Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20150106 AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING January 06, 2015 4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISIT II. ROLL CALL III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public IV. MINUTES A. December 2, 2014 Meeting Minutes B. December 16, 2014 Meeting Minutes V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 730 E Cooper (Buckhorn), Base Lodge, Continued hearing from December 16, 2014 B. 212 Lake Avenue, Special Review - Replacement of a nonconforming structure VII. OTHER BUSINESS VIII. BOARD REPORTS IX. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 001-2015 Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legaJ notice (affi d avit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clari fications of ap plicant 7) Public comments 8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met. Revised April 2, 2014 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 2, 2014 LJ Erspamer, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Jasmine Tygre, Stan Gibbs, Keith Goode, and Brian McNellis. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Chris Bendon, Sara Adams. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Erspamer was approached by a broker representing a property in Aspen that has had problems being sold. The broker asked Mr. Erspamer if he was using his P&Z position to influence Mr. Bendon to place negative regulations on the property to devalue it. He replied he had not. The broker apologized later for suggesting to his client that Mr. Erspamer had possibly influenced Mr. Bendon to devalue the property. Mr. Erspamer wanted Mr. Bendon to be aware of the rumors. Mr. Bendon suggested to the P&Z members to route these inquiries or suggestions to the City Manager or Mayor. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES: October 7, 2014 Minutes: Ms. Tygre moved to approve the October 7th minutes; seconded by Mr. Gibbs. All in favor, motion carried. October 21, 2014 Minutes: Mr. Gibbs moved to approve the October 21st minutes with the requested changes; seconded by Mr. Erspamer. All in favor, motion carried. November 11, 2014 Minutes: Mr. Erspamer moved to approve the November 11th minutes; seconded by Mr. McNellis. All in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were none. Public Hearing – 730 E. Cooper (Buckhorn) – Base Lodge – Continued from November 18, 2014 Mr. Erspamer opened the continued public hearing for 730 E Cooper – Base Lodge. Mr. Erspamer asked about the notice at which Ms. Sara Adams stated this is a continued hearing and notice was provided on November 18, 2014. Mr. Gibbs asked if the Neighborhood Outreach was provided as noted during the November 18th meeting at which Ms. Adams stated the outreach was conducted and the documentation was provided 1 P1 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 2, 2014 to staff and reviewed by Ms. Debbie Quinn. Ms. Quinn stated the application was properly noticed and the hearing was continued by Mr. Gibbs, Vice-Chair, on November 18, 2014. Ms. Adams, Senior Planner for City of Aspen, reviewed the application for redevelopment with a lodge called Base Lodge 1. She stated a site visit was conducted on December 2, 2014 with Ms. Tygre and Mr. McNellis attending along with Ms. Adams and Ms. Quinn. Ms. Adams stated there are three reviews P&Z is asked to make a recommendation to City Council for the project including; 1. Conceptual Commercial Design Review 2. Planned Development Project Review 3. Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Reviews Ms. Adams provided a picture of the existing building. She wanted to point out there are a range of zoned districts surrounding the application property which is zoned Commercial Lodge Zoned District. The lot size is a little less than 7,000 sf. Other surrounding districts include residential multi-family (RMF), affordable housing (Benedict Commons), mixed use, neighborhood commercial (City Market), C1 Zoned District and commercial lodge (Aspen Square). For further context, Ms. Adams described and displayed the types of properties directly surrounding the application property including the height and roof designs. Most of the buildings in the immediate area are between 2.5 and 3 stories with a lot of sunken areas and high fences. City Market located across the street is 1.5 stories tall. The proposed building is three stories tall with a roof top deck and a subgrade area. The first floor has two commercial spaces accessed off Original St. The second and third floors have a total of 44 lodge rooms with a mix of sizes with the average room sized about 173 sf. The windows along Cooper St are entirely operable so they completely open up. Ms. Adams then reviewed the main points in the staff memo to highlight Staff’s evaluation of the project. When discussing the planned development review, Staff used the underlying zