases. We need to work with the applicants in order for them to move forward. Jim said he likes the project a lot and the public amenity is very positive. You aren’t asking for any waivers. I don’t have a problem with the setback in order for the queen beds to fit. I am in favor of the site coverage conforming to the code. I am in favor of approving this with conditions. Nora thanked staff and the team for their presentation. The hotel part is great. The historic corner is an exciting evolution of this hotel. On the residential side my concerns are Parcel II. The RDS’s guidelines are there and should be met. I am in favor of approving with conditions. Willis said he is fine with the setback variance on Main Street. Patrick agreed with Willis. Willis said he has a problem with approving Parcel I with the two story modules. Debbie pointed out to the board that you cannot condition mass and scale. Willis suggested restudying the two story module, layout of the delivery area and to meet the design standards for Parcel II. MOTION : Jim moved to continue 101 W. Main Street Molly Gibson and Lot 2 of 125 W. Main Street until Dec. 3 rd , second by Patrick. Patrick said for parcel II the side yard setback is not met for the residential parcel. P8 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2014 9 Sara said both side yard setbacks are not met. There is supposed to be ten on each and five feet is proposed. They do meet the distance between the buildings of ten feet. Patrick asked about the FAR. Sara said staff is asking that the floor area be reduced. They can’t meet the 4,080 of the R6 and that is not entire appropriate because they are doing an economy lodge project. Its reducing it a little bit in trying to get closer to the setback requirements and trying to make it a little bit smaller to fit into the context but not meeting the letter of the law. John said this is a PUD and we are essentially making a recommendation to council. Willis said the dimension for R-6 is 4,080 FAR and under the lodge overlay it is 11,000, 4091 square feet and we are somewhere in between. Nora said the side yard setbacks have to do with livability as well for the neighbors. Willis said the side yard setbacks are right now 5 feet east to west. In the R- 6 zoning it is ten feet. Stan said the lodging incentive program as it currently exists today provides for 60% of the lodging net leasable in the rooms be transferred to potential floor area. It is impossible to do that and at the same time reduce the floor area and provide a full ten foot setback on either side of the two residential units and reduce the site coverage and still have anything that comes close to the amount of lodging incentive that the code provides for. This is where the numbers don’t compute. The LP should cause us to look at the buildings themselves and whether they work or not. What John Cottle has presented is a huge advantage over the current condition of having the Molly Gibson on Hopkins with its over 7,000 foot floor area. Coming back with ten foot setbacks on either side you have taken away the viability of the project. Michael Brown said we have learned from the Hotel Aspen to not go up higher. There has to be somewhere to put the residences. P9 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2014 10 Jim said he finds validity in the comments and the applicant should discuss this with staff. Willis said the applicant is seeing a range of things from the board and others are accommodating to the variances. John said when you have two neighbors that have bought their property and have lived there a long time with five foot setbacks. We aren’t taking away anything. We are leaving them what they have and making a good use of the development rights. They could come back with an 11,000 square foot Molly Gibson lodge on Hopkins rather than two residences. This is a win win situation for that neighborhood. Roll call vote: Patrick, yes; John, no; Willis, yes; Nora, yes; Jim, yes. Motion carried 4-1. MOTION: Jim moved to adjourn, second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathleen Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P10 II.B. 101 W. Main Street – Molly Gibson Staff Memo 12/3/14 Page 1 of 13 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner RE: Molly Gibson Lodge, 101 W. Main Street and Lot 2 of the 125 West Main Street Historic Landmark Lot Split – Major Development Conceptual Review, Commercial Design Review, Variances, Growth Management Review, Planned Development – Project Review, Subdivision Review, continued from November 12, 2014 MEETING DATE: December 3, 2014 APPLICANT: Aspen Galena LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. and CCY Architects LOCATION: 101 W. Main Street, Lots 1 and 2 of the Molly Gibson PUD, located at the corner of Main and Garmisch, and on Hopkins Avenue; and a vacant lot located on Main Street directly adjacent to the Molly Gibson CURRENT ZONING: Mixed Use along Main Street, R-6 (Medium Density Residential) along Bleeker Street, and Lodge Preservation Overlay over both Lots 1 and 2 of Molly Gibson Lodge. SUMMARY: The applicant requests approval to redevelop the Molly Gibson Lodge and to merge the Main Street lot with an adjacent vacant lot to create an 18,000 sf parcel along Main Street. The lodge is proposed to include 64 lodge rooms, 1 affordable housing unit and 1 free market residential unit. Two single family homes are proposed for the 9,000 sf parcel along Hopkins Avenue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval with conditions. Photo: Current images of Molly Gibson Lodge. P11 III.A. 101 W. Main Street – Molly Gibson Staff Memo 12/3/14 Page 2 of 13 REQUEST OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals to redevelop the existing lodge: • Conceptual Major Development Review (Chapter 26.415) for new construction in a Historic District. This review only applies to the properties along Main Street. (Historic Preservation Commission is the final review authority. City Council has the option to call up the decision.) • Demolition within the Historic District (Chapter 26.415) for demolition of the existing lodge along Main Street, which is located in the Main Street Historic District. (Historic Preservation Commission is the final review authority. City Council has the option to call up the decision.) • Residential Design Standard Variance Review (Chapter 26.410) for the two single family homes along Hopkins Avenue. (Historic Preservation Commission is the final review authority.) • Conceptual Commercial Design Review (Chapter 26.412, and the Commercial Design Guidelines) for construction of a mixed-use lodge building. (The Historic Preservation Commission is the final review authority. City Council has the option to call-up the decision.) • GMQS Reviews (Chapter 26.470) for lodge, affordable housing, and free-market residential development and allotments. (The Historic Preservation Commission is the final review authority.) • Subdivision Review (Chapter 26.480, Subdivision) to merge the vacant lot with Lot 1 of the Molly Gibson Lodge PUD. (The Historic Preservation Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. Council is the final review authority.) • A Planned Development Project Review (Chapter 26.445) to establish dimensional requirements for the project (both lots). The Applicant requests a PD Review to allow an increase in overall floor area, free market residential floor area, lodge floor area, setbacks. (The Historic Preservation Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council is the final review authority.) RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM NOVEMBER 12, 2014 Following are changes to the project made in response to HPC and Staff’s comments: Parcel 1 (Main Street): 1. Restudy the 2-story module adjacent to 125 West Main Street. The applicant proposes two options for the two story module: a flat roof and a gable roof. The applicant prefers the flat roof option. A porch element that mimics the adjacent Victorian is P12 III.A. 101 W. Main Street – Molly Gibson Staff Memo 12/3/14 Page 3 of 13 proposed. A setback variance for the second floor of the two story element is a new variance request that results from changing the mass to better relate to the Victorian. A variation of 3.5’ is requested for the second floor where 5’ is required. The ground level conforms to the 5’ setback requirement. Staff appreciates the design team’s effort and finds that both options are successful. Staff is more supportive of the gable roof form which creates a more literal and obvious relationship to the adjacent Victorian. The difference in roof form between the flat roof lodge and the two story module further separates the mass, is closer to the appearance of a separate lot, and better meets the intent of the historic lot split. Staff supports the proposed subdivision to merge the lots based on the new gable roof form proposal that reads as a separate building from the lodge, which is aligned with the purpose of the historic landmark lot split – “ to divide the square footage that could be building on a landmark parcel into two separate houses in order to reduce the size of both buildings, to reduce the size of an addition made to a historic house and to reinforce the original character of many of Aspen’s neighborhoods, which had small houses on 3,000 square foot lots.” 2. Meet a minimum of 5’ setbacks along Main Street. There are no changes to the front yard setback along Main Street: the ground level conforms to the 5’ setback where the upper floors have about a 2.5’ setback. 3. Provide information on delivery area to meet review criteria. The applicant has indicated an alley delivery area that meets the review criteria on a conceptual level. Parcel 2 (Hopkins Avenue): 4. Reduce the floor area of the residences along Hopkins. The applicant has reduced the floor area of the residences by about 1,000 square feet for a total of just under 8,000 sf total for both residences. The reduction in floor area and the increase in side yard setbacks better relate to the context of the neighborhood. 5. Meet the Residential Design Standards. The applicant was originally requesting a variance from 4 Residential Design Standards per home (first story element, inflection, windows between 9’- 12’ and 10’ maximum distance for front door from front façade). Please refer to Exhibit E for more detailed explanation. The applicant revised the drawings and now requests a variance from 2 Residential Design Standards per home: first story element and inflection. 6. Meet the site coverage and setback requirement for the single family homes. The side yard setbacks for the two homes have been increased from 5’ to 7’ each which still maintaining 10’ distance between buildings. The light wells located in the setbacks must be the minimum size required by Building Code to qualify as a setback exemption. P13 III.A. 101 W. Main Street – Molly Gibson Staff Memo 12/3/14 Page 4 of 13 Staff is supportive of the changes and appreciates the willingness of the applicant to address the concerns voiced on November 12th. Staff recommends approval with conditions listed in the draft resolution. The following memo is from November 12, 2014. The dimensional table has been updated to reflect the current proposal. BACKGROUND: 101 W. Main Street, the Molly Gibson Lodge, comprises 2 separate lots – a 15,000 sf lot along Main Street and a 9,000 sf lot along Hopkins Avenue. The lodge contains 53 lodge units and 54 bedrooms in two separate structures. The Main Street parcel, Parcel 1, is zoned Mixed Use with the Lodge Preservation Overlay. The Hopkins Avenue parcel, Parcel 2, is zoned R-6 Medium Density Residential with the Lodge Preservation Overlay. 125 West Main Street was approved for a historic landmark lot split in 2014, which subdivided the parcel into two lots – one lot contains a 19th century landmark and the other lot is vacant. The vacant lot is zoned Mixed Use and is 3,000 sf in size. P14 III.A. 101 W. Main Street – Molly Gibson Staff Memo 12/3/14 Page 5 of 13 Figure 1: Zone District map showing underlying zone districts. Arrows indicate the 3 parcels included in the application. The Lodge Preservation Overlay applies to both Molly Gibson parcels and it allows some additional development options and flexibility for Aspen’s traditional small lodges, many of which have historically been located in residential neighborhoods. The overlay allows all dimensional requirements to be approved on a case by case basis through the Planned Development (PD) process. The primary focus of a PD is for a project to fit into the context of the neighborhood. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: The applicant proposes a complete demolition of the existing Molly Gibson lodge on both parcels; combining the Main Street parcel with the adjacent vacant lot; the construction of a new 3-story building with lodge, affordable housing and free market residential uses along Main Street; and the construction of 2 new single family residences along Hopkins Avenue. Parcel 1 (Main Street) including the vacant lot adjacent to 125 W. Main Street: • Basement level: 12 lodge rooms, accessory lodge uses, back of house areas • Ground level: 16 lodge rooms; 1 1-bedroom affordable housing unit, lobby/restaurant P15 III.A. 101 W. Main Street – Molly Gibson Staff Memo 12/3/14 Page 6 of 13 • Second level: 22 lodge rooms • Third level: 14 lodge rooms; 1 free market residential unit, outdoor pool terrace A comparison of the existing development to the proposed development is provided below. Table 1: Parcel 1 (Main Street) Blue indicates variation request dimensions existing allowed in MU/LP Proposed minimum lot size 15,000’ 3,000’ 18,000’ minimum lot width 150’ 30’ 180’ front yard (Main St.) 0' 10' or 5' with Special review see site plan - up to 2.5' variance side yard (Garmisch) 0' 5' see site plan- up to 0' variance side yard ( west) 3.5' 5' 5’ 3.5’ rear (alley) 2' 5' see site plan- up to 0' variance maximum height 25' - 30' 28' - 32' with Special Review 32' public amenity 0 1,800 or 10% 1,869 or 10% trash access area 20w x 20d x 10h 20w x 9' 8.5" d x open to sky minimum off-street parking spaces 5 (Current deficit of 22) 12 12 (Current deficit maintained) cumulative floor area 1:1 (18,000) or 1.25:1 (22,500) with Special Review (1.5:1) 26,959 sf lodge floor area .75:1 (13,500) or 1:1 (18,000) with Special Review (1.37:1) 24,672 sf affordable housing floor area 802 sf n/a 644 sf free market residential floor area n/a 0.5:1 (9,000 sf) 1,510 sf average lodge unit size 308 sf n/a 304 sf299 number of lodge units 53 n/a 64 number of pillows/bedrooms 108 n/a 128 lodge net livable area 16,338 sf n/a 19,151 sf max net livable area for free market residential n/a 2,000 1,433 affordable housing net livable area 706 sf n/a 607 sf P16 III.A. 101 W. Main Street – Molly Gibson Staff Memo 12/3/14 Page 7 of 13 Parcel 2 (Hopkins Avenue): • 2 2-story single family homes each with 2 car garages and roof decks A comparison of the existing development to the proposed development is provided below. Table 2: Parcel 2 (Hopkins Avenue) Blue indicates variation request dimensions existing lodge allowed in R-6 Proposed minimum lot size 9,002 sf 6,000 sf 9,002 sf minimum lot width 90’ 30’ 90’ front yard (Hopkins Ave.) 2’ 10’ 10’ side yard (east) 5’ 10’ 5 7’ side yard ( west) 5’ 10’ 5 7’ rear (alley) 10’ 10’ 10’ distance between buildings n/a 10’ 10’ maximum height 25' - 30' 25’ 25’ maximum % site coverage 40% 56% 51.3% allowable floor area 7,212 sf total 4,080 sf total 9,000 or 4,500 sf per single family total 8,000 sf or 4,000 sf per single family residence minimum off-street parking spaces 0 4 total (2 spaces for each single family) 4 STAFF FINDINGS: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) – PROJECT REVIEW (EXHIBIT A) The Project Review shall focus on the general concept for the development and shall outline any dimensional requirements that vary from those allowed in the underlying zone district. The underlying zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the dimensions which may be considered during the development review process. A primary goal of a PD is to relate a development to the surrounding context by varying dimensional requirements. Through the PD process the applicant requests approval to vary the maximum cumulative floor area (Parcel 1), maximum allowable floor area for the lodge use (Parcel 1), maximum allowable floor area for the free market residential use (Parcel 2), maximum site coverage requirement for the free market homes (Parcel 2), and setback requirements (Parcels 1 and 2). Staff finds that the redevelopment of the Molly Gibson Lodge and the proposal to maintain lodging along Main Street and to construct single family residences along Hopkins Avenue is headed in the right direction. Staff recognizes that the Lodge Preservation Overlay on the P17 III.A. 101 W. Main Street – Molly Gibson Staff Memo 12/3/14 Page 8 of 13 property allows an applicant to request variations from the underlying zoning to support and to protect small lodge uses on properties historically used for lodge accommodations. As stated in the Land Use Code one of the purposes of the Lodge Preservation overlay is to “…encourage development which is compatible with the neighborhood and respective of the manner in which the property has historically operated and to provide an incentive for upgrading existing lodges on site or onto adjacent properties.” Staff finds that where the project is directly adjacent to residence, a few massing changes are important as outlined below. Parcel 1 (Main Street) please reference the comments on pages 2 -3 of the staff memo for updated response to changes Cumulative Floor Area Variation: The maximum cumulative floor area of 26,959 sf exceeds the allowable maximum of 18,000 sf (with the ability to increase to 22,500 sf through Special Review). The proposed massing of the lodge, discussed below, generally fits in with the other lodges along Main Street. The siting of this property adjacent to Paepcke Park and a few blocks from the central core supports this size development which defines the street corner and creates a transition to downtown. Staff finds that there is a benefit to the removal of the lodge use along Hopkins Avenue and is supportive of the request. Lodge Floor Area Variation: The applicant requests a variation from the lodge floor area requirements: 13,500 sf is allowed (with the ability to increase to 18,000 sf through Special Review) and 24,672 sf is proposed. This calculation is based on the 18,000 sf lot size of Parcel 1 only. The proposed lodge floor area is about 1.83 times larger than what is allowed for the lodge component within the Mixed Use zone district. The proposal to place all of the lodge use along Main Street has a positive impact on the residential neighborhood along Hopkins Avenue, but has negative implications for the applicant regarding how floor area is calculated for both lots- basically the larger the lot, the more floor area a use receives. For example, if the project proposed lodge use on both Parcel 1 and 2, then the allowable floor area for the lodge use of the entire parcel would be based on both lots (a 27,000 sf lot size) which means the allowable lodge floor area would be 20,250 sf – 27,000 sf. The proposed 24,672 sf is within the range in the Code for lodge use on both parcels. Staff finds that there is an appropriate trade-off for the neighborhood to isolate the lodge use along Main Street and to restore a more consistent residential use along Hopkins Avenue. Staff is supportive of the requested floor area increase for the lodge use because it isolates the use on Main Street and preserves the residential use on Hopkins Avenue. Setback Variations: Setback reductions along Main Street, Garmisch Street and the alley are requested for the lodge building. Along Main Street, the setback requirement is 10’ with the ability to achieve 5’ through Special Review. The building mostly meets the 5’ setback with upper floors measuring a 2.5’ setback and some ground floor modules measuring up to about a 15’ setback. Staff is supportive of the undulating front façade along Main Street, but finds that the upper floors should meet the 5’ setback to provide relief to the Main Street corridor and to meet the underlying zone district allowance. P18 III.A. 101 W. Main Street – Molly Gibson Staff Memo 12/3/14 Page 9 of 13 A 0’ setback is requested for roof overhangs along Garmisch Street and a 0’ setback for the restaurant building is requested along the alley. The building along Garmisch Street has about a 7’ setback, where 10’ is required with the ability to reduce to 5’ through Special Review. Staff is supportive of these setback requests: the setbacks along Garmisch Street define the entrance to the lodge and create a sitting area for the restaurant; the setback along is alley is appropriate considering the site plan the desire to accommodate the parking requirement onsite. The alley setback is subject to review at Detailed Review after further discussion with the Sanitation District and the Engineering Department as described in the DRC comments (Exhibit G). Scale of lodge adjacent to 125 West Main Street: The applicant has worked with planning staff to reduce the size of portion of the lodge building that is located on the newly created vacant lot adjacent to 125 West Main Street. The newly created lot was subdivided through the historic landmark lot split process in 2014. During conversations with the applicant, Staff voiced concerns that the lodge building did not meet the purpose of the historic lot split – which, in addition to removing development pressure from the landmark, is to mimic the traditional type of development, lot width, and density evidenced in historic Aspen maps. Staff was concerned that the lodge proposed to merge the 3,000 sf vacant lot to create a 180 sf lot across Main Street without reference to the traditional development patterns in the historic district. The applicant revised the area of the lodge building closest to 125 W. Main by reducing the height to 2 stories and setting the front façade back to align with 125 W. Main. Both of these changes – reducing height and increasing setbacks- start to create a relationship between the two properties. Staff appreciates these changes and the effort to better relate to the landmark. Staff recommends that the applicant continue to refine the module closest to the landmark to strengthen the relationship – scale, height and building elements – while staying compatible with the lodge building. Parcel 2 (Hopkins Ave) Floor Area, Setback and Site Coverage Variations: The applicant requests a variation from the allowable residential floor area: 9,000 sf is proposed for both buildings (4,500 sf each) where 4,080 sf total for both buildings is allowed in R-6. In addition to the R-6 Zone district, the property has a Lodge Preservation Overlay. The Lodge Preservation Overlay calculates the allowable free market residential floor area for a lodge project as a percentage of the lodge and affordable housing net livable area. Based on this calculation the allowable floor area for free market residential is about 11,850 sf of floor area. The total free market residential proposed for the entire project (3 units) is 10,510 sf. Staff recognizes that there may need to be a variation from the 4,080 sf requirement for the lot especially considering the project is below the free market floor area allowed using the Lodge Preservation Overlay. The primary concern regarding the size of the homes is neighborhood context. The homes are too large considering the majority of residential homes on the block, three of which are small 19th century landmarks. A multi-family affordable housing building is located across the street (the Holiday House) which is 2 ½ stories high without any one story elements other than a front porch. While this large building exists across the street, the neighborhood is primarily comprised of single family homes that address the street and create a residential neighborhood. The blocks to the east and west of Parcel 1 are mostly single family and duplex homes. P19 III.A. 101 W. Main Street – Molly Gibson Staff Memo 12/3/14 Page 10 of 13 The size of the proposed new homes make it challenging to meet certain Code requirements that relate to neighborhood context: for example, side yard setback variations, site coverage variations, and Residential Design Standard variances are requested. Staff recommends that the applicant reduce the free market residential floor area and recommends that the applicant meet the setback and site coverage requirements to better relate to the neighborhood and to be indicative of the single family residential use. SUBDIVISION (EXHIBIT B) The two lots along Main Street proposed to be merged are 15,000 and 3,000 sf in size. The 3,000 sf lot is vacant and was created through the historic landmark lot split process in 2014. AS stated previously, Staff is concerned that the lodge building does not meet the purpose of the historic lot split. The proposal to merge the 3,000 sf vacant lot to create a large lot does not reference the traditional development patterns in the Historic District. Staff recommends that the applicant refine the design of the two story lodge module adjacent to 125 W. Main Street to read as a separate building by adding a connecting element that is setback from the front façade or detaching the module from the main lodge building. At Detailed Review, Staff recommends that the applicant address the historic fence located on the vacant lot. GROWTH MANAGEMENT (EXHIBIT C) The applicant proposes to replace the existing 1-bedroom deed restricted unit onsite with a new 1-bedroom deed restricted unit that is a Category 2 rental. The remainder of the affordable housing requirement, 3.434 FTEs, generated by the new lodge rooms and the new free market residential on both parcels is proposed to be mitigated with Affordable Housing Credits at Category 4. Please refer to Exhibit C for the specific mitigation calculation. The Aspen Pitkin Housing Authority is supportive of the proposed housing mitigation and the onsite rental unit. Staff finds that the review criteria are met and recommends approval of Growth Management. COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW (EXHIBIT D) A complete description of the design standards and guidelines is addressed Exhibit D. Overall, Staff has concerns that the massing of the two story element adjacent to the landmark and recommends a restudy to better relate to the landmark and to act as a transition between the historic landmark and the new more contemporary architecture. Following are the main points discussed in Exhibit D: 2-story module design adjacent to the landmark: Staff recommends a restudy for the proposed design to have a stronger relationship to the historic landmark through design elements – windows, front porch, massing, etc. - as described in Guidelines 11.3, 11.4 and 11.5. Ideally the development in this area of the project will be similar in form to the freestanding building that would be the expected outcome of the lot split. P20 III.A. 101 W. Main Street – Molly Gibson Staff Memo 12/3/14 Page 11 of 13 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. • Subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. • The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic resource. • The front should include a one story element such as a porch. 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. • They should not overwhelm the original in scale. Height increase from 28’ to 32’: The proposed building is 3 stories in height with the exception of the area closest to the landmark at the west – with a maximum height of 32’ to the top of the flat roof, not including the elevator. All floor levels measure 10’. The Mixed Use Zone District allows a maximum height of 28’ with the ability to increase to 32’ through Commercial Design Review in accordance with Standard 7.13. 7.13 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Main Street Historic District. • Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height limit on the subject property. • A minimum second story floor to ceiling height of 9 ft. should be used in a method that is respectful to historic buildings. • Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the following reasons: o The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum, Performance Hall, Fire Station, etc.) o Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another area may be appropriate. o To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units. o To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contribution to the building’s overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved daylight. 7.14 Design a new building to appear similar in scale to those in the district during the mining era. • Generally, a new building should be one to two stories in height. 7.15 On larger structures, subdivide the mass into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to single family residences or Victorian era buildings seen traditionally on Main Street. • Other subordinate modules may be attached to the primary building form. P21 III.A. 101 W. Main Street – Molly Gibson Staff Memo 12/3/14 Page 12 of 13 The lodge building provides variation in height by dropping from three stories to two stories adjacent to the historic landmark located at 125 West Main Street. A two story module is proposed at the corner of Garmisch and Main Street to provide height variation and a more pronounced entrance into the lobby. The applicant provided context studies in the application that compares height of the proposed building to the surrounding neighborhood. Staff is comfortable with the proposed 3 story lodge building and the height increase to 32’ to accommodate the lodge redevelopment. The 3 story building defines the street wall and the street corner and then drops to 2 stories along Garmisch at the alley and adjacent to the landmark at 125 West Main Street. Staff finds that the stepping of the building at the alley and the west edge of the property is appropriate for the context of the neighborhood and historic district. • Delivery area All commercial and lodging buildings shall provide a delivery area. The applicant states that a delivery area will be provided for the lodge along the alley; however the site plan does not provide a specific delivery area. Staff is concerned that there is no delivery area indicated to meet this standard. Considering that adding a delivery area on the property may require a reduction of the parking requirement, Staff recommends that the applicant revise the site plan to show the delivery area prior to HPC granting Commercial Design Standard approval. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW (EXHIBIT E) The 2 single family residences along Hopkins Avenue each request 4 variances from the Residential Design Standards as described in Exhibit E: secondary mass, entry door within 10’ of front façade, no windows between 9’ and 12’, and inflection. Overall, Staff finds that the single family homes should better meet the Design Standards to fit into the context of the residential neighborhood. Staff recommends that the applicant restudy the design to better meet these standards as practical. DEMOLITION (EXHIBIT F) The applicant requests demolition approval of the existing Molly Gibson lodge located along Main Street. This is review is required because the property is located within the Main Street Historic District. Staff finds that the Molly Gibson building is not historic and recommends demolition approval. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Conceptual Major Development approval, Conceptual Commercial Design approval, Demolition approval, Residential Design Standard approval and Growth Management approval. Staff recommends that HPC recommend City Council grant Planned Development Project Review approval and Subdivision approval. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to adopt Resolution #___ granting Conceptual Major Development approval, Conceptual Commercial Design approval, Demolition approval, Residential Design Standard approval and Growth Management approval; and recommending City Council grant Planned Development Project Review approval and Subdivision approval. P22 III.A. 101 W. Main Street – Molly Gibson Staff Memo 12/3/14 Page 13 of 13 Attachments: Exhibit A – Staff Findings, PD Review Criteria [provided 11/12/14] Exhibit B – Staff Findings, Subdivision Review Criteria [provided 11/12/14] Exhibit C – Staff Findings, Growth Management Review Criteria [provided 11/12/14] Exhibit D – Staff Findings, Commercial Design Standard Review Criteria [provided 11/12/14] Exhibit E – Staff Findings, Residential Design Standard Review Criteria updated 12/3/14 with new calculations Exhibit F – Staff Findings, Demolition for property in Historic District, Review Criteria [provided 11/12/14] Exhibit G – Development Review Committee Comments [provided 11/12/14] Exhibit H – Application, updated 12/3/14. Exhibit I – Transportation Impact Analysis P23 III.A. Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street Reso No.__, Series 2014 Page 1 of 11 RESOLUTION NO. __ (SERIES OF 2014) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL, DEMOLITION, RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD APPROVAL, GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPROVALS, AND CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN APPROVAL AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL GRANT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT – PROJECT REVIEW APPROVAL AND SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MOLLY GIBSON LODGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 101 W MAIN STREET, LOTS 1 AND 2 OF THE MOLLY GIBSON PUD, AND FOR LOT 2 OF THE 125 WEST MAIN STREET HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2735-124-55-800 2735-124-55-005, 2735-124-55-066 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application for the Molly Gibson PD (the Application) from Aspen Galena, LLC (Applicant), represented by Stan Clauson Associates and CCY Architects for the following land use review approvals: • Planned Development – Project Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445. • Subdivision Review - pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.480. • Growth Management Review – Replacement of Existing Commercial and Lodge Development, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. • Growth Management Review –Lodge Development, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. • Growth Management Review – New Free Market Residential Units, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. • Growth Management Review – Affordable Housing, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. • Growth Management Review – Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. • Commercial Design Review - Conceptual, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412. • Major Development - Conceptual for properties within the Historic District, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415. • Demolition of properties located within the Historic District, pursuant to Section 26.415; and, WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in effect on the day of initial application – August 11, 2014, as applicable to this Project; and, WHEREAS, the Application for the Molly Gibson PD proposes: P24 III.A. Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street Reso No.__, Series 2014 Page 2 of 11  64 hotel units with 66 bedrooms in 19,151 square feet of net livable area located on Parcel 1  1 free-market residential unit located on Parcel 1 in 1,433 square feet of net livable area.  1 affordable housing unit in 607 square feet of net livable area located on Parcel 1.  2 free market residential single family homes located on Parcel 2 in 8,000 square feet of floor area.  12 parking spaces at-grade spaces on Parcel 1.  4 garage parking spaces, 2 spaces per single family home, on Parcel 2; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire Protection District, Environmental Health Department, Parks Department, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Public Works Department, and the Transportation Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing, of the Land Use Code, a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority is required and a recommendation for approval by the board was provided at their November 5, 2014, regular meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Application and recommended continuation; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.445 of the Land Use Code, Planned Development - Project Review approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.480 of the Land Use Code, Subdivision approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, all required public noticing was provided as evidenced by an affidavit of public notice submitted to the record, a public open house was provided by the applicant to meet the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.304.035, and the public was provided a thorough and full review of the proposed development; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on December 3, 2014, continued from November 12, 2014,during which the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were requested and heard by the Historic Preservation Commission, and the Commission; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 3, 2014, the Historic Preservation Commission approved Resolution __, Series of 2014, by a __________ vote granting Conceptual Major Development approval, Conceptual Commercial Design approval, Demolition approval, Residential Design Standard variances, and Growth Management approval, P25 III.A. Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street Reso No.__, Series 2014 Page 3 of 11 and recommending City Council approve the Molly Gibson Application and all necessary land use reviews, as identified herein, with the recommended conditions of approval listed hereinafter. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVEDBY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1:Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Commission hereby recommends City Council grant the Molly Gibson Planned Development – Project Review approval and Subdivision approval, subject to the recommended conditions of approval as listed herein. The approved dimensions are attached as Exhibit A. The applicant is required to verify existing and proposed floor area and net livable calculations with the Zoning Officer prior to Planned Development – Project Review by City Council. Section 2: Subsequent Reviews Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Applicant is required to obtain Final Commercial Design Review, Major Development Review – Final for properties located within the Historic District, and Planned Development – Detail Review following approval of the reviews outlined herein. The applicant shall combine these applications, and they shall be made no later than one (1) year following City Council approval of the reviews outlined herein. Section 3: Historic Preservation Reviews Major Development- Conceptual for properties located within a Historic District and Demolition for properties located within a Historic District are granted for Parcel 1 of the Molly Gibson PUD and Parcel 2 of the 125 West Main Street Historic Landmark Lot Split. Section 4: Growth Management Allotments 4.1 Reconstruction Credits. Based on the existing Molly Gibson Lodge development, the Applicant represents the following reconstruction credits, to be verified by the Zoning Officer, pursuant to Land Use Chapter 26.470 a. A total of 54 lodging bedrooms, equating to 108 lodge pillows, is credited toward the Project’s lodge GMQS allotment request. b. 1 unit of affordable housing. 4.2 Growth Management Allotments. The following growth management allotments are granted to the Molly Gibson Lodge: a. 10 lodging bedrooms = 20 lodging pillows. Added to the reconstruction credits, the project represents 64 lodging bedrooms or 128 pillows. b. 3 free market residential allotments. P26 III.A. Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street Reso No.__, Series 2014 Page 4 of 11 Section 5: Affordable Housing 5.1 Mitigation Requirements. The project is proposed to include one one-bedroom affordable housing unit. The mitigation required for the project is as follows: Affordable Housing replacement: Replace existing one-bedroom affordable housing unit which generate 1.75 FTEs with an onsite one-bedroom affordable housing unit which generates 1.75 FTEs. Lodge: Mitigate for the additional 10 lodge bedrooms @ 30.8% 10 lodge bedrooms * 0.3 FTEs = 3 FTEs generated 3 FTEs @ 10% mitigation = 0.3 FTEs required mitigation for lodge Free-Market Residential: Provide 10% of free-market residential square feet as affordable housing 12,555 sq ft * 10% = 1,255 square feet net livable area required as affordable housing To convert to FTEs- 1,255/400 sf net livable per FTE = 3.14 FTEs The applicant proposes Affordable Housing Credits equal to 3.44 FTEs at a Category 4 or lower to mitigate the Lodge and Free Market Residential requirements. A one bedroom unit that is Category 2 is proposed onsite to mitigate the demolition of the existing onsite one bedroom unit. 5.2Affordable Housing Conditions. The affordable housing rental unit shall be deed restricted at Category 2, and shall meet the following conditions: a. The unit shall be deed restricted at Category 2. b. All tenants shall be approved by APCHA prior to occupancy. c. The hotel has the right-of-first refusal to place a qualified tenant in the unit upon approval from APCHA. d. Employees of the hotel will be exempt from maximum assets and maximum income for the on-site unit; however, the tenants cannot own any other property within the ownership exclusion zone and must work full time as defined in the APCHA Guidelines. e. Minimum occupancy shall be obtained for each unit (one qualified employee per bedroom). f. The unit cannot be vacant for longer than 45 days, unless APCHA is notified as to why the unit has been left vacant. If an employee of the lodge is not interested in renting the unit, a qualified tenant based on the APCHA Guidelines shall be allowed to rent the unit. P27 III.A. Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street Reso No.__, Series 2014 Page 5 of 11 g. The deed restriction shall be recorded for the affordable housing unit prior to Certificate of Occupancy (CO) of the free-market component. The CO for the affordable housing unit shall be issued at the same time or prior to the CO for the lodge, free-market residential units, and commercial space. h. The Condominium Declaration shall include language, to be reviewed and approved by APCHA, that should the affordable housing unit become an ownership unit: a. The unit will be sold through the lottery system. b. The dues will be based on the assessed value of the deed-restricted unit vs. the free- market unit as well as the square footage of the units; c. No common expenses will be charged to the deed-restricted owners, unless approved by APCHA, especially the common expenses associated with the lodge. Section 6: Planned Development – Detail Review In addition to the general documents required as part of a Planned Development – Detail Review, the following items shall be required as part of the Application’s Planned Development – Detail Review: a. An Outdoor Lighting Plan, pursuant to section 26.575.150. b. An existing and proposed Landscaping Plan, identifying trees with diameters and values. c. A draft Construction Management Plan. d. A snow storage and snow shedding plan. Snow is not permitted to shed off roofs onto neighboring properties. Demonstrate that any snow which sheds off roofs will remain on-site. e. Preservation of the historic fence on Lot 2 of 125 West Main Street Historic Landmark Lot Split. f. A completed Transportation Impact Analysis. g. Confirmation from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District that the 0’ rear yard setback is constructible without damage to the sanitation sewer lines in the alley. Section 7: Subdivision/PD Plat and Agreement The Applicant shall submit a Subdivision/PD agreement (hereinafter “Agreement”) that meets the requirements of the Land Use Code within 180 days of final approval. The 180 days shall commence upon the granting of Final Commercial Design, Final Major Devleopment and Planned Development – Detail Review approvals by the Historic Preservation Commission. The recordation documents shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements of Section 26.490 Approval Documents of the Land Use Code. a. In accordance in Section 26.490.040, Approval Documents Content and Form, the following plans are required in the Approved Plan Set: 1. Final Commercial and Historic Design Review/ Architectural Character Plan. 2. Planned Development Project and Detail Review Plans. 3. Public Infrastructure Plan. 4. Final Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). b. In accordance with Section 26.490.050, Development Agreements, a Development Agreement shall be entered into with the City. P28 III.A. Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street Reso No.__, Series 2014 Page 6 of 11 c. In accordance with Section 26.490.060, Financial and Site Protection Requirements, the applicant shall provide a site protection guarantee and a site enhancement guarantee. d. In accordance with Section 26.490.070, Performance Guarantees, the following guarantees are required in an amount equal to 150% of the current estimated cost of the improvement: 1. Landscape Guarantee. 2. Public Facilities and Public Infrastructure Guarantee. 3. Storm Water and Drainage Improvements Guarantee. Section 8: Engineering Department The Applicant’s design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. 8.1 Drainage: The project shall meet the Urban Runoff Management Plan Requirements and Engineering Design Standards. 8.2 Sidewalk/Curb/Gutter: All sidewalk curb and gutter shall meet the Engineering Standards of City of Aspen Municipal Code Title 21. a. The minimum sidewalk width on Main and Garmisch Streets is 8 ft, detached. The minimum width of the planting strip is 5 ft. It is understood that potential conflicts may limit the sidewalk width and or planting strip width. While the applicant should attempt to achieve the code width, the sidewalk width can be reduced to 6 ft where conflicts exist, subject to approval by the Parks and Engineering Departments. a) The Hopkins sidewalk is in a residential area and therefore, the minimum sidewalk width is 5 ft, detached. The minimum width of the planting strip is 5 ft. b) Curb and gutter likely needs to be replaced except for the new curb and gutter on Hopkins Ave. The turning radius may need to be address at the intersection of Main and Garmisch Streets. 8.3 Excavation Stabilization: Due to the proximity of the neighboring property and the excavation of the building, an excavation stabilization plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department prior to building permit submittal. 8.4 CMP: The Construction Management Plan shall describe mitigation for: parking, staging/encroachments, and truck traffic. 8.5 Snow Storage: A minimum functional area equaling 30% of the paved area shall be provided contiguous to the paved and designed to accommodate snow storage. For heated areas, the functional area can be reduced to 10%. 8.6 Parking: parking must be located within the property boundary. Parallel parking is required for Garmisch Street. At least one signed loading zone parking space is permitted for Garmisch Street. Additional spaces are subject to approval by the Engineering and Parking Department. P29 III.A. Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street Reso No.__, Series 2014 Page 7 of 11 Section 9: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met, subject to review and approval by the Fire Marshall. Section 10: Parks Department Tree removal permits are required prior to issuance of a building permit for any demolition or significant site work. Mitigation for removals must be met by paying cash in lieu, planting on site, or a combination of both, pursuant to Chapter 13.20 of the City Municipal Code. Significant mitigation is required due to the large amount of trees that are on both of the properties that appears will need to be removed. We would like to see a detailed landscape plan that shows all trees with the DBH (diameter at breast height) that they want to remove as well as a proposed planting plan. A tree protection plan indicating the drip lines of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site shall be included in the building permit application for any demolition or significant site work. The plan shall indicate the location of protective zones for approval by the City Forester and prohibit excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, and access over or through the zone by foot or vehicle. The municipal code requirements regarding tree protection fencing being required & the excavation, storage of material, construction backfill, equipment, foot or vehicle traffic being prohibited is applicable. Section 11: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. • All clear water connections are prohibited (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) including trench drains for the entrances to underground parking garages. • On-site drainage and landscaping plans require approval by the district, must accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations and specifications. • On-site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD. • Oil and Grease interceptors are required for all new and remodeled food processing establishments. • Plans for interceptors, separators and containment facilities require submittal by the applicant and approval prior to a building permit application. • Plumbing plans for the pool and spa areas require approval of the drain size by the district. • Glycol snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and must preclude discharge to the public sanitary sewer system. • When new service lines are required for existing development the old service lines (3) must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements and prior to all soil stabilization activities. P30 III.A. Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street Reso No.__, Series 2014 Page 8 of 11 • Below grade development will require installation of a pumping system. • Generally one tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. • Permanent improvements are prohibited in areas covered by sewer easements or right of ways to the lot line of each development. • All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the issuance of any permits. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. • Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. • Due to the depth of the main sewer line in the alley and the need to replace this sewer line in the future, the District would not support the applicants request for an exemption to vacate the five foot setback requirement from the alley lot lines. • The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed building and utility plans are available. Section 12: Environmental Health Department The State of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regard to asbestos. Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements, noise abatement and pool designs. The trash enclosures for Parcel 1 have received approval by the Environmental Health Department for an enclosure that is 9’ 8.5’ x 20’ for the trash and recycling receptacles. This area is within the property line and is not encroaching on the alley The trash and recycling for Parcel 2 (the single family residences) shall be located on Parcel 2. Section 13: Transportation Department The applicant shall update the Transportation Impact Analysis report for approval by the Transportation Department prior to Detailed Review. Consideration for the BRT bus stop shall be considered in the Construction Management Plan. Section 14: Water/Utilities Department The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. All Water System Distribution standards in place at the time of building permit shall apply, and all tap fees will be assess per applicable codes and standards. Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. Section 16: Outdoor Lighting and Signage All outdoor lighting and all signage shall meet the requirements of the Aspen Municipal Code. P31 III.A. Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street Reso No.__, Series 2014 Page 9 of 11 Section 17: Public Amenity Spaces The Applicant has committed to providing ground floor public amenity spaces. These spaces shall be permanently accessible by the public. Section 18: Building Department The Applicant shall meet all applicable building and accessibility codes in place at the time of building permit. Section 19: 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 Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 20: 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 21: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 12th day of November, 2014. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: __________________________ ______________________________ Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Willis Pember, Acting Chair Attest: _______________________________ Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk Attachments: Exhibit A: Approved Dimensional Requirements P32 III.A. Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street Reso No.__, Series 2014 Page 10 of 11 Exhibit A – Approved Dimensional Requirements Parcel 1 of Molly Gibson PUD (Main Street) and 125 West Main Street Lot 2: Approved Dimensions minimum lot size 18,000’ minimum lot width 180’ front yard (Main St.) see site plan - up to 2.5' variance side yard (Garmisch) see site plan- up to 0' variance side yard ( west) 3.5’ rear (alley) see site plan- up to 0' variance maximum height 32' public amenity 1,869 or 10% trash access area 20w x 9' 8.5" d x open to sky minimum off-street parking spaces 12 (Current deficit maintained) cumulative floor area (1.5:1) 26,959 sf lodge floor area (1.37:1) 24,672 sf affordable housing floor area 644 sf free market residential floor area 1,510 sf average lodge unit size 304 sf number of lodge units 64 number of pillows/bedrooms 128 lodge net livable area 19,151 sf max net livable area for free market residential 1,433 affordable housing net livable area 607 sf P33 III.A. Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street Reso No.__, Series 2014 Page 11 of 11 Parcel 2 of Molly Gibson PUD (Hopkins Ave.): Approved Dimensions minimum lot size 9,002 sf minimum lot width 90’ front yard (Hopkins Ave.) 10’ side yard (east) 7’ side yard ( west) 7’ rear (alley) 10’ distance between buildings 10’ maximum height 25’ maximum % site coverage 51.3% allowable floor area total 8,000 sf or 4,000 sf per single family residence minimum off-street parking spaces 4 P34 III.A. Exhibit A – PD – Project Review 101 W. Main Street, Molly Gibson Lodge 11/12/14 Page 1 of 10 Exhibit A – Planned Development (PD) Review 26.445.010. Purpose. The purpose of Planned Development review is to encourage flexibility and innovation in the development of land which: A. Promotes the purposes, goals and objectives of applicable adopted regulatory plans. B. Achieves a more desirable development pattern, a higher quality design and site planning, a greater variety in the type and character of development and a greater compatibility with existing and future surrounding land uses than would be possible through the strict application of the zone district provisions. C. Preserves natural and man-made site features of historic, cultural or scenic value. D. Promotes more efficient use of land, public facilities and governmental services. E. Incorporates an appropriate level of public input to the planning process to ensure sensitivity to neighborhood and community goals and objectives. F. Promotes safe and convenient transit, pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular access and circulation. G. Allows the development of mixed land uses through the encouragement of innovative design practices that warrant variations from the standard permitted zone district land uses and dimensional requirements. 26.445.050. Project Review Standards. The Project Review shall focus on the general concept for the development and shall outline any dimensional requirements that vary from those allowed in the underlying zone district. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. The underlying zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the dimensions which may be considered during the development review process. Any dimensional variations allowed shall be specified in the ordinance granting Project Approval. In the review of a development application for a Project Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and City Council shall consider the following: A. Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans. The proposed development complies with applicable adopted regulatory plans. Staff Findings: The property is not subject to any regulatory plans. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. B. Development Suitability. The proposed Planned Development prohibits development on land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snowslide P35 III.A. Exhibit A – PD – Project Review 101 W. Main Street, Molly Gibson Lodge 11/12/14 Page 2 of 10 areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed in compliance with Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation techniques may be accepted for this standard. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Findings: Both Parcel 1 and 2 of the Molly Gibson PUD currently contain a lodge development. The vacant lot adjacent to Parcel 1 on Main Street does not contain development but is a relatively flat site. The Engineering Department outlined specific information needed to comply with the Engineering Design Standards including URMP, snow storage, curb and gutter, etc. (see DRC comments). These comments are incorporated into the draft Resolution as conditions of approval that are required to be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Changes to the project that result from compliance with the Engineering Design Standards may require an amendment to the PD approval. Staff finds this criterion is met with conditions. C. Site Planning. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: 1. The site plan responds to the site’s natural characteristics and physical constraints such as steep slopes, vegetation, waterways, and any natural or man-made hazards and allows development to blend in with or enhance said features. Staff Findings: The site is currently developed is a hotel and includes extensive hardscape. The applicant proposes a landscape plan that blends into the neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion is met. 2. The project preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or contribute to the identity of the town. Staff Findings: There are no known geologic features or features with historic, cultural, or ecological significance on the site. There is some vegetation on the site which will be removed to accommodate construction. A proposed landscape plan is included in the application. Staff finds this criterion is met. 3. Buildings are oriented to public streets and are sited to reflect the neighborhood context. Buildings and access ways are arranged to allow effective emergency, maintenance, and service vehicle access. Staff Findings: The buildings on both parcels are oriented toward the street to reflect the pattern of development along Main Street, Garmisch Street and Hopkins Avenue. Both parcels are accessible by an alley. Staff finds this criterion is met. P36 III.A. Exhibit A – PD – Project Review 101 W. Main Street, Molly Gibson Lodge 11/12/14 Page 3 of 10 D. Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, mass, and height shall be established during the Project Review. The proposed dimensions are below: Table 1: Parcel 1 (Main Street) Blue indicates variation request existing allowed in MU/LP proposed minimum lot size 15,000 3,000 18,000 minimum lot width 150 30 180 front yard (Main St.) 0' 10' or 5' with Special review see site plan - up to 2.5' variance side yard (Garmisch) 0' 5' see site plan- up to 0' variance side yard ( west) 3.5' 5' 5' rear (alley) 2' 5' see site plan- up to 0' variance maximum height 25' - 30' 28' - 32' with Special Review 32' public amenity 0 1,800 or 10% 1,869 or 10% trash access area 20w x 20d x 10h 20w x 9' 8.5" d x open to sky minimum off-street parking spaces 5 (Current deficit of 22) 12 12 (Current deficit maintained) cumulative floor area 21,847 total for both parcels 1:1 (18,000) or 1.25:1 (22,500) with Special Review 26,959 lodge floor area About 20,847 total for both parcels .75:1 (13,500) or 1:1 (18,000) with Special Review (1.37:1) 24,672 affordable housing floor area 802 n/a 644 free market residential floor area n/a 0.5:1 (9,000) 1,510 average lodge unit size 308 sf n/a 299 P37 III.A. Exhibit A – PD – Project Review 101 W. Main Street, Molly Gibson Lodge 11/12/14 Page 4 of 10 existing allowed in MU/LP proposed number of lodge units 53 n/a 64 number of pillows/bedrooms 108 n/a 128 lodge net livable area 16,338 n/a 19,151 maximum net livable area for free market residential n/a 2,000 1,433 affordable housing net livable area 706 sf n/a 607 sf Table 2: Parcel 2 (Hopkins Avenue) Blue indicates variation request existing allowed in R-6 proposed minimum lot size 9,002 6,000 9,002 minimum lot width 90 30 90 front yard (Hopkins Ave.) 2 10 10 side yard (east) 5 10 5 side yard ( west) 5 10 5 rear (alley) 10 10 10 distance between buildings n/a 10 10 maximum height 25' - 30' 25 25 maximum % site coverage 40% 56% allowable floor area 7,212 total 4,080 total 9,000 or 4,500 sf per single family residence minimum off-street parking spaces 0 4 total (2 spaces for each single family) 4 P38 III.A. Exhibit A – PD – Project Review 101 W. Main Street, Molly Gibson Lodge 11/12/14 Page 5 of 10 A development application may request variations to any dimensional requirement of this Title. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to the following criteria: 1. There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations. Staff Finding: The community will gain a new lodge with updated amenities, rooms, and overall style. The room sizes are an average of 300 sf. The addition and renovation of existing small lodges has been at the forefront of community discussion for the past few years. Staff finds this criterion is met. 2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary uses of the project. Staff Finding: See response below, criterion 3. 3. The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the scale and massing of nearby historical or cultural resources. Staff Finding: Staff has broken the dimensional requirements into the two separate parcels because they have different underlying zoning and different uses – however, there is one Planned Development for both properties. Parcel 1(Main Street) Mixed Use: The building along Main and Garmisch Streets that houses the lodge, the affordable housing, and a free market residential unit on an 18,000 sf lot requests the following variation: front yard setback, side yard (along Garmisch) setback, rear yard setback, trash area variation, lodge floor area maximum. Setbacks: The Mixed Use Zone District allows a project to request up to a 5’ front yard setback through Special Review. The standard requirement is 10’. Only the upper floors of the lodge building extend beyond the 5’ front yard setback and only by about 2.5’, the lower level conforms to the 5’ setback. Staff recommends that HPC grant a 5’ setback variation and that the applicant revise the design to bring the upper floors into conformance with the 5’ setback requirement. The building along Garmisch Street conforms with the 5’ required side yard setback, the only intrusion into the setback is a roof overhang that defines the main entrance. A 0’ setback is requested for the roof. Staff is supportive of the proposed 0’ setback as it allows a defined entry into the building which is indicative of the lodge use of the project. A 0’ rear yard setback variation is requested where 5’ is required for the exterior stair that leads up to the pool deck and for below grade space. The Sanitation District and Utilities Department raised concerns about excavating to the property line and conflicts with utilities in the alleyway. Due to the depth of the sewer line, the Sanitation District does not support the 0’ setback, and rather requests a 5’ setback be maintained (5’ is the required setback). The building encroaching into the rear yard setback includes egress stairs, trash areas, and other essential services along the rear property line. Staff supports the 0’ rear yard setback variation with the P39 III.A. Exhibit A – PD – Project Review 101 W. Main Street, Molly Gibson Lodge 11/12/14 Page 6 of 10 condition that the Sanitation District and the Utilities Department review and approve preliminary construction plans illustrating techniques to construct the 0’ setback without impacting utilities and sanitation lines prior to Detailed Review. Lodge Floor Area: The allowable lodge floor area for this parcel is 13,500 sf (0.75:1) with the ability to increase to 18,000 (1:1) through Special Review. The applicant proposes about 24,672 sf (1.37:1) of lodge floor area. Staff is supportive of the proposed lodge floor area variation which is indicative of the small lodge use with a large number of small rooms on the property. Staff finds that criteria 2 and 3 are met regarding the lodge floor area. Cumulative Floor Area: The allowable floor area for the entire parcel, considering all uses, is 18,000 sf with the ability to increase to 22,500 sf through special review. The applicant proposes 26,959 sf. Staff finds that there is an appropriate trade-offs considering the removal of the lodge use along Hopkins Avenue. The proposed massing of the lodge, discussed below, generally fits in with the other lodges along Main Street. The siting of this property adjacent to Paepcke Park and a few blocks from the central core support this size development which defines the street corner and creates a transition to downtown. Staff is supportive of the proposed floor area variation. Staff finds that criteria 2 and 3 are met regarding the lodge floor area. Scale of lodge adjacent to 125 West Main Street: The applicant has worked with planning staff to reduce the size of the lodge building that is located on the newly created vacant lot adjacent to 125 West Main Street. The newly created lot was subdivided through the historic landmark lot split process in early 2014. During discussions with the applicant Staff voiced concerns that the lodge building did not meet the purpose of the historic lot split - which in addition to removing development pressure from the landmark- the lot split mimics the traditional type of development and density evidenced in historic Aspen maps. Staff was concerned that the lodge proposed to merge the 3,000 sf vacant lot to create a 180 sf lot across Main Street without reference to the traditional development patterns in the historic district. The applicant revised the section of the lodge building closest to 125 W. Main by reducing the height to 2 stories and setting the front façade back to align with 125 W. Main. Both of these changes - dropping the height to 2 stories and setting the building back- start to create a relationship between the two properties. Staff appreciates these changes and the effort to better relate to the landmark. Staff recommends that the applicant continue to refine the module closest to the landmark to strengthen the relationship – scale, height and building elements – while staying compatible with the lodge building. Parcel 2: (Hopkins) 2 Single Family Homes: Free Market Residential Floor Area: Two detached single family homes are proposed along Hopkins Avenue on a 9,000 sf property. The applicant requests a variation of the allowable floor area for these homes. The proposed floor area is 9,000 sf total for both homes (with each home containing about 4,500 sf of floor area). The underlying R-6 zone district allows a maximum of 4,080 sf of floor area total for both homes. The Lodge Preservation Overlay calculates the allowable free market residential floor area for a lodge project as a percentage of the lodge and affordable housing net livable area. Based on this calculation the allowable floor area for free market residential is about 11,850 sf of floor area. The total free P40 III.A. Exhibit A – PD – Project Review 101 W. Main Street, Molly Gibson Lodge 11/12/14 Page 7 of 10 market residential proposed for the entire project (3 units) is 10,510 sf. Staff recognizes that there may need to be a variation from the 4,080 sf requirement especially considering the project is below the free market floor area allowed using the Lodge Preservation Overlay; however the homes need to fit into the context of the neighborhood. The primary concern regarding the size of the homes is neighborhood context. . A multi-family residential building is located across Hopkins Street (the Holiday House) however the majority of the block comprises mostly 19th century landmarks. The large size of the homes make it impossible to meet certain Code requirements that relate to neighborhood context: for example, side yard setback variations, site coverage variations, and Residential Design Standard variances are requested. The requested floor area variation impacts the ability of the 2 new homes to meet the Residential Design Standards, specifically the requirement for a one story element, which would help the new buildings better relate to the neighborhood context. Staff understands that there needs to be some flexibility in the size of the single family homes as a product of the lodge redevelopment but not to the detriment of the neighborhood. Staff finds that the criteria 2 and 3 are not met and recommends that the applicant reduce the size of the single family residences to better relate to the neighborhood and to be indicative of the single family residential use. Sideyard Setbacks and Maximum Site Coverage: The applicant requests variances for side yard setbacks on both the east and west where 5’ is provided and 10’ is required. A variance for maximum site coverage is also requested where 40% is the maximum is 56% is proposed. The requested floor area variation impacts the ability of the 2 new homes to meet these requirements, which would help the new buildings better relate to the neighborhood context. Staff finds that the criteria 2 and 3 are not met and recommends that the applicant meet the setback and site coverage requirement to better relate to the neighborhood and to be indicative of the single family residential use. 4. The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable number of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature of the proposed uses. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development, and the potential for joint use of common parking may be considered when establishing a parking requirement. Staff Finding: The applicant represents that the parking requirement is met onsite. In addition, a RFTA bus stop is located across the street, and a wecycle station is in close proximity. The project is allowed to maintain an existing deficit of parking. Parcel 1 does not have any onsite parking. The lodge currently uses head-in parking along Garmisch Street. Parcel 2 has 5 onsite parking spaces accessed off of the alley. The Code allows the parking on Parcel 2 to be applied to Parcel 1; therefore the entire project has an existing deficit of 22 spaces, which is allowed to be maintained. P41 III.A. Exhibit A – PD – Project Review 101 W. Main Street, Molly Gibson Lodge 11/12/14 Page 8 of 10 Parcel 1 proposes 12 onsite parking spaces to be accessed off of the alley. The Code requires 34 spaces for the lodge (64 rooms *0.5= 32 spaces), free market residential unit (1 space required), and the affordable housing unit (1 space required). Considering the ability to maintain the existing deficit, 12 spaces are required for Parcel 1 (34 required – 22 deficit = 12 spaces). Staff finds that the applicant meets this requirement. Parcel 2 proposes garages for both single family homes, each parking 2 cars. The Code requires 2 parking spaces per single family residence, which is met in the proposal. Staff finds that the parking requirements are met. 5. The Project Review approval, at City Council’s discretion, may include specific allowances for dimensional flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review. Changes shall be subject to the amendment procedures of Section 26.445.110 – Amendments. Staff Finding: This criterion is not applicable at this time. E. Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: 1. The design complies with applicable design standards, including those outlined in Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Standards, and Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation. Staff Finding: Exhibits D and E specifically addresses the applicable design standards. Staff finds that the review criteria for both parcels are not met and recommends a restudy of specific aspects of the project as described in the attached exhibits. 2. The proposed materials are compatible with those called for in any applicable design standards, as well as those typically seen in the immediate vicinity. Exterior materials are finalized during Detailed Review, but review boards may set forth certain expectations or conditions related to architectural character and exterior materials during Project Review. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the proposed materials – wood siding, glass and metal- are appropriate for the Main Street historic district and for the residential context along Hopkins Avenue. These materials are consistent with traditional building in the historic district but with a contemporary application. Staff finds this criterion is met. F. Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular facilities and improvements. Any vehicular access points, or curb cuts, minimize impacts on existing or proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The City may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to replace sidewalks and curb and gutter in accordance with City requirements. The existing head in parking will be removed and replaced with parallel parking and a detached sidewalk. Staff finds this criterion is met. P42 III.A. Exhibit A – PD – Project Review 101 W. Main Street, Molly Gibson Lodge 11/12/14 Page 9 of 10 G. Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the project to comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Finding: The Engineering Department has major concerns about the construction impacts of this project regarding staging, construction phases, parking and truck traffic, and requests a preliminary construction management plan be submitted prior to City Council review. This is added as a condition of approval. Staff finds that this criterion is met with conditions. H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Finding: The applicant represents that they will upgrade public infrastructure as needed to serve the project and the public. This is included as a condition of approval. Staff finds that this criterion is met with conditions. I. Access and Circulation. The proposed development shall have perpetual unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed Planned Development shall not eliminate or obstruct legal access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Planned Development retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways are prohibited. Staff Finding: Both parcels have access from an alleyway and from a public street. There are no gates proposed. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 26.445.060. Use Variation Standards. A development application may request variations in the allowed uses permitted in the zone district. The burden shall rest upon an Applicant to show the reasonableness of the request and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. The permitted and conditional uses allowed on the property according to its zoning shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the land uses which may be considered during the review. Any use variation allowed shall be specified in the ordinance granting Project Review approval. In the review of a development application for a Project Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and City Council shall consider the following standards related to Use Variations: A. The proposed use variation is compatible with the character of existing and planned land uses in the project and surrounding area. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given P43 III.A. Exhibit A – PD – Project Review 101 W. Main Street, Molly Gibson Lodge 11/12/14 Page 10 of 10 to the existence of similar uses in the immediate vicinity, as well as how the proposed uses may enhance the project or immediate vicinity. B. The proposed use variation is effectively incorporated into the project’s overall mix of uses. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to how the proposed uses within a project will interact and support one another. C. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use variation minimizes adverse effects on the neighborhood and surrounding properties. D. The proposed use variation complies with applicable adopted regulatory plans. Staff Findings: The Applicant is not proposing any use variations as part of the application. Staff finds this section is not applicable. P44 III.A. Exhibit B – Subdivision Review Criteria Molly Gibson – 101 W. Main Street 11/12/14 Page 1 of 4 Exhibit B - Subdivision Review Criteria 26.480.010. Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to: (a) assist in the orderly and efficient development of the City; (b) ensure the proper distribution of development; (c) encourage the well-planned subdivision of land by establishing standards for the design of a subdivision; (d) safeguard the interests of the public and the subdivider and provide consumer protection for the purchaser; (e) provide procedures so that development encourages the preservation of important and unique natural or scenic features, including but not limited to mature trees or indigenous vegetation, bluffs, hillsides or similar geologic features or edges of rivers and other bodies of water; and (f) promote and protect the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen. 26.480.070. Major subdivisions. The following subdivisions shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the City Council, after receiving a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Major subdivisions are subject to Section 26.480.030 – Procedures for Review, the standards and limitations of Section 26.480.040 – General Subdivision Review Standards, and the standards and limitations of each type of subdivision, described below. All subdivisions not defined as administrative or minor subdivisions shall be considered major subdivisions. A. Land Subdivision. The division or aggregation of land for the purpose of creating individual lots or parcels shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied according to the following standards: 1. The proposed subdivision complies with the requirements of Section 26.480.040 – General Subdivision Review Standards. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the review criteria below are met. 26.480.040. General subdivision review standards. All subdivisions shall be required to conform to the following general standards and limitations in addition to the specific standards applicable to each type of subdivision: A. Guaranteed Access to a Public Way. All subdivided lots must have perpetual unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed subdivision shall not eliminate or obstruct legal vehicular access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Subdivision retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways are prohibited. All lots have alleyway and street access. There are no gates proposed. B. Alignment with Original Townsite Plat. The proposed lot lines shall approximate, to the extent practical, the platting of the Original Aspen Townsite, and P45 III.A. Exhibit B – Subdivision Review Criteria Molly Gibson – 101 W. Main Street 11/12/14 Page 2 of 4 additions thereto, as applicable to the subject land. Minor deviations from the original platting lines to accommodate significant features of the site may be approved. The combination of two lots along Main Street, that are already part of the original townsite plat, are aligned with the townsite. C. Zoning Conformance. All new lots shall conform to the requirements of the zone district in which the property is situated, including variations and variances approved pursuant to this Title. A single lot shall not be located in more than one zone district unless unique circumstances dictate. A rezoning application may be considered concurrently with subdivision review. The newly created lot along Main Street will be part of the Molly Gibson Planned Development. The site specific approval defines dimensional requirements. D. Existing Structures, Uses, and Non-Conformities. A subdivision shall not create or increase the non-conformity of a use, structure or parcel. A rezoning application or other mechanism to correct the non-conforming nature of a use, structure, or parcel may be considered concurrently. The subdivision does not create or increase a non-conformity. 2. The proposed subdivision enables an efficient pattern of development that optimizes the use of the limited amount of land available for development. Staff Finding: The two lots along Main Street proposed to be merged are 15,000 and 3,000 sf in size. The 3,000 sf lot is vacant and was created through the historic landmark lot split process in 2014. Staff is concerned that the lodge building does not meet the purpose of the historic lot split - which in addition to removing development pressure from the landmark- the lot split mimics the traditional type of development and density evidenced in historic Aspen maps. Staff is concerned that the proposal to merge the 3,000 sf vacant lot to create a large lot (180 ft. of frontage along Main Street) does not reference the traditional development patterns in the Historic District. Staff recommends that the applicant refine the design of the two story lodge module adjacent to 125 W. Main Street to read as a separate building by adding a connecting element that is setback from the front façade or detaching the module from the main lodge building. Staff finds that this criterion is met with the condition that the 2 story module adjacent to the landmark at 125 W. Main Street is restudied to appear detached. 3. The proposed subdivision preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or contribute to the identity of the town. Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to preserve as many trees on the site as possible; however most of the trees along Main Street will be removed for the excavation of the basement and the reconstruction of the sidewalk, curb and gutter. A historic fence is located across the vacant lot and 125 West Main Street. The fence is historically significant and needs to be preserved –either P46 III.A. Exhibit B – Subdivision Review Criteria Molly Gibson – 101 W. Main Street 11/12/14 Page 3 of 4 in its original location or down the side of the property line. Staff finds that this criterion is met with the condition that the fence is retained onsite. 4. The proposed subdivision prohibits development on land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snowslide areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed in compliance with Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation techniques may be accepted with specific design details and timing of implementation addressed through a Development Agreement pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents. Staff Finding: The properties are flat sites downtown. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 5. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the proposed subdivision to comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Finding: The applicant represents that they will meet all required techniques and standards. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 6. The proposed subdivision shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the subdivision. Improvements shall be at the sole cost of the developer. Staff Finding: The applicant represents that they will meet this requirement. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 7. The proposed subdivision is exempt from or has been granted all growth management approvals pursuant to Chapter 26.470 – Growth Management Quota System, including compliance with all affordable housing requirements for new and replacement development as applicable. Staff Finding: Growth Management is reviewed concurrent with Subdivision Review. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 8. The proposed subdivision meets the School Land Dedication requirements of Chapter 26.620 and any land proposed for dedication meets the criteria for land acceptance pursuant to said Chapter. Staff Finding: The applicant represents that they will meet this requirement. It is included as a condition of approval in the draft Resolution. Staff finds that this criterion is met. P47 III.A. Exhibit B – Subdivision Review Criteria Molly Gibson – 101 W. Main Street 11/12/14 Page 4 of 4 9. A Subdivision Plat shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents. Staff Finding: The applicant represents that they will meet this requirement. It is included as a condition of approval in the draft Resolution. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 10. A Development Agreement shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents. Staff Finding: The applicant represents that they will meet this requirement. It is included as a condition of approval in the draft Resolution. Staff finds that this criterion is met. P48 III.A. Exhibit C Molly Gibson- 101 W. Main St. Growth Management Page 1 of 6 Exhibit C – Staff Findings, Growth Management 26.470.050. General requirements. A. Purpose: The intent of growth management is to provide for orderly development and redevelopment of the City while providing mitigation from the impacts said development and redevelopment creates. Different types of development are categorized below, as well as the necessary review process and review standards for the proposed development. A proposal may fall into multiple categories and therefore have multiple processes and standards to adhere to and meet. B. General requirements: All development applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for growth management review based on the following generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of development: 1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi-year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet this standard. Staff Finding: The applicant requests 20 new lodge pillows and 3 new free market residential allotments. Staff finds that there are available allotments in the 2014 growth year. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 2. The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan. Staff Finding: The proposed development is consistent with surrounding land uses which include lodge, residential and affordable housing. There are no applicable regulatory master plans. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. Staff Finding: The development is requesting a Planned Development site specific approval to define dimensional requirements. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Planned Development – Project Review approval, as applicable. Staff Finding: Pursuant to the Land Use Code, Staff is processing the Conceptual design approvals and the Project Review approval concurrent with the Growth Management review. Staff finds that this criterion is met. P49 III.A. Exhibit C Molly Gibson- 101 W. Main St. Growth Management Page 2 of 6 5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate. Staff Finding: See review criteria below specific to lodge development. 6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100 Employee/Square Footage Conversion. Staff Finding: See review criteria below specific to lodge development. 7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services. Staff Finding: The applicant represents an intention to accommodate all impacts on infrastructure. Staff finds this criterion is met. 26.470.070 Planning and Zoning Commission applications. The following types of development shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.470.110, Procedures for review, and the criteria for each type of development described below. Except as noted, all growth management applications shall comply with the general requirements of Section 26.470.050. Except as noted, the following types of growth management approvals shall be deducted from P50 III.A. Exhibit C Molly Gibson- 101 W. Main St. Growth Management Page 3 of 6 the respective development ceiling levels but shall not be deducted from the annual development allotments. Approvals apply cumulatively. Growth Management approvals for Subsections 26.470.080(6-10) shall be deducted from the respective annual development allotments. 26.470.70.4 Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. Staff Finding: APCHA is supportive of the proposed affordable housing unit with conditions. The recommendation is attached in Exhibit G. b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a cash-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash-in-lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval of the Community Development Department Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. Staff Finding: The applicant proposes an onsite unit to replace the existing onsite affordable housing unit. Affordable housing credits are proposed as mitigation for the new lodge and free market residential. Staff finds this criterion is met. c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430. Staff Finding: The proposed 1-bedroom unit is entirely above grade, located on the first floor facing Main Street. Staff finds this criterion is met. P51 III.A. Exhibit C Molly Gibson- 101 W. Main St. Growth Management Page 4 of 6 d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision. Staff Finding: The applicant proposes a rental affordable housing unit, 1-bedroom and 607 sf net livable area, at the Category 2 level. The unit will be deed restricted in accordance with the APCHA guidelines related to rental units for employees of the lodge. Staff finds this criterion is met. e. Non-Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required for mitigation, but meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). The owner of such non-mitigation affordable housing is eligible to receive a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540. Staff Finding: n/a. 26.470.70.5 Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing. 2. Requirements for demolishing affordable multi-family housing units: In the event a project proposes to demolish or replace existing deed-restricted affordable housing units, the redevelopment may increase or decrease the number of units, bedrooms or net livable area such that there is no decrease in the total number of employees housed by the existing units. The overall number of replacement units, unit sizes, bedrooms and category of the units shall be reviewed by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and a recommendation forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to replace the existing 1-bedroom unit, which houses 1.5 full time equivalents (FTEs) with an onsite 1-bedroom unit, which houses 1.5 FTEs. Staff finds that the standard is met. 26.470.70.8 Lodge development. The expansion of an existing lodge or the development of a new lodge shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: P52 III.A. Exhibit C Molly Gibson- 101 W. Main St. Growth Management Page 5 of 6 a. If the project contains a minimum of one (1) lodge unit per five hundred (500) square feet of lot area, the following affordable housing mitigation standards shall apply: 1) Affordable housing net livable area equaling a percentage, as defined in the unit size table below, of the additional free-market residential net livable area shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. 2) A percentage, as defined in the table below, of the employees generated by the additional lodge, timeshare lodge, exempt timeshare units and associated commercial development, according to Paragraph 26.470.100.A.1, Employee generation, shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. Average Net Livable Area of Lodge Units Being Added to the Parcel Affordable Housing Net Livable Area Required (Percentage of Free- Market Net Livable Area) Percentage of Employee Generation Requiring the Provision of Mitigation 600 square feet or greater 30% 60% 500 square feet 30% 40% 400 square feet 20% 20% 300 square feet or smaller 10% 10% When the average unit size falls between the square-footage categories, the required affordable housing shall be determined by interpolating the above schedule. For example, a lodge project with an average unit size of four hundred fifty (450) square feet shall be required to provide mitigation for thirty percent (30%) of the employees generated. Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a maximum of a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Staff Finding: The applicant proposes 1 lodge unit per 421 sf of lot area. The average lodge room size is 299304 sf of net livable area. The applicant proposes to add 11 new lodge units to the project increasing the existing density from 53 lodge units to 64 lodge units, with an increase of 10 bedrooms. A total of 12,524 12,555 sf of net livable area is proposed for 3 free market residential units. At 10% mitigation, 1,2525 sf of net livable area is required as affordable housing. At a rate of 400 sf net livable area = 1 FTE, the total number of FTEs requiring mitigation for the residential portion is 3.134 FTEs. P53 III.A. Exhibit C Molly Gibson- 101 W. Main St. Growth Management Page 6 of 6 At a generation rate of 0.3 employees per lodge bedroom, a total of 3 FTEs are generated by the lodge (10 new bedrooms * .3 = 3 FTEs). At a 10% mitigation rate, 0.3 FTEs require mitigation for the lodge portion. The total required mitigation is (3.134 + 0.3) = 3.434 FTEs at a Category 4 or lower. The applicant proposes Affordable Housing Credits at a Category 4. Staff finds this criterion is met. P54 III.A. Exhibit D- Commercial Design Standards and Major HP Review 101 W. Main Street – Molly Gibson Page 1 of 8 Exhibit D - Commercial Design Standards and HPC Major Development Conceptual for Parcel 1 (Main Street) 26.412.010. Purpose. The purpose of commercial design review is to preserve and foster proper commercial district scale and character and to ensure that the City's commercial areas and streetscapes are public places conducive to walking. The review standards do not prescribe architectural style, but do require that certain building elements contribute to the streetscape. The character of the City's commercial district is largely established by the variety of uses and the relationship between front facades of buildings and the streets they face. By requiring certain building elements to be incorporated in the design of new and remodeled buildings, storefronts are more appealing and can contribute to a well-designed, exciting commercial district. Accommodation of the automobile within commercial districts is important to the consistency and quality of pedestrian streetscapes. The standards prescribe certain methods of accommodating on-site parking to achieve environments conducive to walking. Acknowledgement of the context that has been established by the existing built environment is important to protecting the uniqueness of the City. To achieve compatibility, certain standards require building elements to be influenced by adjoining development, views, pedestrian malls or sun angles. Finally, along with creating architecturally interesting and lively primary streets, the pedestrian nature of downtown can be further enhanced by making alleys an attractive place to walk. Store entrances and display windows along alleyways are encouraged to augment, while not detracting from, the pedestrian interest of primary streets. 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 Findings: Site design: Overall Staff is supportive of the proposed conceptual design of the Main Street parcel with the condition that the 2-story module closest to the historic landmark at 125 West Main Street be restudied to appear separate from the lodge building in an effort to meet the intent of the historic landmark lot split (below): P55 III.A. Exhibit D- Commercial Design Standards and Major HP Review 101 W. Main Street – Molly Gibson Page 2 of 8 “The City provides several incentives for residential property owners to divide the square footage that could be built on a landmark parcel into two separate houses in order to reduce the size of both buildings, to reduce the size of an addition made to a historic house and to reinforce the original character of many of Aspen’s neighborhoods, which has small houses on 3,000 square foot lots.” The historic landmark lot split intended the vacant parcel to be used for a separate detached building. Staff is not against the proposed combination of the vacant lot with the current Molly Gibson parcel with the condition that the two story element located on the vacant lot be designed to appear detached from the lodge. The proposed design also needs to have a stronger relationship to the historic landmark through design elements – windows, front porch, massing, etc.- as described in Guidelines 11.3, 11.4 and 11.5 below. 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. • Subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. • The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic resource. • The front should include a one story element such as a porch. 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. • They should not overwhelm the original in scale. The proposed building is parallel to Main and Garmisch Streets which meets Guideline 7.1. All parking is accessed off the alley and the surface parking spaces are concealed behind the lodge building to meet Guideline 7.3. The primary entrance for the lodge is accessed off of Garmisch Street, which meets Guideline 7.8 and 7.9. A secondary access is provided on Main Street. The lodge building is located at the 5’ setback with undulations in the front façade providing a larger front yard setback. Staff is concerned about the historic fence along the Main Street in front of the vacant lot (see photo above) and recommends that the applicant incorporate the fence into the design by either maintaining it in its current location or relocating it to the side property line between the lodge and 125 West Main Street to meet Historic Preservation Design Guideline 1.1 below. Figure 1: 125 West Main Street, 1980. Note the wrought iron fence. P56 III.A. Exhibit D- Commercial Design Standards and Major HP Review 101 W. Main Street – Molly Gibson Page 3 of 8 1.1 Preserve original fences. • Replace only those portions that are deteriorated beyond repair. Replacement elements should match the existing fence. Building Height, Mass and Scale: The proposed building is 3 stories in height with the exception of the area closest to the landmark at the west – with a maximum height of 32’ to the top of the flat roof, not including the elevator. All floor levels measure 10’. The Mixed Use Zone District allows a maximum height of 28’ with the ability to increase to 32’ through Commercial Design Review by applying Standard 7.13 (below). The proposed building modules along Main Street mimic the 30’ and 60’ widths common to traditional mining era lot sizes, which is consistent with Guideline 7.15 below. 7.13 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Main Street Historic District. • Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height limit on the subject property. • A minimum second story floor to ceiling height of 9 ft. should be used in a method that is respectful to historic buildings. • Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the following reasons: o The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum, Performance Hall, Fire Station, etc.) o Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another area may be appropriate. o To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units. o To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contribution to the building’s overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved daylight. 7.14 Design a new building to appear similar in scale to those in the district during the mining era. • Generally, a new building should be one to two stories in height. 7.15 On larger structures, subdivide the mass into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to single family residences or Victorian era buildings seen traditionally on Main Street. • Other subordinate modules may be attached to the primary building form. The lodge building provides variation in height by dropping from three stories to two stories adjacent to the historic landmark located at 125 West Main Street. A two story module is proposed at the corner of Garmisch and Main Streets to provide height variation and a more pronounced entrance into the lobby. The applicant provided context studies in the application that compare the height of the proposed building to the surrounding neighborhood. Staff is comfortable with the proposed 3 story lodge building and the height increase to 32’ to accommodate the lodge redevelopment. The 3 story building defines the street wall and the P57 III.A. Exhibit D- Commercial Design Standards and Major HP Review 101 W. Main Street – Molly Gibson Page 4 of 8 street corner, and then drops to 2 stories along Garmisch at the alley and adjacent to the landmark at 125 West Main Street. Staff finds that the stepping of the building at the alley, the corner, and the west edge of the property is appropriate for the context of the neighborhood and historic district. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the façade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. Staff Finding: n/a. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. Staff Finding: See discussion above. 26.412.060. Commercial Design Standards. The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed-use development: A. Public Amenity Space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-of-way or private property within commercial areas. On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. Staff Finding: The proposed public amenity is small pockets of space along Main Street and at the corner of Main and Garmisch Streets where there are undulations in the building plane. These areas will be used by lodge guests and will activate Main and Garmisch Streets. The P58 III.A. Exhibit D- Commercial Design Standards and Major HP Review 101 W. Main Street – Molly Gibson Page 5 of 8 project provides a total of 1,869 sf of public amenity space, which is 10% of the 18,000 sf lodge parcel. There is currently no public amenity onsite, so 10% or 1,800 sf of public amenity is required. Staff finds this criterion is met. 2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent rights-of-way are encouraged. Staff Finding: Street trees and seating are proposed for the public amenity areas to activate the street and add vitality. Staff finds this criterion is met. 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of-way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. Staff Finding: The location of the public amenity space along Main and Garmisch Streets contributes to the pedestrian environment by creating spaces small seating areas. Staff finds this criterion is met. 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: The proposed amenity space does not duplicate existing spaces. Rather it provides a positive and creative addition to Main Street and Garmisch Street where there are currently no public amenity spaces. Staff finds this criterion is met. 5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. Staff Finding: The project does not require a variation from the public amenity standards. Staff finds this criterion is met. B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum size and location standards established by Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, unless otherwise established according to said Chapter. Staff Finding: The trash recycle area is located on the property adjacent to the restaurant/eating area and is accessed off of the alley. The applicant is working with the Environmental Health Department to receive approval for a reduced trash size. Environmental Health is supportive of the proposed dimensions 20’w x 9’ 8.5”d x open to the sky (included in the application dated Nov. 5, 2014). The required size for this type of development is 20’w x 20’d x 20’h. P59 III.A. Exhibit D- Commercial Design Standards and Major HP Review 101 W. Main Street – Molly Gibson Page 6 of 8 2. A utility area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum standards established by Title 25, Utilities, of the Municipal Code, the City’s Electric Distribution Standards, and the National Electric Code, unless otherwise established according to said Codes. Staff Finding: The application indicates that the utility area will meet minimum requirements it is located on the property behind the landmark at 125 West Main Street. Staff recommends that HPC include approval of the design of the fencing (because it is behind a landmark) as a condition of approval for Detailed Review. The Utility Department provided the following comments: “Give consideration for electrical Transformer on site w/ associated easement (minimum 10’x10’).” Staff finds this criterion is met with conditions. 3. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located and combined to the greatest extent practical. Staff Finding: The utility and trash areas are not co-located or combined. The trash area is too small to accommodate the utility area within the enclosure. The required onsite parking and the location of the trash area adjacent to the restaurant necessitated the location of the transformer separate on the parcel. Staff finds this criterion is met to the extent practical. 4. If the property adjoins an alleyway, the utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be along and accessed from the alleyway, unless otherwise approved through Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. Staff Finding: These areas are located off of the alley. Staff finds this criterion is met. 5. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be fenced so as not to be visible from the street, unless they are entirely located on an alleyway or otherwise approved though Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. All fences shall be six (6) feet high from grade, shall be of sound construction, and shall be no less than ninety percent (90%) opaque, unless otherwise varied through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. Staff Finding: The trash area is proposed to have a vertical wood fence as shown in the elevations (sheet AL4.3). As mentioned previously, Staff recommends that HPC adopt a condition of approval to review a design for the fence surrounding the transformer that is located behind the landmark. Staff finds this criterion is met with conditions. 6. Whenever utility, trash, and recycle service areas are required to be provided abutting an alley, other portions of a building may extend to the rear property line if otherwise allowed by this Title, provided that the utility, trash and recycle area is located at grade and accessible to the alley. Staff Finding: A rear yard variance is requested for a portion of the lodge building adjacent to the trash/recycle area. The setback variance is discussed in Exhibit A, Planned Development – Project Review. Staff finds this criterion is met. P60 III.A. Exhibit D- Commercial Design Standards and Major HP Review 101 W. Main Street – Molly Gibson Page 7 of 8 7. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property. 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: The utility areas are proposed to be located on private property. An easement is required for service provider access and is included as a condition of approval. Staff finds this criterion is met. 8. All commercial and lodging buildings shall provide a delivery area. The delivery area shall be located along the alley if an alley adjoins the property. The delivery area shall be accessible to all tenant spaces of the building in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. All non-ground floor commercial spaces shall have access to an elevator or dumbwaiter for delivery access. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be utilized as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International Building Code. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. Staff Finding: The applicant states that a delivery area will be provided for the lodge along the alley; however the site plan does not provide a specific delivery area. Staff is concerned that there is no delivery area indicated to meet this standard. Considering that adding a delivery area on the property may require a reduction of the parking requirement, Staff recommends that the applicant revise the site plan to show the delivery area prior to HPC granting Commercial Design Standard approval. Staff finds this criterion is not met and requests more information from the applicant to explain the delivery area. 9. All commercial tenant spaces located on the ground floor in excess of 1,500 square feet shall contain a vestibule (double set of doors) developed internal to the structure to meet the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen, or an air curtain. Staff Finding: A vestibule is proposed accessed off of Garmisch Street. Staff finds this criterion is met. 10. 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: The applicant represents that all mechanical shall be vented through the roof. A roof plan showing mechanical and screening is included in the application dated November 5, 2014. Staff finds this criterion is met. 11. 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. P61 III.A. Exhibit D- Commercial Design Standards and Major HP Review 101 W. Main Street – Molly Gibson Page 8 of 8 Staff Finding: The rooftop mechanical shall be consolidated into one area and screened from view. The applicant proposes significant setbacks for the mechanical equipment, which is clustered around the elevator overrun in the center of the building. Staff finds this criterion is met. 12. The trash and recycling service area requirements may be varied pursuant to Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code. All other requirements of this subsection may be varied by special review (see Chapter 26.430.040.E, Utility and delivery service area provisions). Staff Finding: A reduction to the trash and recycle area has been reviewed by the Environmental Health Department pursuant to the requirements in Title 12 of the Municipal Code. Environmental Health has indicated support for the reduced size. Staff finds this criterion is met. P62 III.A. Exhibit E – Residential Design Standard Variances 101 W. Main Street – Molly Gibson Page 1 of 4 Exhibit E – Residential Design Standard Variances for Parcel 2 (Hopkins Avenue) 26.410.010.A. Purpose. The purpose of the following design standards is to preserve established neighborhood scale and character and to ensure that Aspen's streets and neighborhoods are public places conducive to walking. The standards do not prescribe architectural style, but do require that each home, while serving the needs of its owner, contribute to the streetscape. Neighborhood character is largely established by the relationship between front facades of buildings and the streets they face. By orienting buildings parallel to the street and maintaining a certain consistency in front setback patterns, there is interaction between residents and passersby and the built environment. The area between the street and the front door of the home is a transition between the public realm of the neighborhood and the private life of a dwelling. Low fences and hedges may be used to delineate the edge of a property, but it is important not to close off views of the front lawn and house. Certain elements of the front façade of a house are particularly important components of neighborhood character. Front porches provide outdoor living space and animation to the streetscape, and one-story entryways provide an appropriate domestic scale for a private residence. Street-facing windows can establish a hierarchy of spaces with larger, formal windows denoting public areas and smaller ones suggesting private rooms. Acknowledgement of the context that has been established by the existing built environment is important to protecting the uniqueness of the City. Avoiding building materials which have no relevance to Aspen's history or climate helps to meet this goal, as does avoiding a significant overshadowing of small homes by larger structures. Finally, along with creating homes which are architecturally interesting and lively, the pedestrian nature of a neighborhood can be further enhanced by reducing conflicts between people and automobiles and by making alleys an attractive place to walk. Parking areas are to be concentrated to the rear or side of each residence. Secondary structures and accessory dwelling units, located along the alleys and inspired by the tradition of outbuildings in Aspen, are encouraged. The 2 single family residences along Hopkins Avenue each request 4 variances from the Residential Design Standards as described below. The review criteria are: 26.410.020.2. Variances from the Residential Design Standards, Section 26.410.040, which do not meet this Section may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Historic Preservation Commission, if the project is subject to the requirements of Chapter 26.415. An applicant who desires to consolidate other requisite land use review by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission may elect to have the variance application decided by the board or commission reviewing the other land use application. An applicant who desires a variance from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variance, if granted would: P63 III.A. Exhibit E – Residential Design Standard Variances 101 W. Main Street – Molly Gibson Page 2 of 4 a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. 26.410.040. Residential Design Standards. B. Building form. The intent of the following building form standards is to respect the scale of Aspen's historical homes by creating new homes which are more similar in their massing, by promoting the development of accessory units off of the City alleys and by preserving solar access. 1. Secondary mass. All new single-family and duplex structures shall locate at least ten percent (10%) of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building or linked to it by a subordinate linking element. This standard shall only apply to parcels within the Aspen infill area pursuant to Subsection 26.410.010.B.2. Accessory buildings such as garages, sheds and accessory dwelling units are examples of appropriate uses for the secondary mass. A subordinate linking element for the purposes of linking a primary and secondary mass shall be at least ten (10) feet in length, not more than ten (10) feet in width, and with a plate height of not more than nine (9) feet. Accessible outdoor space over the linking element (e.g. a deck) is permitted but may not be covered or enclosed. Any railing for an accessible outdoor space over a linking element must be the minimum reasonably necessary to provide adequate safety and building code compliance and the railing must be 50% or more transparent. Staff Finding: Both homes have a one story element that projects from the front façade with deck space above. A product of the requested 9,000 sf of floor area on a parcel that allows 4,080 sf of floor area is the inability to meet some of the design standards such as secondary mass. This standard is important to break up the mass, and to relating to the pattern of development in the neighborhood. Typically, secondary mass is in the form of a garage or accessory building along an alleyway. Staff is not supportive of the requested variance and finds that the review criteria are not met. Staff recommends that the applicant try to meet this Standard to the best extent pratical. P64 III.A. Exhibit E – Residential Design Standard Variances 101 W. Main Street – Molly Gibson Page 3 of 4 D. Building elements. The intent of the following building element standards is to ensure that each residential building has street-facing architectural details and elements, which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience and reinforce local building traditions. 1.a) The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the front-most wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight (8) feet. Staff Finding: Both homes have their front doors located 13’3 from the front-most wall of the building. Staff finds that there is no site specific constraint or neighborhood pattern to support this variance and recommends the applicant meet the requirement. 3. Windows. a) Street-facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor level would typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve feet (12) above the finished first floor. For interior staircases, this measurement will be made from the first landing if one exists. A transom window above the main entry is exempt from this standard. Staff Finding: Both homes propose windows between the 10’ – 12’ to provide a view of the mountains from a stair landing. Staff finds that there is no site specific constraint or neighborhood pattern to support this variance and recommends the applicant meet the requirement. E. Context. The intent of the following standards is to reinforce the unique character of Aspen and the region by drawing upon Aspen's vernacular architecture and neighborhood characteristics in designing new structures. 2. Inflection. The following standard must be met for parcels which are six thousand (6,000) square feet or over and as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.2: a) If a one-story building exists directly adjacent to the subject site, then the new construction must step down to one-story in height along their common lot line. If there are one-story buildings on both sides of the subject site, the applicant may choose the side toward which to inflect. "No window zone" If… Then P65 III.A. Exhibit E – Residential Design Standard Variances 101 W. Main Street – Molly Gibson Page 4 of 4 A one-story building shall be defined as follows: A one- story building shall mean a structure or portion of a structure, where there is only one (1) floor of fully usable living space, at least twelve (12) feet wide across the street frontage. This standard shall be met by providing a one-story element which is also at least twelve (12) feet wide across the street frontage and one (1) story tall as far back along the common lot line as the adjacent building is one (1) story. Staff Finding: The western building is adjacent to a one story residence does not provide inflection. A one story element is provided; however it is not long enough to meet the requirement. Staff finds that there is no site specific constraint or neighborhood pattern to support this variance and recommends the applicant meet the requirement to best extent practical. P66 III.A. Exhibit F – Demolition 101 West Main St. – Molly Gibson Page 1 of 1 Exhibit F – Demolition 26.415.080. Demolition of designated historic properties or properties within a historic district. It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have demonstrated significance to the community. Consequently no demolition of properties designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures or properties within a Historic District will be allowed unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section. 4. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a) The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b) The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c) The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a) The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in which it is located and b) The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the Molly Gibson Lodge, located at 101 West Main Street, does not have historic significance and does not contribute to the integrity of the Main Street Historic District. Staff finds that criteria d, and a – c are met and recommends approval of demolition. P67 III.A. P 6 8 I I I . A . P 6 9 I I I . A . Residential Design Standards Compliance City of Aspen RDS in Effect on 10/21/0213 RDS Section Code Description Compliance Description (Note Approved Variances)Reference A. Site Design 1. Building orientation.The street-facing facade of the existing principal structure is parallel to the street.Z-008 2. Build-to lines. 3. Fences.The proposed wrought iron fence forward of the front facade is 42” high.Z-008 B. Building Form 1. Secondary mass.N/A a) Parking, garages and carports shall be accessed from an alley or private road.The site is accessed from a side public street that leads to a private driveway.Z-006 The site is accessed from a side public street and the garage is not street-facing.Z-006 Z-204 The site is accessed from a side public street and the garage is not street-facing.Z-006 N/A The site is less than 15,000 square feet in size.Z-006 The vehicular entrance width of the proposed garage is less than 24 feet.Z-102 The garage doors are not visible from the public street. D. Building Elements Existing historic structure to remain unchanged. Z-201 Existing single-family residence has two street-facing principal windows to remain unchanged.Z-201 2. First story element.Existing historic structure to remain unchanged.N/A 3. Windows.No windows are proposed to span between 9' and 12' above the finished floor.Z-201 No non-orthogonal windows are proposed.Z-201 E. Context 1. Materials. c) Highly reflective surfaces shall not be used as exterior materials. 2. Inflection.N/A N/A N/A The front facades of all principal structures shall be parallel to the street. On corner lots, both street- facing facades must be parallel to the intersecting streets. On curvilinear streets, the front facade of all structures shall be parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the arc of the street. Parcels as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.4 shall be exempt from this requirement. One (1) element, such as a bay window or dormer, placed at a front corner of the building may be on a diagonal from the street if desired. On parcels or lots of less than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, at least sixty percent (60%) of the front façade shall be within five (5) feet of the minimum front yard setback line. On corner sites, this standard shall be met on the frontage with the longest block length. Porches may be used to meet the sixty percent (60%) standard. The entire existing front facade is a non-conforming structure inside the front yard setback. A front yard variance of 6 feet for subgrade spaces was approved at HPC Conceptual Review. Z-008 Z-003 HPC Res. #8 Fences, hedgerows and planter boxes shall not be more than forty-two (42) inches high, measured from natural grade, in all areas forward of the front facade of the house. Man-made berms are prohibited in the front yard setback. All new single-family and duplex structures shall locate at least ten percent (10%) of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building or linked to it by a subordinate linking element. This standard shall only apply to parcels within the Aspen infill area pursuant to Subsection 26.410.010.B.2. Accessory buildings such as garages, sheds and accessory dwelling units are examples of appropriate uses for the secondary mass. A subordinate linking element for the purposes of linking a primary and secondary mass shall be at least ten (10) feet in length, not more than ten (10) feet in width, and with a plate height of not more than nine (9) feet. Accessible outdoor space over the linking element (e.g. a deck) is permitted but may not be covered or enclosed. Any railing for an accessible outdoor space over a linking element must be the minimum reasonably necessary to provide adequate safety and building code compliance and the railing must be 50% or more transparent. The site is located outside of the Aspen Infill Area, so the project is exempt from secondary mass requirements. C. Parking, Garages and Carports 1. For all residential uses that have access from an alley or private road, the following standards shall apply: b) If the garage doors are visible from a street or alley, then they shall be single-stall doors or double-stall doors designed to appear like single-stall doors. c) If the garage doors are not visible from a street or alley, the garage doors may be either single- stall or normal double-stall garage doors. The site is accessed from a side public street and the garage is not street-facing. There are two single-stall garage doors. 2. For all residential uses that have access only from a public street, the following standards shall be apply: a) On the street facing facade(s), the width of the living area on the first floor shall be at least five (5) feet greater than the width of the garage or carport. b) The front facade of the garage or the front-most supporting column of a carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front-most wall of the house. The front facade of the garage is not street-facing. The foremost facade of the garage is set back 6 feet further from the street than the foremost front facade of the house. c) On lots of at least fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet in size, the garage or carport may be forward of the front facade of the house only if the garage doors or carport entry are perpendicular to the street (side-loaded). d) When the floor of a garage or carport is above or below the street level, the driveway cut within the front yard setback shall not exceed two (2) feet in depth, measured from natural grade. The garage is not street-facing and driveway cut within the setback will not exceed the existing condition. Z-008 Z-204 e) The vehicular entrance width of a garage or carport shall not be greater than twenty-four (24) feet. f) If the garage doors are visible from a public street or alley, then they shall be single-stall doors or double-stall doors designed to appear like single-stall doors. Z-008 Z-204 1. Street oriented entrance and principal window. All single-family homes and duplexes, except as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.4 shall have a street-oriented entrance and a street facing principal window. Multi-family units shall have at least one (1) street-oriented entrance for every four (4) units and front units must have a street facing a principal window. On corner lots, entries and principal windows should face whichever street has a greater block length. This standard shall be satisfied if all of the following conditions are met: a) The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the front-most wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight (8) feet. Existing single-family historic residence has street-oriented entrance flush with the street- facing facade to remain unchanged. b) A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six (6') feet, shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one (1) story in height. Existing single-family historic residence has 59 sq ft covered porch to remain unchanged and not within the scope of work. Z-103 Z-201 c) A street-facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of windows face street. All residential buildings shall have a first story street-facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's overall width and the depth of which is at least six (6) feet from the wall the first story element is projecting from. Assuming that the first story element includes interior living space, the height of the first story element shall not exceed ten (10) feet, as measured to the plate height. A first story element may be a porch or living space. Accessible space (whether it is a deck, porch or enclosed area) shall not be allowed over the first story element; however, accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front façade shall not be precluded. a) Street-facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor level would typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve feet (12) above the finished first floor. For interior staircases, this measurement will be made from the first landing if one exists. A transom window above the main entry is exempt from this standard. b) No more than one (1) non-orthogonal window shall be allowed on each facade of the building. A single non-orthogonal window in a gable end may be divided with mullions and still be considered one (1) non-orthogonal window. The requirement shall only apply to Subsection 26.410.010.B.2. 4. Lightwells.All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street-facing facade(s) of a building shall be entirely recessed behind the front-most wall of the building. A 6 ft variance has been approved for a lightwell outside of the front-yard setback. All other lightwells are entirely recessed behind the front-most facade of the building Z-008 Z-003 HPC Res. #8 a) The quality of the exterior materials and details and their application shall be consistent on all sides of the building. The quality, details, and application of exterior materials are consistent on all sides of the building. Proposed materials were approved at HPC Final Review. Z-003 Z-201 Z-202 Z-203 Z-204 b) Materials shall be used in ways that are true to their characteristics. For instance stucco, which is a light or non-bearing material, shall not be used below a heavy material, such as stone. Materials are used in ways that are true to their characteristics. Proposed materials were approved at HPC Final Review. Z-003 Z-201 Z-202 Z-203 Z-204 Exterior materials are not highly reflective. Proposed materials were approved at HPC Final Review. Z-003 Z-201 Z-202 Z-203 Z-204 The following standard must be met for parcels which are six thousand (6,000) square feet or over and as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.2: The site is located outside of the Aspen Infill Area, therefore is not required to meet the inflection standards. a) If a one-story building exists directly adjacent to the subject site, then the new construction must step down to one-story in height along their common lot line. If there are one-story buildings on both sides of the subject site, the applicant may choose the side toward which to Inflect. The site is located outside of the Aspen Infill Area, therefore is not required to meet the inflection standards. A one-story building shall be defined as follows: A one story building shall mean a structure or portion of a structure, where there is only one (1) floor of fully usable living space, at least twelve (12) feet wide across the street frontage. This standard shall be met by providing a one story element which is also at least twelve (12) feet wide across the street frontage and one (1) story tall as far back along the common lot line as the adjacent building is one (1) story. The site is located outside of the Aspen Infill Area, therefore is not required to meet the inflection standards. STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 10/21/2013 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:BAH 1306 1/9/13SD HPC CONCEPT. REV. Survey Engineers 100 Main St., Ste 100 Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 321-6543 survey@engineers.com Civil Engineers 100 Main St., Ste 200 Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 321-6543 civil@engineers.com Mechanical Engineers 100 Main St., Ste 300 Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 321-6543 mechanical@engineers.com Structural Engineers 100 Main St., Ste 400 Aspen, CO 8161 (970) 321-6543 structrual@engineers.com Contractors 100 Main St., Ste 500 Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 876-5432 contractor@contractor.com DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-005 RDS COMPLIANCE 1 Miner's Cabin Way, Aspen, Colorado, 81611, USA MODEL ZONING SUBMISSION 4/5/13SD HPC FINAL REVIEW 4/29/13DD NOT FOR CONST. 10/21/13CD NOT FOR CONST. P 7 0 I I I . A . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 A TR A S H E N C L O S U R E TE R R A C E PA R K I N G S P A C E S EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN-SHOWN DASHED GA S ME T E R PU B L I C A M E N I T Y SP A C E PU B L I C A M E N I T Y SP A C E PU B L I C A M E N I T Y SP A C E EN T R Y DI N I N G TE R R A C E H I J K 5' S E T B A C K PR O P E R T Y L I N E 5' S E T B A C K PR O P E R T Y L I N E ROOF OVER HANG AT ENTRY AND DINING TERRACEOUTLINE OF EXISTING BUILIDINGS TO BE DEMOLISHED SHOWN DASHED EX I S T I N G BU I L D I N G 10 ' S E T B A C K 10 ' S E T B A C K TR A N S F O R M E R DE L I V E R Y A R E A 0 10 ' 20 ' 5' 1 " = 1 0 ' - 0 " SI T E P L A N MG L NO V E M B E R 2 4 , 2 0 1 4 AL2.0 B NO R T H P71 III.A. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 A H I J K TE R R A C E PA R K I N G SP A C E S GA S ME T E R PU B L I C A M E N I T Y SP A C E PU B L I C A M E N I T Y SP A C E PU B L I C A M E N I T Y SP A C E EN T R Y DI N I N G TE R R A C E PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E VARIANCE FOR ROOF OVERHANG - EXTEND TO PROPERTY LINE OUTLINE OF EXISTING BUILIDINGS TO BE DEMOLISHED SHOWN DASHED EX I S T I N G BU I L D I N G VA R I A N C E F O R B U I L D I N G A R E A I N T O SE T B A C K A T U P P E R L E V E L S - G R O U N D LE V E L C O N F O R M S 1 ' - 0 " VA R I A N C E F O R B U I L D I N G A R E A I N T O SE T B A C K A T U P P E R L E V E L S - G R O U N D LE V E L C O N F O R M S 5' S E T B A C K 5' S E T B A C K 10 ' S E T B A C K 10 ' S E T B A C K PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E EL E C T . X F O R M E R - 2 0 ' - - 2 0 ' - 0 " - - 6 0 ' - 0 " - 26 ' - 6 " 26 ' - 6 " 1 0 ' - 3 1 / 4 " 1 7 ' - 5 " 29 ' - 6 " 10'-1 101/128" 2 ' - 5 " 5 ' - 0 " 2 ' - 5 " 2'- 3 3 / 4 " 1'- 5 " VA R I A N C E F O R B U I L D I N G A R E A I N T O SE T B A C K A T S E C O N D L E V E L - G R O U N D LE V E L C O N F O R M S DE L I V E R Y A R E A 0 10 ' 20 ' 5' 1 " = 1 0 ' - 0 " VA R I A N C E S I T E P L A N MG L NO V E M B E R 2 4 , 2 0 1 4 AL2.1 P72 III.A. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 DO U B L E Q U E E N DO U B L E Q U E E N SM A L L Q U E E N DO U B L E Q U E E N KI N G DO U B L E Q U E E N ME D I U M Q U E E N SM A L L Q U E E N DO U B L E Q U E E N 13 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 6 ' - 3 " 4 ' - 0 " B. O . H . B. O . H . KI N G DO U B L E Q U E E N DO U B L E Q U E E N H I J K ST A F F L O C K E R S ST A F F B R E A K R O O M ST A F F R E S T R O O M ST A F F R E S T R O O M MA I N T E N A N C E SH O P BU I L D I N G S E R V I C E ME C H A N I C A L S P A C E S LO D G E LA U N D R Y LI N E N ST O R A G E RE S T R O O M DE P A R T U R E RO O M LU G G A G E ST O R A G E ST O . STO. SH A R E D A D M I N OF F I C E MA N A G E R S OF F I C E ST O R A G E FO O D ST O R A G E FO O D P R E P CLEAN /TRASH EX E R C I S E ME E T I N G RO O M 5' S E T B A C K 5' S E T B A C K 10 ' S E T B A C K 10 ' S E T B A C K PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E 0 8' 16 ' 4' 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " LO W E R L E V E L F L O O R P L A N MG L NO V E M B E R 2 4 , 2 0 1 4 AL3.1 NO R T H P73 III.A. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 A DO U B L E Q U E E N DO U B L E Q U E E N ME D I U M Q U E E N KI N G DO U B L E Q U E E N DO U B L E Q U E E N DO U B L E Q U E E N DO U B L E Q U E E N KI N G KI N G 13 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 6 ' - 3 " DO U B L E Q U E E N DO U B L E Q U E E N KI N G 4'-0" LO B B Y S P A C E KI T C H E N LI V I N G EN T R Y BE D R O O M BA T H BAR DIN I N G 77 0 S . F . 60 S E A T S VEST.STO RE C ' T STORAGE DI N I N G OF F I C E H I J K 5' S E T B A C K 5' S E T B A C K 10 ' S E T B A C K 10 ' S E T B A C K PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E A B C D ME D I U M Q U E E N SM A L L Q U E E N RE S T R O O M RE S T R O O M SM A L L Q U E E N DE L I V E R Y A R E A 0 8' 16 ' 4' 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " MA I N L E V E L F L O O R P L A N MG L NO V E M B E R 2 4 , 2 0 1 4 AL3.2 NO R T H P74 III.A. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ME D I U M Q U E E N DO U B L E Q U E E N KI N G D O U B L E Q U E E N D O U B L E Q U E E N D O U B L E Q U E E N D O U B L E Q U E E N D O U B L E Q U E E N DO U B L E Q U E E N DO U B L E Q U E E N D O U B L E Q U E E N D O U B L E Q U E E N SM A L L Q U E E N KI N G SM A L L Q U E E N KI N G DO U B L E Q U E E N KI N G DO U B L E Q U E E N 13 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 6 ' - 3 " 4 ' - 0 " SM A L L Q U E E N OP E N H I J K 5' S E T B A C K 5' S E T B A C K 10 ' S E T B A C K 10 ' S E T B A C K PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E KI N G A B C D ME D I U M Q U E E N 0 8' 16 ' 4' 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " SE C O N D L E V E L F L O O R P L A N MG L NO V E M B E R 2 4 , 2 0 1 4 AL3.3 NO R T H P75 III.A. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 A KI N G KI N G D O U B L E Q U E E N D O U B L E Q U E E N D O U B L E Q U E E N D O U B L E Q U E E N DO U B L E Q U E E N DO U B L E Q U E E N DO U B L E Q U E E N D O U B L E Q U E E N DO U B L E Q U E E N DO U B L E Q U E E N FR E E M A R K E T 13 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 3 ' - 3 " 1 6 ' - 3 " 4 ' - 0 " SP A A N D R O O F A C C E S S KI N G H I J K 5' S E T B A C K 5' S E T B A C K 10 ' S E T B A C K 10 ' S E T B A C K PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E KI N G 0 8' 16 ' 4' 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " TH I R D L E V E L F L O O R P L A N MG L NO V E M B E R 2 4 , 2 0 1 4 AL3.4 0 16 ' 24 ' 32 ' 8' NO R T H P76 III.A. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 A 13 1 ' - 6 " 13 6 ' - 0 " 12 0 ' - 0 " 10 0 ' - 0 " NOTE: FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION 100 EQUALS 7892.0' H I J K 5' S E T B A C K 5' S E T B A C K 10 ' S E T B A C K 10 ' S E T B A C K PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E 5 A B C D ME C H A N I C A L A R E A M E C H A N I C A L A R E A 0 8' 16 ' 4' 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " RO O F P L A N MG L NO V E M B E R 2 4 , 2 0 1 4 AL3.5 P77 III.A. Main Level 100'-0"Second Level 110'-0" A Third Level 120'-0"Roof Level 130'-0" H I J K VERTICAL WOOD SIDING PA N E L I Z E D M E T A L S I D I N G GL A S S G U A R D R A I L P R O P E R T Y L I N E P R O P E R T Y L I N E 5'- 0 " H E I G H T L I M I T 3 2 ' - 0 " MA I N L E V E L 0' - 0 " UP P E R L E V E L 10 ' - 0 " LO W E R L E V E L -1 2 ' - 0 " RO O F D E C K 21 ' - 0 7 / 8 " Ma i n L e v e l 10 0 ' - 0 " Se c o n d L e v e l 11 0 ' - 0 " 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Th i r d L e v e l 12 0 ' - 0 " Lo w e r L e v e l 90 ' - 0 " Ro o f L e v e l 13 0 ' - 0 " GL A S S G U A R D R A I L VE R T I C A L W O O D S I D I N G ? P R O P E R T Y L I N E P R O P E R T Y L I N E HEIGHT LIMIT 3 2 ' - 0 " VERTICAL WOOD SIDING PANELIZED METAL SIDING STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM 0 8' 16 ' 4' 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " EL E V A T I O N S MG L NO V E M B E R 2 4 , 2 0 1 4 AL4.1 1/8" = 1'-0"LODGE - EAST ELEVATION 1 MA I N S T R E E T W E S T 2 1/8" = 1'-0" LO D G E - N O R T H E L E V A T I O N 3 P78 III.A. Ma i n L e v e l 10 0 ' - 0 " Se c o n d L e v e l 11 0 ' - 0 " 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Th i r d L e v e l 12 0 ' - 0 " Lo w e r L e v e l 90 ' - 0 " Ro o f L e v e l 13 0 ' - 0 " GL A S S G U A R D R A I L VE R T I C A L W O O D S I D I N G ? P R O P E R T Y L I N E P R O P E R T Y L I N E H E I G H T L I M I T 3 2 ' - 0 " Ma i n L e v e l 10 0 ' - 0 " Se c o n d L e v e l 11 0 ' - 0 " 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Th i r d L e v e l 12 0 ' - 0 " Lo w e r L e v e l 90 ' - 0 " Ro o f L e v e l 13 0 ' - 0 " GL A S S G U A R D R A I L VE R T I C A L W O O D S I D I N G ? P R O P E R T Y L I N E P R O P E R T Y L I N E H E I G H T L I M I T 3 2 ' - 0 " VERTICAL WOOD SIDING PANELIZED METAL SIDING STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM 0 8' 16 ' 4' 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " EL E V A T I O N S MG L NO V E M B E R 2 4 , 2 0 1 4 AL4.2 1/8" = 1'-0" LO D G E - N O R T H E L E V A T I O N - WITH TREES 1 1/8" = 1'-0" LO D G E - N O R T H E L E V A T I O N - WITHOUT TREES 2 P79 III.A. Main Level 100'-0"Second Level 110'-0"1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Third Level 120'-0"Lower Level 90'-0"Roof Level 130'-0" VE R T I C A L W O O D F E N C I N G SH E E T M E T A L S I D I N G - M A T C H WIN D O W S AL U M I N U M C L A D W O O D W I N D O W SY S T E M ? GL A S S G U A R D R A I L PROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L I N E 5' - 0 " 5'-0" H E I G H T L I M I T 3 2 ' - 0 " A H I J K ? PA N E L I Z E D M E T A L S I D I N G PROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L I N E SETBACK5'-0" H E I G H T L I M I T 3 2 ' - 0 " MAIN LEVEL 0' - 0"UPPER LEVEL 10' - 0"LOWER LEVEL -12' - 0"ROOF DECK 21' - 0 7/8"VERTICAL WOOD SIDING PANELIZED METAL SIDING STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM 0 8' 16 ' 4' 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " EL E V A T I O N S MG L NO V E M B E R 2 4 , 2 0 1 4 AL4.3 1/8" = 1'-0"LODGE - SOUTH ELEVATION 1 1/8" = 1'-0"LODGE - WEST ELEVATION 2 CO U R T Y A R D V I E W 4 P80 III.A. VERTICAL WOOD SIDING PANELIZED METAL SIDING STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM EL E V A T I O N S - R E N D E R I N G S MG L NO V E M B E R 2 4 , 2 0 1 4 AL4.4 VI E W S I M U L A T I O N L O O K I N G S O U T H W E S T O N M A I N S T R E E T VI E W S I M U L A T I O N L O O K I N G N O R T H W E S T O N G A R M I S C H S T R E E T P81 III.A. 32 ' - 0 " 28 ' - 0 " 14 ' - 0 " GA R M I S C H S T R E E T PA E P C K E P A R K MO L L Y G I B S O N L O D G E 1 S T S T R E E T 2N D S T R E E T 3R D S T R E E T 4T H S T R E E T MA I N S T R E E T E L E V A T I O N E A S T MA I N S T R E E T E L E V A T I O N C E N T E R MA I N S T R E E T E L E V A T I O N W E S T M A I N S T R E E T ST R E E T E L E V A T I O N S MG L NO V E M B E R 2 4 , 2 0 1 4 AL4.5 1" = 60'-0"MAIN STREET ELEVATION 1 1" = 160'-0"HISTORIC OVERLAY FIGURE GROUND 2 P82 III.A. 32 ' - 0 " 28 ' - 0 " 14 ' - 0 " MO L L Y G I B S O N L O D G E M A I N S T R E E T H O T E L A S P E N AL L E Y HO P K I N S A V E N U E 32 ' - 0 " 28 ' - 0 " 14 ' - 0 " 1S T S T R E E T 2N D S T R E E T 3RD STREET 32 ' - 0 " 28 ' - 0 " 14 ' - 0 " GA R M I S C H S T R E E T PA E P C K E P A R K MO L L Y G I B S O N L O D G E 1ST STREET 32 ' - 0 " 28 ' - 0 " 14 ' - 0 " 3R D S T R E E T 4T H S T R E E T 0 20 ' 40 ' 10 ' 1 " = 2 0 ' - 0 " ST R E E T E L E V A T I O N S MG L NO V E M B E R 2 4 , 2 0 1 4 AL4.6 1" = 20'-0"GARMISCH STREET ELEVATION 1 1" = 20'-0"MAIN STREET ELEVATION CENTER 3 1" = 20'-0"MAIN STREET ELEVATION EAST 2 1" = 20'-0"MAIN STREET ELEVATION WEST 4 P83 III.A. C H I M N E Y 1 '∅C O N C R E T E S U P P O R T 1 '∅C O N C R E T E S U P P O R T HO P K I NS S T R E E T M U L T I -S T O R Y F R A M E B U I L D I N G E D G E O F P A V E M E N T C O N C R E T E C U R B & G U T T E R B R I C K P A V E R S C O N C R E T E S I D E W A L K W O O D P R I V A C Y F E N C E A D J A C E N T B U I L D I N G S E C O N D S T O R Y W A L K W A Y W O O D E N D E C K R O O F O V E R H A N G S E C O N D S T O R Y W A L K W A Y S T A I R S U P T O S E C O N D S T O R Y W A L K W A Y S H E D C O N C R E T E P A T I O S H E D P L A N T E R S P A F L A G S T O N E P A T I O L A W N L A W N A D J A C E N T B U I L D I N G L A N D S C A P I N G S T O N E R E T A I N I N G S T O N E R E T A I N I N G L A R G E B O U L D E R (T Y P I C A L ) S T O N E R E T A I N I N G S E C O N D S T O R Y W O O D D E C K R O O F O V E R H A N G S T A I R S T O B A S E M E N T S T O N E R E T A I N I N G C O V E R E D C O N C R E T E W A L K W A Y C H A I N -L I N K F E N C E O N T O P O F C O N C R E T E R E T A I N I N G W A L L B U I L D I N G F O U N D A L U M I N U M C A P I L L E G I B L E (N 5 3 °2 6 'E 0 .3 1 ') S E T N O . 5 R E B A R & Y E L L O W P L A S T I C C A P M A R K E D P R O P C O R N E R H C E L S 1 9 5 9 8 (T Y P I C A L ) T R A S H C O M P A C T O R E L E C T R I C T R A N S F O R M E R S O N C O N C R E T E P A D S C O N C R E T E R O O F O V E R H A N G R O O F O V E R H A N G C O N C R E T E F F E :7 8 9 3 .7 8 B A S E M E N T :7 8 8 8 .2 1 1 s t L E V E L :7 8 9 7 .1 5 2 n d L E V E L :7 9 0 6 .2 4 7 9 0 5 .9 7 8 9 6 .6 R I D G E :7 9 2 1 .9 R I D G E : 7 9 2 2 . 1 4 .9 ' 9 . 7 ' 4 .6 ' 1 7 . 7 ' 4 . 8 ' N 1 5 ° 4 4 ' 1 7 " E 1 0 0 . 0 0 ' S 7 4 °1 5 '4 3 "E 9 0 .0 2 ' S 1 5 ° 4 4 ' 1 7 " W 1 0 0 . 0 0 ' N 7 4 °1 5 '4 3 "W 9 0 .0 2 ' 5 0 .8 ' 5 .1 ' 2 8 .3 ' 1 4 . 1 ' 4 .0 ' 1 4 .1 ' 7 2 . 3 ' 8 . 0 ' 1 .2 ' 1 7 .8 ' 4 8 .4 ' 2 4 . 4 ' 1 3 . 2 ' 1 3 . 2 ' 6 . 8 ' 4 0 . 7 ' 5 .1 ' 3 .9 ' 3 .6 '1 5 . 1 ' 1 8 . 4 ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 112 1 3 1 415161718 8 7 8 8 8 9 C O N C R E T E C O N C R E T E STEPS S T A I R W E L L P O O L S H E D C O N C R E T E C O R R I D O R W O O D W A L K W A Y C O N C R E T E P A T I O B U I L D I N G M U F R B U C A N T I L E V E R A .C . U N I T C O N C R E T E S I D E W A L K 8 4 .5 ' 4 .4 ' B O L L A R D S 3 6 .2 ' 1 s t L E V E L :7 8 9 2 .1 0 2 n d L E V E L :7 9 0 1 .0 1 W I N D O W W E L L S S T E P S F O U N D N O . 5 R E B A R 2 0 . 2 ' 1 1 . 6 ' 1 5 . 3 ' 0 .7 ' 1 4 . 9 ' 0 . 8 ' 0 .6 ' 0 . 8 ' 0 .6 ' H A L L W A Y 1 2 . 0 ' 8 . 8 ' 4 . 3 ' 1 1 .9 ' F 0 . 6 ' 1 2 .5 ' N7 4 ° 1 5 ' 4 3 " W 19 1 . 4 3 ' I V B I V B G E E G E I V B 45 ' - 0 " 45' - 0" 90 ' - 0 " 100' - 0" 5' - 0 " 5' - 0 " 7' - 0" 1 0 ' - 0 " 10' - 0" 10 ' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 0 " AL L E Y HO P K I N S RES 2 - UTILITY METER LOCATION RE S 1 - U T I L I T Y ME T E R L O C A T I O N 1' - 0 " 1 ' - 6 " 1' - 6 " 1' - 0 " 1 ' - 6 " EG R E S S L I G H T W E L L BE L O W ( P E R C O D E ) EGRESS LIGHTWELL BELOW (PER CODE)PORCH ROOF BELOW PO R C H R O O F B E L O W 7' - 0 " 1' - 6" AL L E Y HO P K I N S 0 10 ' 20 ' 5' 1 " = 1 0 ' - 0 " RE S . S I T E P L A N MG L NO V E M B E R 2 4 , 2 0 1 4 AR2.0 1 " = 1 0 ' - 0 " 1 AR C H S I T E P L A N - P R O P O S E D NO R T H 1 " = 1 0 ' - 0 " 2 AR C H S I T E P L A N - E X I S T I N G P84 III.A. 5 AR 4 . 0 AR 4 . 0 AR 4 . 0 4 3 2 5' - 0 " 5' - 0 " AR 4 . 0 1 3 AR 4 . 1 5 21 ' - 6 " 2 4 ' - 0 " AR 4 . 1 2 AR 4 . 1 4 AR 4 . 1 1 R E A R S E T B A C K 1 0 ' - 0 " F R O N T S E T B A C K 1 0 ' - 0 " RE S 2 - M A I N L E V E L IN T E R I O R S P A C E EN T R Y P O R C H FR O N T Y A R D FR O N T Y A R D GU E S T P A R K I N G (P A R A L L E L ) GU E S T P A R K I N G (P A R A L L E L ) A R 4 . 0 A R 4 . 1 RE S 2 - ( 2 ) C A R GA R A G E SE T B A C K 7' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 0 " SE T B A C K 7' - 0 " RE S 1 - M A I N L E V E L IN T E R I O R S P A C E EN T R Y P O R C H 1 0 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " RE S 1 - ( 2 ) C A R GA R A G E CO D E R E Q ' D LI G H T W E L L S E R V I N G TW O B E D R O O M S RE S 1 - L O W E R L E V E L IN T E R I O R S P A C E RES 2 - LOWER LEVEL INTERIOR SPACE CODE REQ'D LIGHTWELL SERVING TWO BEDROOMS7' - 0" 1 0 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 7' - 0 " 0 8' 16 ' 4' 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " RE S . F L O O R P L A N S MG L NO V E M B E R 2 4 , 2 0 1 4 AR3.0 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 MA I N L E V E L NO R T H 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 LO W E R L E V E L P85 III.A. 5 AR 4 . 0 AR 4 . 0 AR 4 . 0 4 3 2 AR 4 . 0 1 3 AR 4 . 1 5 AR 4 . 1 2 AR 4 . 1 4 AR 4 . 1 1 RE S 1 - R O O F L E V E L TE R R A C E & H O T T U B (R E V I S E D T O R E D U C E AR E A ) RE S 2 - R O O F L E V E L TE R R A C E & H O T T U B (R E V I S E D T O R E D U C E AR E A ) 12 " / 1 2 " 12 " / 1 2 " A R 4 . 0 A R 4 . 1 RE S 2 - U N O C C U P I A B L E PO R C H R O O F B E L O W RE S 2 - O C C U P I A B L E TE R R A C E B E L O W RE S 1 - U N O C C U P I A B L E PO R C H R O O F B E L O W RE S 1 - O C C U P I A B L E TE R R A C E B E L O W PR I M A R Y F L A T (B A L L A S T ) R O O F SE C O N D A R Y F L A T (B A L L A S T ) R O O F SE C O N D A R Y F L A T (B A L L A S T ) R O O F PR I M A R Y S L O P E D (G A B L E ) R O O F 7' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 7' - 0 " 5 AR 4 . 0 AR 4 . 0 AR 4 . 0 4 3 2 AR 4 . 0 1 3 AR4.1 5 AR4.12AR4.1 4 AR 4 . 1 1 RE S 1 - U P P E R LE V E L I N T E R I O R SP A C E RES 2 - UPPER LEVEL INTERIOR SPACE RE S 1 - U P P E R LE V E L E X T E R I O R DE C K RES 2 - UPPER LEVEL EXTERIOR DECK RE S 1 - BA C K D E C K DECK RO O F A C C E S S , SP I R A L S T A I R O R AL T . T R E A D DE V I C E T B D ROOF ACCESS,SPIRAL STAIR OR ALT. TREAD DEVICE TBD A R 4 . 0 A R 4 . 1 7' - 0" 1 0 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 7' - 0 " 0 8' 16 ' 4' 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " RE S . F L O O R P L A N S MG L NO V E M B E R 2 4 , 2 0 1 4 AR3.1 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 RO O F P L A N NO R T H 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 UP P E R L E V E L P86 III.A. MAIN LEVEL 0' - 0"UPPER LEVEL 10' - 0"LOWER LEVEL -12' - 0"HEIGHT LIMIT 25' - 0" & R I D G E 1 / 3 B T W N . E A V E RID G E EA V E P E R C O D E > 2 ' - 0 " ROOF DECK 21' - 0 7/8"4' - 0"8' - 0"NO WINDOWS BETWEEN 9' AND 12'ABOVE MAIN LEVEL MA I N L E V E L 0' - 0 " UP P E R L E V E L 10 ' - 0 " LO W E R L E V E L -1 2 ' - 0 " RO O F D E C K 21 ' - 0 7 / 8 " MAIN LEVEL 0' - 0"UPPER LEVEL 10' - 0"LOWER LEVEL -12' - 0"ROOF DECK 21' - 0 7/8" MA I N L E V E L 0' - 0 " UP P E R L E V E L 10 ' - 0 " LO W E R L E V E L -1 2 ' - 0 " RO O F D E C K 21 ' - 0 7 / 8 " RE S . E L E V A T I O N S MG L NO V E M B E R 2 4 , 2 0 1 4 AR4.0 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 SO U T H S T R E E T E L E V A T I O N ( H O P K I N S ) 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 RE S 1 - S O U T H E L E V A T I O N 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 3 RE S 1 - W E S T E L E V A T I O N 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 4 RE S 1 - N O R T H E L E V A T I O N 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 5 RE S 1 - E A S T E L E V A T I O N *ALL ELEVATIONS REVISED TO SHOW INCREASE IN SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 5' TO 7' AND ALL ADDITIONAL REVISIONS SHOWN IN FLOOR PLANS P87 III.A. MAIN LEVEL 0' - 0"UPPER LEVEL 10' - 0"LOWER LEVEL -12' - 0" H E I G H T L I M I T 2 5 ' - 0 " P E R C O D E > 2 ' - 0 " ROOF DECK 21' - 0 7/8"4' - 0"8' - 0"NO WINDOWS BETWEEN 9' AND 12'ABOVE MAIN LEVEL MA I N L E V E L 0' - 0 " UP P E R L E V E L 10 ' - 0 " LO W E R L E V E L -1 2 ' - 0 " RO O F D E C K 21 ' - 0 7 / 8 " MAIN LEVEL 0' - 0"UPPER LEVEL 10' - 0"LOWER LEVEL -12' - 0"ROOF DECK 21' - 0 7/8" MA I N L E V E L 0' - 0 " UP P E R L E V E L 10 ' - 0 " LO W E R L E V E L -1 2 ' - 0 " RO O F D E C K 21 ' - 0 7 / 8 " RE S . E L E V A T I O N S MG L NO V E M B E R 2 4 , 2 0 1 4 AR4.1 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 RE S 2 - S O U T H E L E V A T I O N 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 3 RE S 2 - W E S T E L E V A T I O N 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 4 RE S 2 - N O R T H E L E V A T I O N 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 5 RE S 2 - E A S T E L E V A T I O N 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 NO R T H S T R E E T E L E V A T I O N ( A L L E Y ) *ALL ELEVATIONS REVISED TO SHOW INCREASE IN SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 5' TO 7' AND ALL ADDITIONAL REVISIONS SHOWN IN FLOOR PLANS P88 III.A. RE S . M A T E R I A L S MG L NO V E M B E R 2 4 , 2 0 1 4 AR4.2BOARD FORMED CONCRETE BASE CO M P O S I T E W O O D S I D I N G ( R A I N S C R E E N ) DARK GREY METAL SIDING (RAIN SCREEN) ME D I U M G R E Y Z I N C R O O F I N G , F A S C I A & S E C O N D A R Y ( B A C K G R O U N D ) S I D I N G NA T U R A L S T O N E V E N E E R B A S E RE S I D E N T I A L H O U S E 1 - CO N C E P T U A L M A T E R I A L PA L E T T E RESIDENTIAL HOUSE 2 -CONCEPTUAL MATERIAL PALETTE WARM GREY/BROWN COMPOSITE FASCIA & SECONDARY (BACKGROUND) SIDING VI E W S I M U L A T I O N L O O K I N G A C R O S S HO P K I N S T O P R O P O S E D R E S I D E N C E S *ALL PERSPECTIVE VIEWS REVISED TO SHOW INCREASE IN SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 5' TO 7' AND ALL ADDITIONAL REVISIONS SHOWN IN FLOOR PLANS P89 III.A. RE S . P H O T O S I M S . MG L NO V E M B E R 2 4 , 2 0 1 4 AR4.3 VI E W S I M U L A T I O N L O O K I N G E A S T O N H O P K I N S VI E W S I M U L A T I O N L O O K ING WEST ON HOPKINS*ALL PERSPECTIVE VIEWS REVISED TO SHOW INCREASE IN SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 5' TO 7' AND ALL ADDITIONAL REVISIONS SHOWN IN FLOOR PLANS P90 III.A. M E C H . R M . H O P K I N S A V E N U E 3 3 0 3 3 1 3 3 2 K I T C H E N D I N I N G B A R M E C H . R M . SKI L O C K E R S SKI L O C K E R S 12 2 12 3 12 4 12 5 12 6 12 7 12 8 129 12 1 12 0 REC E P T I O N OFF I C E OFF I C E 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 6 PO O L STEP H O P K I N S A V E N U E W A L K W A Y W A L K W A Y 1 3 0 1 3 1 1 3 2 1 3 3 1 3 4 1 3 5 1 3 6 W A L K W A Y W A L K W A Y H O P K I N S A V E N U E 2 3 0 2 3 3 2 3 4 2 3 6 2 3 7 2 3 8 2 3 9 2 3 5 2 3 2 2 3 1 P A T I O P A T I O 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 20 7 20 6205204 20 3 202 201 W A L K W A Y W A L K W A Y R O O F T O P De p a r t m e n t L e g e n d Ne t L i v a b l e - A H U Ne t L i v a b l e - L o d g e R m s . No n U n i t 0 30 ' 60 ' 15 ' 1 " = 3 0 ' - 0 " EX I S T I N G N E T L I V A B L E MG L OC T O B E R 1 4 , 2 0 1 4 A10.2 1 " = 3 0 ' - 0 " EX I S T I N G F L O O R A R E A - L L 0 1 " = 3 0 ' - 0 " EX I S T I N G F L O O R A R E A - L 1 1 1 " = 3 0 ' - 0 " EX I S T I N G F L O O R A R E A - L 2 2 EX I S T I N G N E T L I V A B L E F L O O R A R E A S Ne t L i v a b l e - A H U 706 SF Ne t L i v a b l e - L o d g e R m s . 1 6 , 3 3 8 S F No n U n i t 4,804 SF 21,847 SF P91 III.A. FL O O R A R E A L E G E N D LO D G E F L O O R A R E A RE S I D E N T I A L F L O O R A R E A AF F O R D A B L E H O U S I N G F L O O R A R E A NO N U N I T - A L L O C A T E D NO N U N I T - E X E M P T DE C K A R E A 26 7 9 S F RE S 2 - L O W E R L E V E L GR O S S 26 7 9 S F RE S 1 - L O W E R L E V E L GR O S S LO T 1 LO T 2 64 4 S F L1 A H U 23 9 3 S F RE S 2 - M A I N L E V E L GR O S S F L O O R A R E A 23 9 3 S F RE S 1 - M A I N L E V E L GR O S S F L O O R A R E A LO T 1 LO T 2 L2 D E C K S L2 D E C K S 47 4 S F R1 U L D E C K 1 69 S F R1 U L D E C K 2 69 S F R2 U L D E C K 2 47 4 S F R2 U L D E C K 1 LO T 1 LO T 2 L3 D E C K S L3 R O O F DE C K 14 9 5 S F L3 F R E E MA R K E T L3 D E C K 70 7 S F R1 R O O F D E C K 70 7 S F R2 R O O F D E C K LO T 1 LO T 2 CA L C U L A T E D F L O O R A R E A - L O T 2 PR O P O S E D S U B G R A D E L E V E L W A L L A R E A C A L C U L A T I O N S OV E R A L L T O T A L W A L L A R E A EX P O S E D W A L L A R E A % E X P O S E D W A L L A R E A ( E X P O S E D / T O T A L ) PR O P O S E D S U B G R A D E F L O O R A R E A C A L C U L A T I O N S SU B G R A D E G R O S S F L O O R A R E A SU B G R A D E C O U N T A B L E F L O O R A R E A TO T A L P R O P O S E D F L O O R A R E A C A L C U L A T I O N S SU B G R A D E F L O O R A R E A MA I N L E V E L F L O O R A R E A UP P E R L E V E L F L O O R A R E A DE C K / P O R C H F L O O R A R E A TO T A L P R O P O S E D F L O O R A R E A 2,376 SF 85 SF 3.6% SF 2,679 SF 96.4 SF (2,679 SF X 3.6%)96.4 SF 2,018 SF 1,824 SF (1236.6 - 675) = 561.6 SF 9,000 SF(4,500 SF X 15%) = 675 SF CA L C U L A T E D F L O O R A R E A - L O T 1 PR O P O S E D S U B G R A D E L E V E L W A L L A R E A C A L C U L A T I O N S OV E R A L L T O T A L W A L L A R E A EX P O S E D W A L L A R E A % E X P O S E D W A L L A R E A ( E X P O S E D / T O T A L ) PR O P O S E D S U B G R A D E F L O O R A R E A C A L C U L A T I O N S SU B G R A D E G R O S S F L O O R A R E A SU B G R A D E C O U N T A B L E F L O O R A R E A TO T A L P R O P O S E D F L O O R A R E A C A L C U L A T I O N S SU B G R A D E F L O O R A R E A ( L O D G E ) MA I N L E V E L F L O O R A R E A SE C O N D L E V E L F L O O R A R E A DE C K / P O R C H F L O O R A R E A ( E X E M P T ) TO T A L P R O P O S E D F L O O R A R E A 6,466 SF 646 SF 10% SF 9,678 SF 967.8 SF (9,678 SF X 10%)967.8 SF 9,741 SF 8,845 SF 26,958.8 SF4,861 SF CU M U L A T I V E F L O O R A R E A - P R O J E C T PR O P O S E D C A L C U L A T E D F L O O R A R E A OV E R A L L F L O O R A R E A R E S . U N I T 1 OV E R A L L F L O O R A R E A R E S . U N I T 2 OV E R A L L F L O O R A R E A L O D G E GR A N D T O T A L C A L C U L A T E D F L O O R A R E A 4,500 SF26,958.8 SF 35,958.8 SF4,500 SF TH I R D L E V E L F L O O R A R E A 7,405 SF 4,500 SF x 2 LO D G E RE S I D E N T I A L ( A L L O C A T E D ) AF F O R D A B L E H O U S I N G 8,658 SF 33 SF 644 SF LO D G E RE S I D E N T I A L ( A L L O C A T E D ) AF F O R D A B L E H O U S I N G NO N U N I T 439 SF NO N U N I T 8,418 SF 32 SF 0 SF 428 SF LO D G E RE S I D E N T I A L AF F O R D A B L E H O U S I N G NO N U N I T 5,010 SF 1,495 SF 0 SF 900 SF NO N U N I T ( A L L O C A T E D ) 1,767 SF(439 SF x 7.5%) LO D G E ( A L L O C A T E D ) (439 SF x 92.5%)406 SF LO D G E ( A L L O C A T E D ) (428 SF x 7.5%)(428 SF x 92.5%)395 SF LO D G E ( A L L O C A T E D ) RE S I D E N T I A L ( A L L O C A T E D ) (900 SF x 7.5%)(900 SF x 92.5%)68 SF832 SF LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 2 0 30 ' 60 ' 15 ' As i n d i c a t e d FL O O R A R E A C A L C S - PR O P O S E D F L O O R A R E A S MG L OC T O B E R 1 4 , 2 0 1 4 A10.3 1 " = 3 0 ' - 0 " FL O O R A R E A P L A N - L L 0 1 " = 3 0 ' - 0 " FL O O R A R E A P L A N - L 1 1 1 " = 3 0 ' - 0 " FL O O R A R E A P L A N - L 2 2 1 " = 3 0 ' - 0 " FL O O R A R E A P L A N - L 3 3 P92 III.A. FL O O R A R E A L E G E N D LO D G E F L O O R A R E A RE S I D E N T I A L F L O O R A R E A AF F O R D A B L E H O U S I N G F L O O R A R E A NO N U N I T - A L L O C A T E D NO N U N I T - E X E M P T DE C K A R E A 25 2 1 S F RE S 2 - L O W E R L E V E L GR O S S 25 2 1 S F RE S 1 - L O W E R L E V E L GR O S S LO T 1 LO T 2 64 4 S F L1 A H U 23 1 0 S F RE S 2 - M A I N L E V E L GR O S S F L O O R A R E A 23 1 0 S F RE S 1 - M A I N L E V E L GR O S S F L O O R A R E A LO T 1 LO T 2 L2 D E C K S L2 D E C K S 44 9 S F R1 U L D E C K 1 57 S F R1 U L D E C K 2 57 S F R2 U L D E C K 2 44 9 S F R2 U L D E C K 1 17 7 3 S F RE S 1 - U P P E R L E V E L FL O O R A R E A 17 7 3 S F RE S 2 - U P P E R L E V E L FL O O R A R E A LO T 1 LO T 2 L3 D E C K S L3 R O O F DE C K 14 9 5 S F L3 F R E E MA R K E T L3 D E C K 25 2 S F R2 R O O F D E C K 25 2 S F R1 R O O F D E C K LO T 1 LO T 2 CA L C U L A T E D F L O O R A R E A - L O T 2 PR O P O S E D S U B G R A D E L E V E L W A L L A R E A C A L C U L A T I O N S OV E R A L L T O T A L W A L L A R E A EX P O S E D W A L L A R E A % E X P O S E D W A L L A R E A ( E X P O S E D / T O T A L ) PR O P O S E D S U B G R A D E F L O O R A R E A C A L C U L A T I O N S SU B G R A D E G R O S S F L O O R A R E A SU B G R A D E C O U N T A B L E F L O O R A R E A TO T A L P R O P O S E D F L O O R A R E A C A L C U L A T I O N S SU B G R A D E F L O O R A R E A MA I N L E V E L F L O O R A R E A UP P E R L E V E L F L O O R A R E A DE C K / P O R C H F L O O R A R E A TO T A L P R O P O S E D F L O O R A R E A 2,332.5 SF 85 SF 3.6% SF 2,521 SF 90.8 SF (2,521 SF X 3.6%)90.8 SF 1,935 SF 1,773 SF (758 - 600) = 158 SF 3,956.8 SF X 2 = 7,913.6 SF(4,000 SF X 15%) = 600 SF CA L C U L A T E D F L O O R A R E A - L O T 1 PR O P O S E D S U B G R A D E L E V E L W A L L A R E A C A L C U L A T I O N S OV E R A L L T O T A L W A L L A R E A EX P O S E D W A L L A R E A % E X P O S E D W A L L A R E A ( E X P O S E D / T O T A L ) PR O P O S E D S U B G R A D E F L O O R A R E A C A L C U L A T I O N S SU B G R A D E G R O S S F L O O R A R E A SU B G R A D E C O U N T A B L E F L O O R A R E A TO T A L P R O P O S E D F L O O R A R E A C A L C U L A T I O N S SU B G R A D E F L O O R A R E A ( L O D G E ) MA I N L E V E L F L O O R A R E A SE C O N D L E V E L F L O O R A R E A DE C K / P O R C H F L O O R A R E A ( E X E M P T ) TO T A L P R O P O S E D F L O O R A R E A 6,466 SF 646 SF 10% SF 9,678 SF 967.8 SF (9,678 SF X 10%)967.8 SF 9,741 SF 8,845 SF 26,958.8 SF4,861 SF CU M U L A T I V E F L O O R A R E A - P R O J E C T PR O P O S E D C A L C U L A T E D F L O O R A R E A OV E R A L L F L O O R A R E A R E S . U N I T 1 OV E R A L L F L O O R A R E A R E S . U N I T 2 OV E R A L L F L O O R A R E A L O D G E GR A N D T O T A L C A L C U L A T E D F L O O R A R E A 4,000 SF26,958.8 SF 34,958.8 SF4,000 SF TH I R D L E V E L F L O O R A R E A 7,405 SF 4,000 SF x 2 = 8,000 SF (ALLOWABLE) LO D G E RE S I D E N T I A L ( A L L O C A T E D ) AF F O R D A B L E H O U S I N G 8,658 SF 33 SF 644 SF LO D G E RE S I D E N T I A L ( A L L O C A T E D ) AF F O R D A B L E H O U S I N G NO N U N I T 439 SF NO N U N I T 8,418 SF 32 SF 0 SF 428 SF LO D G E RE S I D E N T I A L AF F O R D A B L E H O U S I N G NO N U N I T 5,010 SF 1,495 SF 0 SF 900 SF NO N U N I T ( A L L O C A T E D ) 1,767 SF(439 SF x 7.5%) LO D G E ( A L L O C A T E D ) (439 SF x 92.5%)406 SF LO D G E ( A L L O C A T E D ) (428 SF x 7.5%)(428 SF x 92.5%)395 SF LO D G E ( A L L O C A T E D ) RE S I D E N T I A L ( A L L O C A T E D ) (900 SF x 7.5%)(900 SF x 92.5%)68 SF832 SF LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 2(2,310 SF - 375 SF) 0 30 ' 60 ' 15 ' As i n d i c a t e d FL O O R A R E A C A L C S - PR O P O S E D F L O O R A R E A S MG L NO V E M B E R 2 4 , 2 0 1 4 A10.3 1 " = 3 0 ' - 0 " FL O O R A R E A P L A N - L L 0 1 " = 3 0 ' - 0 " FL O O R A R E A P L A N - L 1 1 1 " = 3 0 ' - 0 " FL O O R A R E A P L A N - L 2 2 1 " = 3 0 ' - 0 " FL O O R A R E A P L A N - L 3 3 *CALCULATED FLOOR AREAS FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES HAVE BEEN UPDATED TO REFLECT THE INCREASE IN SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 5' TO 7' AND ALL ADDITIONAL FLOOR PLAN REVISIONS P93 III.A. NE T F L O O R A R E A L E G E N D Ne t L e a s a b l e - L o d g e R m s . Ne t L i v a b l e - R e s i d e n t i a l P e n t h o u s e Ne t L i v a b l e - S i n g l e F a m i l y Ne t L i v a b l e - A f f o r d a b l e H o u s i n g 0 30 ' 60 ' 15 ' 1 " = 3 0 ' - 0 " FL O O R A R E A C A L C S - PR O P O S E D N E T L I V A B L E MG L NO V E M B E R 2 4 , 2 0 1 4 A10.4 1 " = 3 0 ' - 0 " FL O O R A R E A P L A N - L L N E T 00 1 " = 3 0 ' - 0 " FL O O R A R E A P L A N - L 1 N E T 1 1 " = 3 0 ' - 0 " FL O O R A R E A P L A N - L 2 N E T 2 1 " = 3 0 ' - 0 " FL O O R A R E A P L A N - L 3 N E T 3 NE T L I V A B L E F L O O R A R E A S Ne t L e a s a b l e - L o d g e R m s . 1 9 , 1 7 1 S F Ne t L i v a b l e - A f f o r d a b l e H o u s i n g 6 0 7 S F Ne t L i v a b l e - R e s i d e n t i a l P e n t h o u s e 1 , 4 3 4 S F Ne t L i v a b l e - S i n g l e F a m i l y 1 1 , 1 2 1 S F 32 , 3 3 3 S F *N E T L I V A B L E C A L C U L A T I O N S F O R T H E S I N G L E F A M I L Y RE S I D E N C E S H A V E B E E N U P D A T E D T O R E F L E C T T H E I N C R E A S E IN S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K F R O M 5 ' T O 7 ' A N D A L L A D D I T I O N A L FL O O R P L A N R E V I S I O N S P94 III.A. Main Level 100'-0"Second Level 110'-0" A Third Level 120'-0"Roof Level 130'-0" H I J K VERTICAL WOOD SIDING PA N E L I Z E D M E T A L S I D I N G GL A S S G U A R D R A I L P R O P E R T Y L I N E P R O P E R T Y L I N E 5'- 0 " H E I G H T L I M I T 3 2 ' - 0 " MA I N L E V E L 0' - 0 " UP P E R L E V E L 10 ' - 0 " LO W E R L E V E L -1 2 ' - 0 " RO O F D E C K 21 ' - 0 7 / 8 " Ma i n L e v e l 10 0 ' - 0 " Se c o n d L e v e l 11 0 ' - 0 " 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Th i r d L e v e l 12 0 ' - 0 " Lo w e r L e v e l 90 ' - 0 " Ro o f L e v e l 13 0 ' - 0 " GL A S S G U A R D R A I L VE R T I C A L W O O D S I D I N G ? P R O P E R T Y L I N E P R O P E R T Y L I N E HEIGHT LIMIT 3 2 ' - 0 " VERTICAL WOOD SIDING PANELIZED METAL SIDING STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM 0 8' 16 ' 4' 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " EL E V A T I O N S MG L NO V E M B E R 5 , 2 0 1 4 AL4.1 1/8" = 1'-0"LODGE - EAST ELEVATION 1 MA I N S T R E E T W E S T 2 1/8" = 1'-0" LO D G E - N O R T H E L E V A T I O N 3 P95 III.A. Ma i n L e v e l 10 0 ' - 0 " Se c o n d L e v e l 11 0 ' - 0 " 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Th i r d L e v e l 12 0 ' - 0 " Lo w e r L e v e l 90 ' - 0 " Ro o f L e v e l 13 0 ' - 0 " GL A S S G U A R D R A I L VE R T I C A L W O O D S I D I N G ? P R O P E R T Y L I N E P R O P E R T Y L I N E H E I G H T L I M I T 3 2 ' - 0 " Ma i n L e v e l 10 0 ' - 0 " Se c o n d L e v e l 11 0 ' - 0 " 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Th i r d L e v e l 12 0 ' - 0 " Lo w e r L e v e l 90 ' - 0 " Ro o f L e v e l 13 0 ' - 0 " GL A S S G U A R D R A I L VE R T I C A L W O O D S I D I N G ? P R O P E R T Y L I N E P R O P E R T Y L I N E H E I G H T L I M I T 3 2 ' - 0 " VERTICAL WOOD SIDING PANELIZED METAL SIDING STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM 0 8' 16 ' 4' 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " EL E V A T I O N S MG L NO V E M B E R 5 , 2 0 1 4 AL4.2 1/8" = 1'-0" LO D G E - N O R T H E L E V A T I O N - WITH TREES 1 1/8" = 1'-0" LO D G E - N O R T H E L E V A T I O N - WITHOUT TREES 2 P96 III.A. Main Level 100'-0"Second Level 110'-0"1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Third Level 120'-0"Lower Level 90'-0"Roof Level 130'-0" VE R T I C A L W O O D F E N C I N G SH E E T M E T A L S I D I N G - M A T C H WIN D O W S AL U M I N U M C L A D W O O D W I N D O W SY S T E M ? GL A S S G U A R D R A I L PROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L I N E 5' - 0 " 5'-0" H E I G H T L I M I T 3 2 ' - 0 " A H I J K PA N E L I Z E D M E T A L S I D I N G PROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L I N E SETBACK5'-0" H E I G H T L I M I T 3 2 ' - 0 " MAIN LEVEL 0' - 0"UPPER LEVEL 10' - 0"LOWER LEVEL -12' - 0"ROOF DECK 21' - 0 7/8"VERTICAL WOOD SIDING PANELIZED METAL SIDING STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM 0 8' 16 ' 4' 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " EL E V A T I O N S MG L NO V E M B E R 5 , 2 0 1 4 AL4.3 1/8" = 1'-0"LODGE - SOUTH ELEVATION 1 1/8" = 1'-0"LODGE - WEST ELEVATION 2 CO U R T Y A R D V I E W 4 P97 III.A. 32 ' - 0 " 28 ' - 0 " 14 ' - 0 " GA R M I S C H S T R E E T PA E P C K E P A R K MO L L Y G I B S O N L O D G E 1 S T S T R E E T 2N D S T R E E T 3R D S T R E E T 4T H S T R E E T MA I N S T R E E T E L E V A T I O N E A S T MA I N S T R E E T E L E V A T I O N C E N T E R MA I N S T R E E T E L E V A T I O N W E S T M A I N S T R E E T ST R E E T E L E V A T I O N S MG L NO V E M B E R 5 , 2 0 1 4 AL4.5 1" = 60'-0"MAIN STREET ELEVATION 1 1" = 160'-0"HISTORIC OVERLAY FIGURE GROUND 2 P98 III.A. 32 ' - 0 " 28 ' - 0 " 14 ' - 0 " MO L L Y G I B S O N L O D G E M A I N S T R E E T H O T E L A S P E N AL L E Y HO P K I N S A V E N U E 32 ' - 0 " 28 ' - 0 " 14 ' - 0 " 1S T S T R E E T 2N D S T R E E T 3RD STREET 32 ' - 0 " 28 ' - 0 " 14 ' - 0 " GA R M I S C H S T R E E T PA E P C K E P A R K MO L L Y G I B S O N L O D G E 1ST STREET 32 ' - 0 " 28 ' - 0 " 14 ' - 0 " 3R D S T R E E T 4T H S T R E E T 0 20 ' 40 ' 10 ' 1 " = 2 0 ' - 0 " ST R E E T E L E V A T I O N S MG L NO V E M B E R 5 , 2 0 1 4 AL4.6 1" = 20'-0"GARMISCH STREET ELEVATION 1 1" = 20'-0"MAIN STREET ELEVATION CENTER 3 1" = 20'-0"MAIN STREET ELEVATION EAST 2 1" = 20'-0"MAIN STREET ELEVATION WEST 4 P99 III.A. 232 E. Main Street – Base 2 Staff Memo 12/3/14 Page 1 of 8 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner THRU: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Base 2, 232 East Main Street – Major Development Conceptual Review, Commercial Design Review, Demolition, Planned Development – Project Review, continued from November 19, 2014 MEETING DATE: December 3, 2014 APPLICANT: 232 East Main Street, LLC. REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning. LOCATION: 232 East Main Street, corner of Monarch and Main Streets. CURRENT ZONING: Mixed Use Historic District SUMMARY: The applicant requests approval to develop a three story above grade lodge building with a basement level and commercial on the first floor. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval with conditions. SITE VISIT: A site visit was held with HPC on November 12th at noon. Photo: Current image of 232 East Main Street. REQUEST OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION: The Applicant has requested to consolidate all conceptual and growth management reviews at City Council. The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals to redevelop the existing lodge: • Conceptual Major Development Review (Chapter 26.415) for new construction in a Historic District. (Historic Preservation Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council is the final review authority.) • Demolition within the Historic District (Chapter 26.415) for demolition of the existing building, which is located in the Main Street Historic District. ((Historic Preservation P100 III.B. 232 E. Main Street – Base 2 Staff Memo 12/3/14 Page 2 of 8 Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council is the final review authority.) • Conceptual Commercial Design Review (Chapter 26.412, and the Commercial Design Guidelines) for construction of a mixed-use lodge building. (The Historic Preservation Commission is the final review authority. (Historic Preservation Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council is the final review authority.) • A Planned Development Project Review (Chapter 26.445) to establish dimensional requirements for the project. The Applicant requests a PD Review to allow an increase in overall floor area, lodge floor area, setbacks, parking, height, affordable housing, waiver of affordable housing. (Historic Preservation Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council is the final review authority.) • GMQS Reviews (Chapter 26.470) for lodge, commercial, affordable housing and allotments. (Historic Preservation Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council is the final review authority.) FOLLOW UP FROM NOVEMBER 19TH PUBLIC HEARING: Parking: The property currently includes 0 legal onsite parking spaces. Based on the existing development of 1,500 sf of commercial space, the code required parking is 1.5 spaces 1. There is currently an existing deficit of 1.5 parking spaces which is allowed to be maintained. The proposed new project is required to provide 21.6 parking spaces 2. The applicant proposes no onsite parking spaces; however the applicant is working with the City to possibly enter into a lease agreement to use parking spaces in the Rio Grande parking garage. The lodge proposes a valet service to ensure that the parking garage is used. The ability to use the Rio Grande parking garage is decided by City Council. A condition is included in the draft resolution that recommends approval of the Rio Grande or some other similar off-site parking situation. The applicant will present a parking analysis and a vehicle access plan at the public hearing. In addition to the parking garage spaces, the applicant proposes the following: • Prior to arrival providing guests with information for RFTA. • Providing bus passes to employees that live down valley. • Local and airport shuttle service to be shared with Base 1. • Either partner with Wecycle or provide bicycles for guests. 1 1.5 spaces for the commercial uses (1 space per 1,000 sf of commercial net leasable space). 2 20 spaces for the lodge (.5 spaces per lodge unit are required) and 3.1 spaces for the commercial use (1 space per 1,000 sf of commercial net leasable space) = 23.1 spaces required minus deficit of 1.5 existing spaces. P101 III.B. 232 E. Main Street – Base 2 Staff Memo 12/3/14 Page 3 of 8 Snow Shedding: A preliminary snow shedding plan is shown at right. A concealed gutter/ snow pipe is proposed with an interior system to prevent snow from shedding off the property. Staff finds that the proposed snow shedding system is appropriate at a conceptual level. A more detailed plan is required for Detailed Review. Design: The applicant proposes the same design that was presented to HPC on November 19th with a two story 24’ tall mass adjacent to the Cortina Lodge. The project could meet the 32’ height limit in the Mixed Use Zone District by replacing the two gable roof forms with a flat roof. The gable roof provides interest and a strong connection to the residential character of the Main Street Historic District, which boasts mostly gable roofs with some flat roof buildings. Dropping the west elevation to two stories provides relief to the Cortina Lodge and the other 19th century landmarks in the block. Staff is supportive of the design and finds that the design compliments the architecture of the Historic District. The applicant removed lodge rooms and square footage in order to achieve inflection on the west side of the building. Please see the Planned Development section of the staff memo for further discussion of the design. BACKGROUND: The property is currently developed as 1 of 2 gas stations within the city limits. There is a small commercial building on the property. P102 III.B. 232 E. Main Street – Base 2 Staff Memo 12/3/14 Page 4 of 8 Figure 1: Zone District map showing zone districts. White shading indicates historic landmarks. The subject property is located on the edge of the Mixed Use Historic District across the street from the Commercial Core Historic District. Historic landmarks are located across the street and within the block of the proposed project. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: The applicant proposes to develop a mixed use lodge building as follows: • Basement level: accessory lodge uses, back of house areas • Ground level: 2 commercial spaces, lodge lobby, accessory lodge uses • Second level: 20 lodge rooms • Third level: 20 lodge rooms • Rooftop Deck Main Street Monarch Street P103 III.B. 232 E. Main Street – Base 2 Staff Memo 12/3/14 Page 5 of 8 Table 1: Proposed Dimensions Requirement in MU Proposed front yard (Main St.) 10’ 0’ side yard (Monarch St.) 5’ 0’ side yard (west) 5’ 0’ rear (alley) 5’ 0’ maximum height 28’- 32' through Commercial Design 42’ top of stair/elevator 36’ 3” front gable (Main Street) 33’9” the parapet (Main Street) 36’ 7” rear gable (alley) 40’ top of exterior stair 44’ top of elevator overrun public amenity 10% or 600 sf 2,725 sf mostly on the rooftop *subject to approval as an alternative method of public amenity minimum off-street parking spaces 21.6 0 cumulative floor area 1:1 (5,976 sf) or 1.25:1 (7,470 sf) through Special Review 2.8:1(16,732 sf) lodge and commercial floor area 0.75:1 (4,482 sf) total or 1:1 (5,976 sf) total through Special Review Lodge: 2.14:1 (12,775 sf) Commercial: 0.66:1 (3,957 sf) commercial net leasable area n/a 3,105 sf average lodge unit size n/a about 169 sf lodge net livable area n/a 6,763 sf Number of lodge units n/a 40 units Lodge: The applicant proposes 40 lodge units with an average room size of 169 square feet. There are a total of 76 beds proposed in the 40 units, which equals 20 units and 38 beds per floor. There are 8 bunk bed rooms proposed and 4 rooms with two beds. Commercial: The applicant proposes 2 commercial spaces on the ground floor to house retail and restaurant uses. P104 III.B. 232 E. Main Street – Base 2 Staff Memo 12/3/14 Page 6 of 8 Affordable Housing: As described in Exhibit C, the applicant requests approval to use the Lodge Preservation Overlay generation rate of 0.3 FTEs/bedroom for the lodge portion of the project as opposed to the Lodge generation rate of 0.6 FTEs/bedroom based on the amenities and room sizes proposed. In either the 0.6 or 0.3 generation rate scenario, the affordable housing requirement is minimal (2.98 FTEs or 1.78 FTEs). The applicant requests a waiver of affordable housing requirement. The project provides lodging with room sizes that are about 182 square feet and some ground floor commercial space. Staff is supportive of the adjustment of the employee generation rate to 0.3 FTEs/bedroom considering the type of lodge proposed and the intent of the lower generation rate for smaller lodges. There are no review criteria specific to waiving the affordable housing requirement. As part of the review process City Council is asked to determine whether a waiver of the employee mitigation requirement is appropriate. Impact Fees: Section 26.710.100 of the Land Use Code states “As an economic development incentive, a lodging development may apply for a waiver of the impact fees.” A wavier of impact fees are requested as part of the site specific approval. City Council is the final review authority for the requested waivers. Impact fees are assessed based on additional new square footage and new net leasable area. Parks Development Fee: Lodge - (12,777 sf new floor area) 12,777 sf * $5.45 = $69,634.65 Commercial – (3,105 sf nla proposed – 1,500 sf nla existing = 1,605 sf nla increase) 1,605 sf * $4.10 = $6,580.50 TDM/Air Quality Fee: Lodge –12,777 sf new * $0.61 = $7,793.97 Commercial – 1,605 sf new * $0.46 = $7,383 STAFF FINDINGS: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) – PROJECT REVIEW (EXHIBIT A) The Project Review shall focus on the general concept for the development and shall outline any dimensional requirements that vary from those allowed in the underlying zone district. The underlying zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the dimensions which may be considered during the development review process. A primary goal of a PD is to relate a development to the surrounding context by varying dimensional requirements. Through the PD process the applicant requests approval to vary the maximum cumulative floor area, maximum allowable floor area for commercial and lodge uses, height, and setback requirements. P105 III.B. 232 E. Main Street – Base 2 Staff Memo 12/3/14 Page 7 of 8 Staff finds that the proposed lodge project with 180 sf average room sizes fills a void in the lodging market. Increasing the bed base and diversifying the bed base has been a goal of the City Council, supported by the community during outreach sessions, and included as a policy in the Aspen Area Community Plan. The applicant proposes the design that was presented to HPC on November 19th with a two story 24’ tall mass adjacent to the Cortina Lodge. The project could meet the 32’ height limit in the Mixed Use Zone District by replacing the two gable roof forms with a flat roof. In Staff’s opinion, the gable roof provides interest and is an appropriate roof form given the predominance of pitched roofs on Main Street. Dropping the west elevation to two stories provides relief to the Cortina Lodge and the other 19th century landmarks in the block. Staff is supportive of the design and finds that the design compliments the architecture of the Historic District. It is acknowledged that the bulk and mass exceeds some of the adjacent development. Staff finds this is mitigated by the fact that the building is on a corner and is adjacent to larger structures like the Hotel Jerome. The Commercial Core Zone District allows a maximum height of 38’- 40’, as opposed to the maximum height of 28’- 32’ in the Mixed Use Zone District. The applicant proposes a maximum of 36’3” along Main Street and maximum of 36’7” along the alley. The elevator overrun measures at 44’. The proposed height is about 4 ¾’ over the allowable height in the Mixed Use Zone District and is well under that allowed in the adjacent Commercial Core Zone District (elevator overruns are allowed up to 50’ in the CC district). The applicant provided a height analysis of surrounding buildings in the 11/19/14 application and a 3-D model will be presented at the meeting on 12/3/14. Following are a few highlights for reference: Carl’s Pharmacy – 27’5” top of parapet Cortina Lodge (the 2 story building) – 21’ gable roof apex Hotel Jerome – 50’ going up to 50’4” at the corner of Monarch and Bleeker Sts. Residential 2 story Victorian – 20’ 6” gable roof apex The applicant requests a waiver of the parking requirement in lieu of some alternative options such as valet service to park in the Rio Grande parking garage, lodge parking passes and an airport shuttle. Staff finds that the review criteria are met for a reduction of the parking requirement with the condition that off-site parking be provided in the Rio Grande parking garage or a similar situation. COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW (EXHIBIT B) A complete description of the design standards and guidelines is addressed Exhibit B. As described above, Staff is supportive of the massing changes and finds that the Design Guidelines are met. Staff is supportive of the public amenity space on the roof. P106 III.B. 232 E. Main Street – Base 2 Staff Memo 12/3/14 Page 8 of 8 GROWTH MANAGEMENT (EXHIBIT C) See discussion on previous page about waivers. City Council is asked to conduct Growth Management as part of the consolidated review process. Staff is supportive of the request to use the Lodge Preservation Overlay employee generation table to determine employee generation. There are no specific review criteria in the Code to evaluate a waiver of affordable housing mitigation. DEMOLITION (EXHIBIT D) The applicant requests demolition approval of the existing building and gas station. This review is required because the property is located within the Main Street Historic District. Staff finds that the building and gas station are not historic and recommends demolition approval. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission support a recommendation of approval to City Council for the proposed project with conditions listed in the draft resolution. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution # ___, Series of 2014 recommending Planned Development- Project Review approval, Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval, Conceptual Major Development approval, Demolition approval, and Growth Management Review approvals to City Council. Attachments: Exhibit A – Staff Findings, PD Review Criteria Exhibit B – Staff Findings, Commercial Design Standard Review Criteria Exhibit C – Staff Findings, Growth Management Review Criteria Exhibit D – Staff Findings, Demolition for property in Historic District, Review Criteria Exhibit E – Development Review Committee comments Exhibit F- Application P107 III.B. Historic Preservation Commission Reso No. __, Series 2014 Page 1 of 9 RESOLUTION NO. __ (SERIES OF 2014) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL GRANT CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT – PROJECT REVIEW APPROVAL, MAJOR DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL, DEMOLTION APPROVAL, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPROVALS, FOR A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR BASE 2 LODGE LOCATED ON PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 232 E MAIN STREET, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-073-20-008 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application for the Base 2 Lodge (the Application) from 232 E. Main LLC (Applicant), represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning for the following land use review approvals: • Planned Development – Project Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445. • Growth Management Review – Replacement of Existing Commercial and Lodge Development, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. • Growth Management Review –Lodge Development, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. • Growth Management Review – Affordable Housing, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. • Commercial Design Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412; • Major Development Conceptual Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415; • Demolition Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415; and, WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in effect on the day of initial application – October 20, 2014, as applicable to this Project; and, WHEREAS, the Application for the Base 1 Lodge proposes:  40 lodge units and 40 bedrooms in 6,763 square feet of net livable area.  3,105 square feet of accessory commercial net leasable space; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Environmental Health Department, Parks Department, Parking Department, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Public Works Department, and the Transportation Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing, of the Land Use Code, a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority is required and a recommendation for approval with the condition that affordable housing be mitigated onsite by the board was provided at their November 5, 2014, regular meeting; and, P108 III.B. Historic Preservation Commission Reso No. __, Series 2014 Page 2 of 9 WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Application and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.445 of the Land Use Code, Planned Development - Project Review approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, and Section 26.304.060.B.4, Modification of Review Procedures, all other necessary land use reviews, as identified herein, have been combined to be considered by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, such combination of review procedures was done to ensure clarity of review, was accomplished with all required public noticing provided as evidenced by an affidavit of public noticing submitted to the record, and the public was provided a thorough and full review of the proposed development; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on December 2, 2014, continued from November 19, 2014, during which the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were requested and heard by the Historic Preservation Commission; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 2, 2014, the Historic Preservation Commission approved Resolution __, Series of 2014, by a __________ vote recommending City Council approve the Base 2 Application and all necessary land use reviews, as identified herein, with the recommended conditions of approval listed hereinafter. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1:Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Commission hereby recommends City Council grant – Project Review approval, Growth Management approvals, Major Development Conceptual approval, Conceptual Commercial Design approval and Demolition approval, for a Site Specific Development Plan for Base 2 Lodge, subject to the recommended conditions of approval as listed herein. Exhibit A describes the dimensional requirements. Section 2: Subsequent Reviews Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Applicant is required to obtain Final Commercial Design Review, Final Major Development Review, Growth Management, and Planned Development – Detail Review following approval of the reviews outlined herein. The applicant shall combine these applications, and they shall be made no later than one (1) year following City Council approval of the reviews outlined herein. Section 3: Growth Management Allotments P109 III.B. Historic Preservation Commission Reso No. __, Series 2014 Page 3 of 9 3.1 Reconstruction Credits. Based on the existing development at 232 E. Main St. (aka Buckhorn Lodge), the Applicant is entitled to the following reconstruction credits, pursuant to Land Use Chapter 26.470 a. A commercial reconstruction credit of 1,500 square feet of net leasable area is credited toward the Project’s 3,105 square feet of commercial net leasable area. 3.2 Growth Management Allotments. The following growth management allotments are recommended to be granted to the Base 2 Lodge: a. 20 lodging bedrooms = 40 lodging pillows. b. The Applicant is required to apply for the additional 40 lodging pillows in 2015 pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.110.A.10, Growth Management multi-year growth allotments. Section 4: Affordable Housing The Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone District employee generation rate of 0.3 FTEs per bedroom is established for Base 2 Lodge. Section 5: Planned Development – Detail Review In addition to the general documents required as part of a Planned Development – Detail Review, the following items shall be required as part of the Application’s Planned Development – Detail Review: a. A trash utility area meeting City standards or as otherwise approved by the Utility and Environmental Health Departments. b. A signage plan. c. Vestibules for both commercial spaces. d. An Outdoor Lighting Plan, pursuant to section 26.575.150. e. An existing and proposed Landscaping Plan, identifying trees with diameters and values. f. A draft Construction Management Plan. g. A snow storage and snow shedding plan. Snow is not permitted to shed off roofs onto neighboring properties. Demonstrate that any snow which sheds off roofs will remain on-site. h. An updated and final Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA), including a monitoring plan. i. A plan for deliveries, pursuant to Section 26.412. j. Add an entrance on Main Street into the commercial space. Section 6: Subdivision/PD Plat and Agreement The Applicant shall submit a Subdivision/PD agreement (hereinafter “Agreement”) that meets the requirements of the Land Use Code within 180 days of final approval. The 180 days shall commence upon the granting of Final Commercial Design and Planned Development – Detail Review approvals by the Planning & Zoning Commission. The recordation documents shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements of Section 26.490 Approval Documents of the Land Use Code. a. In accordance in Section 26.490.040, Approval Documents Content and Form, the following plans are required in the Approved Plan Set: 1. Final Commercial Design Review/ Architectural Character Plan. P110 III.B. Historic Preservation Commission Reso No. __, Series 2014 Page 4 of 9 2. Planned Development Project and Detail Review Plans. 3. Public Infrastructure Plan. 4. Final Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA), including a monitoring plan. b. In accordance with Section 26.490.050, Development Agreements, a Development Agreement shall be entered into with the City. c. In accordance with Section 26.490.060, Financial and Site Protection Requirements, the applicant shall provide a site protection guarantee and a site enhancement guarantee. d. In accordance with Section 26.490.070, Performance Guarantees, the following guarantees are required in an amount equal to 150% of the current estimated cost of the improvement: 1. Landscape Guarantee. 2. Public Facilities and Public Infrastructure Guarantee. 3. Storm Water and Drainage Improvements Guarantee. Section 7: Engineering Department The Applicant’s design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. 7.1 Drainage: The project shall meet the Urban Runoff Management Plan Requirements. Provide a full major drainage report that meets URMP and Engineering Design Standards with building permit submittal. 7.2 Sidewalk/Curb/Gutter: All sidewalk curb and gutter shall meet the Engineering Standards of City of Aspen Municipal Code Title 21. Due to the current condition, the curb and gutter along Monarch St will need to be replaced. The existing ramps on the corner of Main St and Monarch are non-complying ramps. Curbheads along ramps are only permitted if the curbhead is adjacent to a planting or other non-walking surface. Since this particular corner is paved throughout, winged ramps are required. 7.3 Encroachments: The building overhang into the ROW must have a minimum height of 7’. Include information on how the overhang is supported. Buildings shall not overhang into the alley. Locate all utility pedestals and electric transformers to within the property boundary. 7.4 Excavation Stabilization: Due to the proximity of the neighboring property and the excavation of the building, an excavation stabilization plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department prior to building permit submittal. 7.5 CMP: The Construction Management Plan shall describe mitigation for: parking, staging/encroachments, and truck traffic. P111 III.B. Historic Preservation Commission Reso No. __, Series 2014 Page 5 of 9 7.6 Environmental Site Assessment: An environmental site assessment and soils test is required. The site assessment and remediation is to comply with the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment – Division of Oil and Public Safety. 7.7 Survey Requirement: Pothole and provide depth to utilities on the survey as part of building permit submittal. 7.8 Parking: Parking lanes shall not be located within twenty feet of a crosswalk at an intersection or within thirty feet of any signal. Include a guest loading/unloading area. Section 8: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907). Section 9: Parks Department Tree removal permits shall be submitted as part of the building permit submittal. Mitigation for removals must be met by paying cash in lieu, planting on site, or a combination of both, pursuant to Chapter 13.20 of the City Municipal Code. Any plantings on the roof shall not qualify as mitigation. A tree protection plan indicating the drip lines of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site shall be included in the building permit application for any demolition or significant site work. The plan shall indicate the location of protective zones for approval by the City Forester and prohibit excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, and access over or through the zone by foot or vehicle. Section 10: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Requirements The applicant for these proposed developments shall commit to funding the replacement of the existing District owned main sanitary sewer lines the alleys serving the proposed developments. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Oil and Grease interceptors (not traps) are required for all food processing establishments. Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. Elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements and prior to soil stabilization. Soil nails are not allowed in ROW. P112 III.B. Historic Preservation Commission Reso No. __, Series 2014 Page 6 of 9 Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. Above grade development shall flow by gravity. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line). A “Line Replacement Request” and a “Collection System Agreement are required for these projects. Both are ACSD Board of Director’s action items. Pool drain sizing shall be approved by the District. Glycol heating and snow melt systems must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. The applicant’s engineer shall furnish average and peak flows as well as proposed service size prior to final design. Section 11: Environmental Health Department The State of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regard to asbestos. Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements, noise abatement. The trash enclosures shall meet the minimum requirements outlined in Title 12 unless varied through Special Review. Prior to Detail PD Review, the dimensions of the trash area and an accessible route to the trash area shall receive approval by the Environmental Health Department. Section 12: Transportation Department A specific narrative associated with the Transportation Impact Analysis shall be submitted with the Detailed PD Review application. The TDM and MMOLS measures described below shall be P113 III.B. Historic Preservation Commission Reso No. __, Series 2014 Page 7 of 9 implemented. Additional TDM and MMOLS measures may be required during Detailed Review. • Prior to arrival providing guests with information for RFTA. • Providing bus passes to employees that live down valley. • Local and airport shuttle service to be shared with Base 2 Lodge. • Either partner with Wecycle or provide bicycles for guests. Section 13: Parking Department Two parking spaces on Monarch Street in front of the lodge shall be signed loading zones. The applicant shall secure parking spaces in the Rio Grande parking garage and offer valet service, or another similar parking situation to provide off- site parking spaces for the lodge. Section 14: Water/Utilities Department The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. All Water System Distribution standards in place at the time of building permit shall apply, and all tap fees will be assess per applicable codes and standards. Utility and transformer placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. Transformer location shall be included in the Detailed Review application. Section 15: Outdoor Lighting and Signage All outdoor lighting and all signage shall meet the requirements of the Aspen Municipal Code unless otherwise varied through Detailed Review. Section 16: Public Amenity Spaces The Applicant has committed to providing a ground level courtyard and roof top public amenity spaces. The rooftop deck does not count toward floor area calculation. These spaces shall be permanently accessible by the public through stairs and/or elevators. The rooftop space shall not be enclosed with temporary or permanent walls/windows or otherwise enclosed as interior conditioned space. The ground level courtyard may be enclosed with a roof and walls through an administrative amendment. Section 17: Building Department The Applicant shall meet all applicable building and accessibility codes in place at the time of building permit. Section 18: 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 Community Development Department, the Planning and Zoning Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. P114 III.B. Historic Preservation Commission Reso No. __, Series 2014 Page 8 of 9 Section 19: 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 20: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this __st day of December, 2014. [signatures on following page] Approved as to form: Approved as to content: __________________________ ______________________________ James R True, City Attorney Willis Pember, Acting Chair Attest: _______________________________ Kathy Strickland, Deputy Clerk Attachments: Exhibit A: Approved Dimensional Requirements P115 III.B. Historic Preservation Commission Reso No. __, Series 2014 Page 9 of 9 Exhibit A – Approved Dimensional Requirements Proposed front yard (Main St.) 0’ side yard (Monarch St.) 0’ side yard (west) 0’ rear (alley) 0’ maximum height 36’ 3” front gable (Main Street) 33’9” the parapet (Main Street) 36’ 7” rear gable (alley) 40’ top of exterior stair 44’ top of elevator overrun public amenity 2,725 sf mostly on the rooftop *subject to approval as an alternative method of public amenity minimum off-street parking spaces 0 cumulative floor area 2.8:1(16,732 sf) lodge and commercial floor area Lodge: 2.14:1 (12,775 sf) Commercial: 0.66:1 (3,957 sf) commercial net leasable area 3,105 sf average lodge unit size about 169 sf lodge net livable area 6,763 sf Number of lodge units 40 units P116 III.B. Exhibit A – PD, Project Review 232 E. Main Street, Base 2 Updated 12/3/14 Page 1 of 8 Exhibit A – Planned Development (PD) Review 26.445.010. Purpose. The purpose of Planned Development review is to encourage flexibility and innovation in the development of land which: A. Promotes the purposes, goals and objectives of applicable adopted regulatory plans. B. Achieves a more desirable development pattern, a higher quality design and site planning, a greater variety in the type and character of development and a greater compatibility with existing and future surrounding land uses than would be possible through the strict application of the zone district provisions. C. Preserves natural and man-made site features of historic, cultural or scenic value. D. Promotes more efficient use of land, public facilities and governmental services. E. Incorporates an appropriate level of public input to the planning process to ensure sensitivity to neighborhood and community goals and objectives. F. Promotes safe and convenient transit, pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular access and circulation. G. Allows the development of mixed land uses through the encouragement of innovative design practices that warrant variations from the standard permitted zone district land uses and dimensional requirements. 26.445.050. Project Review Standards. The Project Review shall focus on the general concept for the development and shall outline any dimensional requirements that vary from those allowed in the underlying zone district. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. The underlying zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the dimensions which may be considered during the development review process. Any dimensional variations allowed shall be specified in the ordinance granting Project Approval. In the review of a development application for a Project Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and City Council shall consider the following: A. Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans. The proposed development complies with applicable adopted regulatory plans. Staff Findings: The property is not subject to any regulatory plans Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. B. Development Suitability. The proposed Planned Development prohibits development on land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snowslide P117 III.B. Exhibit A – PD, Project Review 232 E. Main Street, Base 2 Updated 12/3/14 Page 2 of 8 areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed in compliance with Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation techniques may be accepted for this standard. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Findings: 232 East Main Street is already developed with a gas station and a small two story above grade building. All applicable requirements described in the Development Review Committee comments are included in the draft resolution. Staff finds this criterion is met. C. Site Planning. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: 1. The site plan responds to the site’s natural characteristics and physical constraints such as steep slopes, vegetation, waterways, and any natural or man-made hazards and allows development to blend in with or enhance said features. Staff Findings: The site is currently developed as a gas station and a commercial building with a large paved area. The applicant proposes to remove curb cuts and provide street trees in the right of way. Staff finds this criterion is met. 2. The project preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or contribute to the identity of the town. Staff Findings: The actual project site does not have any significant features – geologic, natural or historic. The property is located within the historic district and is directly adjacent to a two story historic landmark. A discussion of the relationship of the project to the context is below. Staff finds this criterion is met with the condition. 3. Buildings are oriented to public streets and are sited to reflect the neighborhood context. Buildings and access ways are arranged to allow effective emergency, maintenance, and service vehicle access. Staff Findings: The building is oriented toward the street to reflect the pattern of development along Main and Monarch Street. In addition to the operable windows and the take out window, Staff recommends that the applicant provide an entrance to the restaurant along Main Street. The parcel is accessible by an alley. Staff finds this criterion is met with conditions. D. Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, mass, and height shall be established during the Project Review. The proposed dimensions are below: P118 III.B. Exhibit A – PD, Project Review 232 E. Main Street, Base 2 Updated 12/3/14 Page 3 of 8 Table 1: Proposed Dimensions Requirement in MU Proposed front yard (Main St.) 10’ 0’ side yard (Monarch St.) 5’ 0’ side yard (west) 5’ 0’ rear (alley) 5’ 0’ maximum height 28’- 32' through Commercial Design 42’ top of stair/elevator 36’ 3” front gable (Main Street) 33’9” the parapet (Main Street) 36’ 7” rear gable (alley) 40’ top of exterior stair 44’ top of elevator overrun public amenity 10% or 600 sf 2,725 sf mostly on the rooftop *subject to approval as an alternative method of public amenity minimum off-street parking spaces 21.6 0 cumulative floor area 1:1 (5,976 sf) or 1.25:1 (7,470 sf) through Special Review 2.8:1(16,732 sf) lodge and commercial floor area 0.75:1 (4,482 sf) total or 1:1 (5,976 sf) total through Special Review Lodge: 2.14:1 (12,775 sf) Commercial: 0.66:1 (3,957 sf) commercial net leasable area n/a 3,105 sf average lodge unit size n/a about 169 sf lodge net livable area n/a 6,763 sf P119 III.B. Exhibit A – PD, Project Review 232 E. Main Street, Base 2 Updated 12/3/14 Page 4 of 8 Number of lodge units n/a 40 units A development application may request variations to any dimensional requirement of this Title. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to the following criteria: 1. There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations. Staff Finding: The community will gain a new lodge with rooms averaging about 169 sf in size. The small room sizes fill a gap in the lodging bed base. Diverse lodging has been at the forefront of community discussion for the past few years and is included in the Aspen Area Community Plan as a policy: “replenish the declining lodging base with an emphasis on a balanced inventory and diverse price-points.” Staff finds this criterion is met. 2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary uses of the project. Staff Finding: The proposed dimensions are indicative of a lodge building with retail/restaurant on the first floor. The applicant proposes a lodge with small rooms to meet a demand for this size and style of lodging in Aspen. 3. The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the scale and massing of nearby historical or cultural resources. Staff Finding: The proposed project requests height and floor area variations, setback variations, parking waivers, affordable housing waivers, and impact fee waivers. According to the application, all of these requests directly relate to the ability to develop a small lodging project. The property is located in the Main Street Historic District and is adjacent to the historic Cortina Lodge. The block is mostly 19th century historic landmarks with the exception of the subject property and the property at the corner of Aspen and Main Street. The block across the street is entirely 1- 2 story historic landmarks. The number of historic landmarks in the vicinity of this property make redevelopment very challenging. On the other hand, the intensity of uses and the mass and scale steps up significantly across Monarch Street where the zoning changes to the Commercial Core. The subject property is located in a transitional area at the edge of the Mixed Use Zone District, which creates an appropriate context for larger and taller building mass toward Monarch Street as a way to visually step up to the Commercial Core context. A map is provided in the staff memo. The applicant requests approval to vary the Cumulative Floor Area, and the Lodge and Commercial Floor Area. Setback variations and height variations are requested. Parking waivers (discussed below) and affordable housing waivers (Exhibit C) are requested as part of the Planned Development approval. P120 III.B. Exhibit A – PD, Project Review 232 E. Main Street, Base 2 Updated 12/3/14 Page 5 of 8 Considering the historic context, historic district guidelines, and the property’s transitional location on the edge of the downtown core, Staff is supportive of the overall design of the project. As described in Exhibit B, the prominent gable roof form is appropriate and the proposed building is an exciting and creative addition to the historic district. Staff is supportive of the reduction in mass and height adjacent to the Cortina Lodge. The Commercial Core Zone District allows a maximum height of 38’- 40’, as opposed to the maximum height of 28’- 32’ in the Mixed Use Zone District. The applicant proposes a maximum of 36’3” along Main Street and maximum of 36’7” along the alley. The elevator overrun measures at 44’. The proposed height is about 4 ¾’ over the allowable height in the Mixed Use Zone District and is well under that allowed in the adjacent Commercial Core Zone District (elevator overruns are allowed up to 50’ in the CC district). The applicant provided a height analysis of surrounding buildings in the 11/19/14 application and a 3-D model will be presented at the meeting on 12/3/14. Following are a few highlights for reference: Carl’s Pharmacy – 27’5” top of parapet Cortina Lodge (the 2 story building) – 21’ gable roof apex Hotel Jerome – about 50’ going up to 50’4” at the corner of Monarch and Bleeker Sts. Residential 2 story Victorian – 20’ 6” gable roof apex The project could meet the 32’ height limit in the Mixed Use Zone District by replacing the two gable roof forms with a flat roof. The gable roof provides interest and a strong connection to the mixed use nature of the Main Street Historic District which boasts a variety of flat and gable roof forms. Dropping the west elevation to two stories provides relief to the Cortina Lodge and the other 19th century landmarks in the block. Staff is supportive of the design and finds that the design compliments the architecture of the Historic District. Considering the context - a 0’ front setback at the Cortina Lodge - staff is supportive of the requested setback variations. The adjacent Commercial Core Zone District has 0’ setback requirements for all yards, which is consistent with the proposed project. Staff recommends approval with conditions that an entrance be added along Main Street for the commercial space. 4. The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable number of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature of the proposed uses. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development, and the potential for joint use of common parking may be considered when establishing a parking requirement. Staff Finding: The applicant requests establishment of 0 parking spaces required for the project. The required number of parking spaces is 21.6 spaces. The applicant proposes to work with the City to secure a certain number of parking spaces in the Rio Grande Parking Garage in addition to offering lodge parking passes. A shared airport shuttle service with Base 1 is also proposed. The project is centrally located downtown and a RFTA bus stop is located 2 blocks away at P121 III.B. Exhibit A – PD, Project Review 232 E. Main Street, Base 2 Updated 12/3/14 Page 6 of 8 Paepcke Park. Staff finds that the central location is supportive of a reduction in parking requirement, and suggests that the applicant continue to work with the City to determine options for parking and alternate transportation. City Council is the final review authority over any leases in the Rio Grande parking garage. 5. The Project Review approval, at City Council’s discretion, may include specific allowances for dimensional flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review. Changes shall be subject to the amendment procedures of Section 26.445.110 – Amendments. Staff Finding: This criterion is not applicable at this time. E. Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: 1. The design complies with applicable design standards, including those outlined in Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Standards, and Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation. Staff Finding: Exhibit B specifically addresses the applicable design standards. Staff finds that the review criteria are met as described in the attached exhibits. 2. The proposed materials are compatible with those called for in any applicable design standards, as well as those typically seen in the immediate vicinity. Exterior materials are finalized during Detailed Review, but review boards may set forth certain expectations or conditions related to architectural character and exterior materials during Project Review. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the proposed materials –brick, board formed concrete, glass and metal- are appropriate for the Main Street historic district and are compatible with the Cortina Lodge. These materials are consistent with traditional building in the historic district but with a contemporary application. Staff finds this criterion is met. F. Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular facilities and improvements. Any vehicular access points, or curb cuts, minimize impacts on existing or proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The City may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to replace sidewalks and curb and gutter in accordance with City requirements. The existing curb cuts will be removed and replaced with curb and gutter and sidewalks. Staff finds this criterion is met. G. Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the project to comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require P122 III.B. Exhibit A – PD, Project Review 232 E. Main Street, Base 2 Updated 12/3/14 Page 7 of 8 specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Finding: The Engineering Department has concerns about the construction impacts of this project regarding staging, construction phases, parking and truck traffic, and requests a preliminary construction management plan be submitted prior to Detailed Review. This is added as a condition of approval. Staff finds that this criterion is met with conditions. H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Finding: The applicant represents that they will upgrade public infrastructure as needed to serve the project and the public. This is included as a condition of approval. Staff finds that this criterion is met with conditions. I. Access and Circulation. The proposed development shall have perpetual unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed Planned Development shall not eliminate or obstruct legal access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Planned Development retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways are prohibited. Staff Finding: The property has access from an alleyway and from a public street. There are no gates proposed. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 26.445.060. Use Variation Standards. A development application may request variations in the allowed uses permitted in the zone district. The burden shall rest upon an Applicant to show the reasonableness of the request and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. The permitted and conditional uses allowed on the property according to its zoning shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the land uses which may be considered during the review. Any use variation allowed shall be specified in the ordinance granting Project Review approval. In the review of a development application for a Project Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and City Council shall consider the following standards related to Use Variations: A. The proposed use variation is compatible with the character of existing and planned land uses in the project and surrounding area. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to the existence of similar uses in the immediate vicinity, as well as how the proposed uses may enhance the project or immediate vicinity. B. The proposed use variation is effectively incorporated into the project’s overall mix of uses. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to how the proposed uses within a project will interact and support one another. P123 III.B. Exhibit A – PD, Project Review 232 E. Main Street, Base 2 Updated 12/3/14 Page 8 of 8 C. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use variation minimizes adverse effects on the neighborhood and surrounding properties. D. The proposed use variation complies with applicable adopted regulatory plans. Staff Findings: The Applicant is not proposing any use variations as part of the application. Staff finds this section is not applicable. P124 III.B. Exhibit B- Commercial Design Standards and Major HP Review 232 East Main Street – Base 2 Page 1 of 7 Exhibit B - Commercial Design Standards and HPC Major Development Conceptual for Base 2 (232 East Main Street) 26.412.010. Purpose. The purpose of commercial design review is to preserve and foster proper commercial district scale and character and to ensure that the City's commercial areas and streetscapes are public places conducive to walking. The review standards do not prescribe architectural style, but do require that certain building elements contribute to the streetscape. The character of the City's commercial district is largely established by the variety of uses and the relationship between front facades of buildings and the streets they face. By requiring certain building elements to be incorporated in the design of new and remodeled buildings, storefronts are more appealing and can contribute to a well-designed, exciting commercial district. Accommodation of the automobile within commercial districts is important to the consistency and quality of pedestrian streetscapes. The standards prescribe certain methods of accommodating on-site parking to achieve environments conducive to walking. Acknowledgement of the context that has been established by the existing built environment is important to protecting the uniqueness of the City. To achieve compatibility, certain standards require building elements to be influenced by adjoining development, views, pedestrian malls or sun angles. Finally, along with creating architecturally interesting and lively primary streets, the pedestrian nature of downtown can be further enhanced by making alleys an attractive place to walk. Store entrances and display windows along alleyways are encouraged to augment, while not detracting from, the pedestrian interest of primary streets. 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 Findings: The proposed project requests height and floor area variations, setback variations, parking waivers and impact fee waivers through the Planned Development process. The property is located in the Main Street Historic District and is adjacent to the historic Cortina Lodge. The block is mostly 19th century historic landmarks with the exception of the subject property and the P125 III.B. Exhibit B- Commercial Design Standards and Major HP Review 232 East Main Street – Base 2 Page 2 of 7 property at the corner of Aspen and Main Street. The block across the street is entirely 1- 2 story historic landmarks. The historic context of this property is very challenging. The zoning across Monarch Street, starting at Carl’s, changes to the Commercial Core Historic District which allows taller and bigger buildings such as the Hotel Jerome. This property is located in a transitional area at the edge of the Mixed Use Zone District. The transitional position of the subject property supports larger and taller mass toward Monarch Street as a way to visually step up to the Commercial Core context. The applicant requests approval to vary the Cumulative Floor Area, and the Lodge and Commercial Floor Area. Setback variations and height variations are requested. Parking waivers are requested. The Commercial Core Zone District allows a maximum height of 38’- 40’, as opposed to the maximum height of 28’- 32’ in the Mixed Use Zone District. The applicant proposes a maximum height of 36’3” along Main Street, 36’7” along the alley, and an elevator overrun of 44’. Staff is less concerned about the height adjacent to Monarch Street, which faces the large Hotel Jerome, and is more concerned about the impact of the height adjacent to the Cortina Lodge. Considering the context - a 0’ front setback at the Cortina Lodge - staff is supportive of the requested setback variations. The adjacent Commercial Core Zone District has 0’ setback requirements for all yards, which is consistent with the proposed project. Staff is supportive of the overall style of the project and finds that a gable and flat roof are appropriate. The two roof forms provide height variations and relate to the historic resources in the block. Staff is supportive of the amended design that reduces the mass adjacent to the Cortina Lodge to two stories, which better meets Guidelines 7.13 and 7.14 below. 7.13 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Main Street Historic District. • Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height limit on the subject property. • A minimum second story floor to ceiling height of 9 ft. should be used in a method that is respectful to historic buildings. • Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the following reasons: o The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum, Performance Hall, Fire Station, etc.) o Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another area may be appropriate. o To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units. o To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contribution to the building’s overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved daylight. P126 III.B. Exhibit B- Commercial Design Standards and Major HP Review 232 East Main Street – Base 2 Page 3 of 7 7.14 Design a new building to appear similar in scale to those in the district during the mining era. • Generally, a new building should be one to two stories in height. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the façade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. Staff Finding: n/a. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. Staff Finding: See discussion above. 26.412.060. Commercial Design Standards. The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed-use development: A. Public Amenity Space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-of-way or private property within commercial areas. On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. Staff Finding: The proposed public amenity is located on the roof. The roof will be open to the public and a public access easement will be provided to ensure accessibility. A small courtyard area is proposed along the west elevation accessed from the interior of the building. Section 26.575.030 allows alternative methods of public amenity as described below: P127 III.B. Exhibit B- Commercial Design Standards and Major HP Review 232 East Main Street – Base 2 Page 4 of 7 “The Commission may accept any method of providing public amenity not otherwise described herein if the Commission finds that such method equals or exceeds the value, which may be nonmonetary community value, of a otherwise required cash-in-lieu payment.” Staff is supportive of the proposed rooftop public amenity space which provides significantly more public amenity than required – 600 sf is required and 2,727 sf is proposed including the courtyard. Staff is less supportive of the courtyard, which does not meet the purpose of the public amenity requirement which is to “contribute to an attractive commercial and lodging district by creating public places an settings conducive to an exciting pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere.” Staff finds that the public rooftop deck is an acceptable alternate public amenity that meets the purpose of the requirement and recommends approval with the condition that an access easement be provided for the public. Staff finds this criterion is met with conditions. 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: n/a. An alternate method is proposed that is not at grade. 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: n/a. An alternate method is proposed that is not at grade. 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: The proposed amenity space does not duplicate existing spaces. Rather it provides a positive and creative area that provided mountain views to the public. Staff finds this criterion is met. 5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. Staff Finding: Staff is supportive of the proposed rooftop public amenity space which provides significantly more public amenity than required – 600 sf is required and 2,727 sf is proposed including the courtyard. Staff is less supportive of the courtyard, which does not meet the purpose of the public amenity requirement which is to “contribute to an attractive commercial and lodging district by creating public places an settings conducive to an exciting pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere.” Staff finds that the public rooftop deck is an acceptable alternate public amenity that meets the purpose of the requirement and recommends approval with the condition that an access easement be provided for the public. Staff finds this criterion is met with conditions. 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 P128 III.B. Exhibit B- Commercial Design Standards and Major HP Review 232 East Main Street – Base 2 Page 5 of 7 of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum size and location standards established by Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, unless otherwise established according to said Chapter. Staff Finding: The trash recycle area is located on the property adjacent to the restaurant/eating area and is accessed off of the alley. The area is 15’w x 20’d x 10’h. The applicant is working with the Environmental Health Department to receive approval for a reduced trash size. The required size for this type of development is 20’w x 20’d x 20’h. 2. A utility area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum standards established by Title 25, Utilities, of the Municipal Code, the City’s Electric Distribution Standards, and the National Electric Code, unless otherwise established according to said Codes. Staff Finding: The Utility Department is concerned about the location of the transformer and the ability for the transformer to be open to the sky (it is currently covered). Resolution of the transformer location/design is required as part of Detailed Review. The applicant is required to meet the above mentioned Codes. Staff finds this criterion is met with conditions. 3. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located and combined to the greatest extent practical. Staff Finding: The utility and trash areas are co-located along the alley. Staff finds this criterion is met to the extent practical. 4. If the property adjoins an alleyway, the utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be along and accessed from the alleyway, unless otherwise approved through Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. Staff Finding: These areas are located off of the alley. Staff finds this criterion is met. 5. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be fenced so as not to be visible from the street, unless they are entirely located on an alleyway or otherwise approved though Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. All fences shall be six (6) feet high from grade, shall be of sound construction, and shall be no less than ninety percent (90%) opaque, unless otherwise varied through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. Staff Finding: The utility trash area is located on an alley. A fence shall be reviewed during Detail Review. Staff finds this criterion is met with conditions. 6. Whenever utility, trash, and recycle service areas are required to be provided abutting an alley, other portions of a building may extend to the rear property line if otherwise allowed by this Title, provided that the utility, trash and recycle area is located at grade and accessible to the alley. P129 III.B. Exhibit B- Commercial Design Standards and Major HP Review 232 East Main Street – Base 2 Page 6 of 7 Staff Finding: A rear yard variance is requested for the building along the alley. The setback variance is discussed in Exhibit A, Planned Development – Project Review. Staff finds this criterion is met. 7. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property. 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: The utility areas are proposed to be located on private property. An easement is required for service provider access and is included as a condition of approval. Staff finds this criterion is met. 8. All commercial and lodging buildings shall provide a delivery area. The delivery area shall be located along the alley if an alley adjoins the property. The delivery area shall be accessible to all tenant spaces of the building in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. All non-ground floor commercial spaces shall have access to an elevator or dumbwaiter for delivery access. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be utilized as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International Building Code. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. Staff Finding: The delivery area shall be noted on the site plan for review during Detailed Review. Staff finds this criterion is not met and requests more information from the applicant to explain the delivery area for Detailed Review. 9. All commercial tenant spaces located on the ground floor in excess of 1,500 square feet shall contain a vestibule (double set of doors) developed internal to the structure to meet the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen, or an air curtain. Staff Finding: A vestibule is not included in the floor plans. Staff finds that this criterion is not met and recommends a vestibule be added to the plans for Detailed Review. 10. 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: The applicant represents that all mechanical shall be vented through the roof. A roof plan shall be provided for Detailed Review to meet this criterion. Staff finds this criterion is not met and recommends further information for Detailed Review. 11. 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. P130 III.B. Exhibit B- Commercial Design Standards and Major HP Review 232 East Main Street – Base 2 Page 7 of 7 Staff Finding: The rooftop mechanical shall be consolidated into one area and screened from view. The applicant proposes significant setbacks for the mechanical equipment, which is clustered toward the rear of the building. Staff finds this criterion is met. 12. The trash and recycling service area requirements may be varied pursuant to Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code. All other requirements of this subsection may be varied by special review (see Chapter 26.430.040.E, Utility and delivery service area provisions). Staff Finding: A reduction to the trash and recycle area is subject to review by the Environmental Health Department pursuant to the requirements in Title 12 of the Municipal Code. Staff finds this criterion is met with conditions. P131 III.B. Exhibit C Base 2 – 232 E. Main St. Growth Management- updated 12/3/14 Page 1 of 6 Exhibit C – Staff Findings, Growth Management 26.470.050. General requirements. A. Purpose: The intent of growth management is to provide for orderly development and redevelopment of the City while providing mitigation from the impacts said development and redevelopment creates. Different types of development are categorized below, as well as the necessary review process and review standards for the proposed development. A proposal may fall into multiple categories and therefore have multiple processes and standards to adhere to and meet. B. General requirements: All development applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for growth management review based on the following generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of development: 1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi-year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet this standard. Staff Finding: The applicant requests new 80 lodge pillows (40 lodge bedrooms). There are about 40 pillows available for the 2014 allotment year. The applicant is required to request the additional pillows through a new GMQS application in 2015. Staff finds that this criterion is met with the condition that the applicant request additional allotments in 2015. 2. The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan. Staff Finding: The proposed development is consistent with surrounding land uses which include the Hotel Jerome across Monarch Street. There are no applicable regulatory master plans. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. Staff Finding: The development is requesting a Planned Development site specific approval to define dimensional requirements. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Planned Development – Project Review approval, as applicable. Staff Finding: Pursuant to the Land Use Code, Staff is processing the Conceptual design approvals and the Project Review approval concurrent with the Growth Management review. Staff finds that this criterion is met. P132 III.B. Exhibit C Base 2 – 232 E. Main St. Growth Management- updated 12/3/14 Page 2 of 6 5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate. Staff Finding: See review criteria below specific to lodge development. 6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100 Employee/Square Footage Conversion. Staff Finding: n/a. No free market residential development is proposed. 7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services. Staff Finding: The applicant represents an intention to accommodate all impacts on infrastructure. Staff finds this criterion is met. 26.470.070 Planning and Zoning Commission applications. The following types of development shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.470.110, Procedures for review, and the criteria for each type of development described below. Except as noted, all growth management applications shall comply with the general requirements of Section 26.470.050. Except as noted, the following types of growth management approvals shall be deducted from P133 III.B. Exhibit C Base 2 – 232 E. Main St. Growth Management- updated 12/3/14 Page 3 of 6 the respective development ceiling levels but shall not be deducted from the annual development allotments. Approvals apply cumulatively. Growth Management approvals for Subsections 26.470.080(6-10) shall be deducted from the respective annual development allotments. 26.470.70.4 Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. Staff Finding: The applicant requests a waiver of affordable housing mitigation in lieu of the development of affordable lodge units. APCHA recommends mitigation onsite or in the form of affordable housing credits. The referral comments are included in Exhibit D. b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a cash-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash-in-lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval of the Community Development Department Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. Staff Finding: n/a. c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430. Staff Finding: n/a. d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. P134 III.B. Exhibit C Base 2 – 232 E. Main St. Growth Management- updated 12/3/14 Page 4 of 6 The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision. Staff Finding: n/a. e. Non-Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required for mitigation, but meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). The owner of such non-mitigation affordable housing is eligible to receive a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540. Staff Finding: n/a. Lodge development. The expansion of an existing lodge or the development of a new lodge shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a. If the project contains a minimum of one (1) lodge unit per five hundred (500) square feet of lot area, the following affordable housing mitigation standards shall apply: 1) Affordable housing net livable area equaling a percentage, as defined in the unit size table below, of the additional free-market residential net livable area shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. 2) A percentage, as defined in the table below, of the employees generated by the additional lodge, timeshare lodge, exempt timeshare units and associated commercial development, according to Paragraph 26.470.100.A.1, Employee generation, shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. Average Net Livable Area of Lodge Units Being Added to the Parcel Affordable Housing Net Livable Area Required (Percentage of Free- Market Net Livable Area) Percentage of Employee Generation Requiring the Provision of Mitigation 600 square feet or greater 30% 60% 500 square feet 30% 40% 400 square feet 20% 20% 300 square feet or smaller 10% 10% P135 III.B. Exhibit C Base 2 – 232 E. Main St. Growth Management- updated 12/3/14 Page 5 of 6 When the average unit size falls between the square-footage categories, the required affordable housing shall be determined by interpolating the above schedule. For example, a lodge project with an average unit size of four hundred fifty (450) square feet shall be required to provide mitigation for thirty percent (30%) of the employees generated. Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a maximum of a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Staff Finding: The project proposes to increase the existing commercial net leasable area and add lodge net livable area (nla). Following is the calculation for affordable housing mitigation: Commercial: Existing: 1,500 sf nla [1,5000 sf * 3.6 FTEs/1,000 sf = 5.4 FTEs] Proposed: 3,105 sf nla [3,105 sf * 3.6FTEs/1,000 sf = 11.18 FTE] Employees Generated by Commercial: 11.18- 5.4 =5.78 FTEs Mitigated at 10% according to the chart above: 0.58 FTEs require mitigation Lodge: Existing: 0 lodge bedrooms Proposed: 40 lodge bedrooms 40 new lodge bedrooms = (40 * 0.6 FTEs/bdrm) = 24 FTEs @ 10% rate =2.4 FTEs require mitigation The mitigation requirement is 0.58 FTEs + 2.4 FTEs = 2.98 FTEs. The applicant proposes no affordable housing mitigation as a trade-off for the proposed affordable lodge project. An employee generation review pursuant to the following criteria is requested to determine that the Lodge Preservation generation rate of 0.3 FTEs per bedroom is applicable to this project as opposed to the 0.6 FTEs per bedroom which is specified for lodges in the mixed use zone district: a) The expected employee generation of the use considering the employment generation pattern of the use or of a similar use within the City or a similar resort economy, b) Any unique employment characteristic of the operation. c) The extent to which employees of various uses within a mixed-use building or of a related off-site operation will overlap or serve multiple functions. d) A proposed restriction requiring full employee generation mitigation upon vacation of the type of business acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission. P136 III.B. Exhibit C Base 2 – 232 E. Main St. Growth Management- updated 12/3/14 Page 6 of 6 e) Any proposed follow-up analysis of the project (e.g. an audit) to confirm actual employee generation. f) For lodge projects: An efficiency or reduction in the number of employees required for the lodging component of the project may, at the discretion of the Commission as a means of incentivizing a lodge project, be applied as a credit towards the mitigation requirement of the free-market residential component of the project. Any approved reduction shall require an audit to determine actual employee generation after two (2) complete years of operation of the lodge. The applicant makes an argument that the FTE generation rate of 0.6 FTE/bedroom that applies to lodges within the Lodge, Commercial Lodge and Ski Base and other zone districts should not apply. The lodges in these areas are located at the base of the mountain: Sky Hotel, Little Nell, St. Regis, and the Grand Hyatt. All of the lodges along Main Street have Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) zone district. Because this property has not historically been lodging, it does not have the LP designation. The high level of services provided by the hotels is reflected in the generation rate. For example, hotels with a LP Overlay have a much lower employee mitigation rate of 0.3 FTE/bedroom due. The Lodge Preservation zone district applies to smaller lodges. The applicant had the option to apply to rezone the property with the Lodge Preservation Overlay, but decided to keep the current Mixed Use zoning and apply to adjust the employee generation rate to be that of the LP zone district. The calculation using the 0.3 FTE/bedroom generation rate is (0.58 + 1.2) 1.78 FTEs. In either the 0.6 or 0.3 generation rate scenario, the affordable housing requirement is minimal (2.98 or 1.78 FTEs). The applicant requests a waiver of affordable housing requirement. The project provides lodging with room sizes that are about 169 square feet and some ground floor commercial space. Staff is supportive of the adjustment of the employee generation rate to 0.3 FTEs/bedroom considering the type of lodge proposed and the intent of the lower generation rate for smaller lodges. There are no review criteria specific to waiving the affordable housing requirement. As part of the review process City Council is asked to determine whether a waiver of the employee mitigation requirement is appropriate. P137 III.B. Exhibit D – Demolition 232 E. Main, Base 2 Page 1 of 1 Exhibit D – Demolition 26.415.080. Demolition of designated historic properties or properties within a historic district. It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have demonstrated significance to the community. Consequently no demolition of properties designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures or properties within a Historic District will be allowed unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section. 4. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a) The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b) The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c) The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a) The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in which it is located and b) The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the existing development, does not have historic significance and does not contribute to the integrity of the Main Street Historic District. Staff finds that criteria d, and a – c are met and recommends approval of demolition. P138 III.B. 1 Exhibit E - DRC- Comments for BASE 2 Engineering Department Hailey Guglielmo, 970.429.2751, hailey.guglielmo@cityofaspen.com These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project packet submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting. 1) Transportation Impact Analysis: a) Provide a TIA narrative which follows page 12 of the TIA Guidelines. Explain which TDM and MMLOS measures were selected, how they apply to this project, and why these specific measures were selected to benefit the public. b) While the landscape buffer is greater than the standard minimum along Main St, there is no buffer along Monarch, and thus as is the project will not receive MMLOS credit for a landscape buffer. c) The TIA states the project proposes new signage, striping, mirrors, and other approved devices to address pedestrian-vehicle conflicts at driveways. It is not clear on the plan sheet how this is accomplished and should be elaborated to receive TDM credit for the measure. d) Demonstrate the pedestrian directness factor is between 1 and 1.2. 2) Drainage: a) Provide a full major drainage report that meets URMP and Engineering Design Standards. The conceptual design does not address WQCV or drainage requirements. If WQCV is to be handled within the ROW, a portion of the ROW tributary area must also be treated within the system. 3) Snow Storage: a) Address snow shed on the east side of the building. Within the proposed plan snow will slide from the roof onto pedestrians below. b) Address snow shed on the west side of the building. Snow falling into the trash area from both buildings could limit the available area. To maintain a functioning trash area how will snow be accommodated? Ensure no snow sheds onto the neighboring property. c) A minimum functional area equaling 30% of the paved area shall be provided contiguous to the paved and designed to accommodate snow storage. For heated areas, the functional area can be reduced to 10%. If the rooftop deck is to be utilized throughout the winter, where will snow storage from the roof take place? 4) Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter: a) All sidewalk, curb and gutter must meet the Engineering Standards as outlined in Title 21 and the Engineering Design Standards adopted by Title 29. Due to the current condition, the curb and gutter along Monarch St will need to be replaced. b) The sidewalk along Monarch should be detached with an 8’ width and 5’ buffer. c) Detectable domes are not required where pedestrian walkways cross an alley. d) The existing ramps on the corner of Main St and Monarch are non-complying ramps. Curbheads along ramps are only permitted if the curbhead is adjacent to a planting or P139 III.B. 2 other non-walking surface. Since this particular corner is paved throughout, winged ramps are required. 5) Alley: a) Alley entrance shall meet COA Standards. b) Identify utility pedestals serving the property. Relocate all utility pedestals to within the property boundary. c) Locate any new electric transformer within the property boundary. d) Building shall not overhang into the alley. 6) Parking: a) Parking lanes shall not be located within twenty feet of a crosswalk at an intersection or within thirty feet of any signal. b) Include a guest loading/unloading area. A designated area must be provided as guest loading shall not take place within the travel lanes of the street. 7) Environmental Site Assessment: a) Due to the previous use of the site as a gas station and the location of an underground storage tank an environmental site assessment and soils test is required. The site assessment and remediation is to comply with the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment – Division of Oil and Public Safety. 8) Construction Management: a) Engineering is concerned about the Construction Impacts of this site. A construction management plan shall be submitted for review. The plan must include a planned sequence of construction that minimizes construction impacts. The plan shall describe mitigation for parking, staging/encroachments, and truck traffic. 9) Excavation Stabilization: a) Due to the proximity of the neighboring property and the excavation of the building the City will require an excavation stabilization plan prior to building permit submittal. 10) Survey Requirements: a) A survey requirement is to pothole and provide depth to utilities. Please comply with this requirement at building permit submittal. Environmental Health C.J. Oliver, 970.920.5008, CJ.Oliver@cityofaspen.com Base 2 would need to fit the same requirements. On this project I am concerned about the layout of the proposed trash and recycling area as it has no shown alleyway access and the current layout appears to allow for only small 96 gallon roller containers and not dumpsters or a compactor that would be needed to best serve a building with the proposed features of Base 2. Current drawings show a space that is 30 x 8. The 8 foot width would not allow for employees to access the containers appropriately if they were standard sized 3 or 5 yard dumpsters. With the extra commercial space in the building it may be best for this building to P140 III.B. 3 consider going with the space requirements for a commercial building with a restaurant of 300 square feet described in Sec. 12.10.030. Space required for trash and recycling storage for Commercial Buildings. Paragraph b states- b. For Commercial Buildings that will contain or that will have the capacity to contain an establishment with a Retail Food Service License, as defined by the State of Colorado Retail Food Establishment Rules and Regulations, a minimum of twenty (20) linear feet adjacent to the alleyway must be reserved for trash and recycling storage. The required area shall have a minimum vertical clearance of ten (10) feet and a minimum depth of fifteen (15) feet at ground level. ACSD Tom Bracewell, 970.925.3601, tom@aspensan.com The applicant for these proposed developments shall commit to funding the replacement of the existing District owned main sanitary sewer lines the alleys serving the proposed developments. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Oil and Grease interceptors (not traps) are required for all food processing establishments. Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. Elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements and prior to soil stabilization. Soil nails are not allowed in ROW. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. Above grade development shall flow by gravity. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. P141 III.B. 4 Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line). A “Line Replacement Request” and a “Collection System Agreement are required for these projects. Both are ACSD Board of Director’s action items. Pool drain sizing shall be approved by the District. Glycol heating and snow melt systems must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. The applicant’s engineer shall furnish average and peak flows as well as proposed service size prior to final design. The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed building and utility plans are available. Transportation Lynn Rumbaugh, 970.920.5038, lynn.rumbaugh@cityofaspen.com 1. Parking: Parking requirements are not meant to be waived via the TIA. These are two separate and distinct programs. Should the two be linked, staff would recommend that additional/enhanced use of TDM/MMLOS measures be required. 2. Narrative: There is no narrative included with the TIA. There is some narrative throughout the other documents, but it is not necessarily related to the TIA. For example other areas of the application mention WE-cycle, marketing and bus passes that are not indicated in the TDM tool. Staff would request that the TIA be completed as per the guidelines along with a narrative that directly corresponds to the TDM/MMLOS tools. 3. TDM tool a. On-site servicing is selected in the tool, but without narrative on what that is – we cannot determine whether it applies to the site as intended. b. A carpool matching strategy is selected on the tool for Base 2 but not Base 1. Can the narrative please describe the following: i. Why is carpooling included as an option for one location and not the other? ii. How does the applicant plan to make use of the CommuterConnect program as discussed in the TIA (this is the carpool matching program we prefer to be used)? P142 III.B. 5 c. Shared shuttle service is discussed throughout the application but not included in the tool selections. Should this be an oversight, please refer to the shared shuttle service discussion for Base 1 for further questions. d. Bike sharing is discussed throughout the application but not included in the tool. Should a revised TIA include bike sharing as a measure, detail should be provided in the narrative including: 1. Is participation in the form of memberships or something larger such as capital? 2. Are passes made free or subsidized? 3. Who receives passes (employees/guests/both)? e. Transit subsidies are discussed throughout the application but not included in the tool. Should a revised TIA include pass subsidies as a measure, detail should be provided in the narrative including: 1. Amount of subsidy 2. Eligibility for subsidy (employees and/or guest) Utilities Department Andy Rossello, 970.429.1999, andy.rossello@cityofaspen.com Base 2 may require an onsite transformer, as load calculations have not been delivered yet it is difficult to state whether or not there is sufficient capacity in existing transformers. There is however a 3 phase circuit and single phase circuits available in this vicinity and system improvements might not be necessary. The City Water System has sufficient Capacity in this area, and all 2014 (or newest adopted at time of building permit) Water Distribution System Standards will apply. Please note all tap fees must be paid, and abandonments of existing taps should occur prior to utilizing new taps. Building Department Denis Murray, 970.429.2761, denis.murray@cityofaspen.com 1) Percentage of openings on the north and west side of both structures in relation to the fire separation distance. May need to be reduced. 2) The allowed projection of the awning, canopy, marquee into the ROW. May need to be reduced. 3) The snow shed design of the roofs need to be addressed. 4) Neither plan shows a passenger drop off and do not have parking? 5) Both buildings need to show an accessible route from each unit to the trash and recycling area and toilet facility from within the property. 6) The size of the trash and recycling area must not interfere with the utility and meters. P143 III.B. 6 7) If restaurants are proposed shafts or some provision for exhausting kitchen equipment must be made. Grease and oil and sand interceptors will be required. 8) The accessible sleeping units are required to be provided with roll in showers. 9) An accessible route to recreation facilities, dining seating at bars, counters, tables will need to be provided. 10) The projects interfaces with CDOT ROW's be aware they have their own permit process. Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Cindy Christensen, 970.920.5455, cindy.christensen@cityofaspen.com RECOMMENDATION: Based on the type of development for the property of which generates additional employees in the service industry, the APCHA Board is recommending approval of the redevelopment of 232 East Main Street with the requirement that the applicant must provide on- site mitigation for 3.44 FTE’s. Should the applicant be unable to provide on-site housing, the preferred method for the mitigation requirement of 3.44 FTE’s is via the Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit program. The redevelopment as a lodge creates employee generation within the service industry; therefore, the Board recommends that the 3.44 FTE’s are mitigated at no higher than Category 2. The land use code states that the additional employee generation mitigation of 3.44 can be satisfied at a Category 4 rate, with the applicant having the right to choose to provide mitigation at a lower category designation. Due to the nature of the business, the employees that are generated by the development are within the service industry – Category 1 and 2 income levels, thus the recommendation is that the mitigation is satisfied at no higher than Category 2. P144 III.B. From:Barbara Reid To:Sara Adams Subject:Base 2 Date:Monday, November 24, 2014 10:39:25 PM Dear Sara, I have a few comments regarding the Base 2 proposal for the redevelopment of 232 Main Street and I hope that you will be able to share them with HPC. Like so many others, I am concerned about protecting and preserving the height and scale of this important Main Street location. The numerous variances and waivers that are being requested for the Base 2 project will not suit the neighborhood because they are essentially allowances that ignore the current height and scale that is zoned for this site. The current zoning is an important element of our community's effort to maintain the unique small town feel of Aspen. Moderately priced lodging is important for our town but it must fit the character of a neighborhood and not create new problems for the neighborhood. An even-handed lodging proposal requires genuine consideration of community concern about height,scale and parking. On a very practical level, Carl's Pharmacy needs the parking that currently exists. It is also clear that Base 2 needs its own parking. I hope that HPC and the City will choose to support the current zoning to preserve our historic Main Street. Sincerely, Barbara Reid P145 III.B. P 1 4 6 I I I . B . P 1 4 7 I I I . B . P 1 4 8 I I I . B . P 1 4 9 I I I . B . P 1 5 0 I I I . B . P 1 5 1 I I I . B . P 1 5 2 I I I . B . P 1 5 3 I I I . B . P 1 5 4 I I I . B . P 1 5 5 I I I . B . P 1 5 6 I I I . B . P 1 5 7 I I I . B . P 1 5 8 I I I . B . P 1 5 9 I I I . B . P 1 6 0 I I I . B . P 1 6 1 I I I . B . P 1 6 2 I I I . B . P 1 6 3 I I I . B . P 1 6 4 I I I . B . P 1 6 5 I I I . B . P 1 6 6 I I I . B . P 1 6 7 I I I . B . P 1 6 8 I I I . B . P 1 6 9 I I I . B . P 1 7 0 I I I . B . P 1 7 1 I I I . B . P 1 7 2 I I I . B . P 1 7 3 I I I . B . P 1 7 4 I I I . B . P 1 7 5 I I I . B . P 1 7 6 I I I . B . P 1 7 7 I I I . B . ni aF X55 1 ' EXHIB ]�/ Sara Adams From: Dayna Horton <DHorton@clre.com> �—� Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 3:52 PM To: Sara Adams Subject: RE: Public Comment Letter to HPC for 232 E. Main, Base 2 Hi Sara, Please present/read this letter at tonight's meeting. I am sorry that I cannot attend and speak in person as I am departing for a family matter out of state.Thank you kindly! Dayna Horton Dear Staff and Commission: As a 13 year,full-time local to our valley, I strongly believe the redevelopment of the blighted gas station into an affordable lodging hotel as an appropriate solution to 3 critical needs for the City of Aspen: 1- The critical need for an affordable lodging option that delivers service on a higher scale. Just because it's affordable should not mean it's lacking in services and amenities to our guests, locals and greater community. 2- The critical need for a progressive and locally conscious lodging experience with open doors to the community—the concept of"community amenity' has not been created in this fashion,to this degree,since the opening of the successful Limelight concept. It will serve as a much needed public amenity unlike what is currently in operation in our town. Such amenities and services for our community could include breakfast, lunch and dinner destination, gym and spa experience, dining and entertaining space, a publicly accessible rooftop, apres ski/ happy hour events, and much more. 3-The current state of pedestrian/vehicular safety on the corner of Monarch and Main Street is one of the worst in town, year-round. I think that the entire community can speak to this.experience. There is no safe passage for a pedestrian walking in either direction along Monarch from Main Street to Bleeker—no defined sidewalk, no clear designated path and inevitably, there is a constant danger of being struck by a car that is backing out of the Carl's Pharmacy parking area or along the current curb cut of the gas station. How many accidents must occur,season after season in such an unmarked, unclear and undesignated pedestrian/automobile intersection. This current " cluster" problem has negatively impacted the level of service and safety provided to our general community, our valued tourists and the hardworking locals that walk this route to and fro each and every day. Why something has not been done sooner to mediate at this location is a mystery... and now we have such a positive opportunity to let this long-needed redevelopment do just that. I further gleaned directly from the applicants proposal that the Base 2 lodge promises to: • Provide guests with information for RFTA, prior to guest arrival • Provide bus passes to employees that live down valley. • Use Local and airport shuttle services to be shared with Base 1. • Either partner with Wecycle or provide bicycles for guests. This affordable lodge is a soon to be, highly valued, Gem in our community. I am requesting that the commission hear our community voice and courageously move forward with approvals. How incredibly fortunate Aspen is to have finally attracted an affordable lodging development that brings clear, organized, improved traffic and pedestrian flow to a blighted and stagnant retail environment-especially to the businesses along Main Street from the corner of Monarch to the corner of Aspen Street. 1 Sara Adams From: Karrie Sims <karriesims@me.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 4:13 PM To: Sara Adams Subject: conoco station across from carls and Johnny McGuire site I am in support of affordable rooms/hotels at these locations. Best - Karrie Sims Owner/Creative Director 970.309.1231 karriesims(o-)me.com kls�.j'esign Sara Adams From: joseph chalal <josephchalal@mac.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 7:06 PM To: Sara Adams Cc: Heidi Fezza (hfezza@gmail.com);jfezza; Ben Genshaft Subject: Re: 232 East Main Sara, Mr. Ben Genshaft continues to represent us regarding the: B. 232 E. Main Street (5:40) Planned Development- Project Review, Growth Management, Conceptual Commercial Design, Conceptual Major Development in a Historic District,Waivers And Variances, CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 19TH We remain very concerned about the dramatic variances requested by the applicant, and their effect on the surrounding neighborhood. Thanks. Joe Chalal 117 North Monarch Street #I From Sara Adams [mailto:sara.adams@cityofaspen.com] Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 9:58 AM To: Ben Genshaft Subject: RE: 232 East Main Yes. Dec. 3rd is the next hearing. The application that was shown at the hearing with the 2 story element along the west elevation is the project that will be presented on Wed. Staff memo and exhibits can be found here: http://aspen siretechnologies com/sirepub/mtgviewer aspx?meetid=1237&doctype=AGENDA It is second on the agenda on the 3rd. I think it will be heard around 5:30 or so. Meeting starts at 5:00. Best, Sara Sara Adams,AICP Senior Planner I City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen CO 81611 970/429-2778 www.aspenpitkin.com Notice and Disclaimer: This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient,please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable,the information and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning,which is subject to change in the future,and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance. 1 Sara Adams From: jfezza@verizon.net Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 7:31 PM To: josephchalal@mac.com; Sara Adams Cc: hfezza@gmail.com;jfezza@verizon.net; bgenshaft@genshaftcramer.com Subject: Re: Re: 232 East Main Sara, We are voicing our continued concern over the plans for the development at the former Conoco Gas station.The overzealous building of a structure that far exceeds the zoning laws seems in violation of the former code.These rules were put in place to protect the integrity of Aspen and its Historic values. Our attorney, Ben Gernshaft, will voice our concerns in person at the meeting.We do not take this lightly and feel this imposing structure is ill suited for this area and an invasion of our quiet neighborhood. My wife Heidi and I appreciate your attention to this matter. Sincerely, John Fezza, M.D. 117 North Monarch,#2 On 12/02/14,joseph chalal<josephchalal@mac.com>wrote: Sara, Mr. Ben Genshaft continues to represent us regarding the: .. B. 232 E. Main Street(5:40) Planned Development- Project Review, Growth Management, Conceptual Commercial Design, Conceptual Major Development in a Historic District,Waivers And Variances, CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 19TH We remain very concerned about the dramatic variances requested by the applicant, and their effect on the surrounding neighborhood. Thanks, Joe Chalal - 117 North Monarch Street#1 > From: Sara Adams rmailto:sara.adamsOcityofaspen.coml > Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 9:58 AM >To: Ben Genshaft > Subject: RE: 232 East Main >Yes. Dec. 3rd is the next hearing.The application that was shown at the hearing with the 2 story element along the west elevation is the project that will be presented on Wed. Staff memo and exhibits can be found here: http7l/aspen siretechnologies com/sirepub/mtgviewer aspx?meetid=1237&doctype=AGENDA >'It is second on the agenda on the 3rd. I think it will be heard around 5:30 or so. Meeting starts at 5:00. Best, Sara > Sara Adams,AICP > Senior Planner I City of Aspen > 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd floor >Aspen CO 81611 >970/429-2778 >www.aspenpitkin.com > > Notice and Disclaimer: >This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable,the information and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate.The opinions and 1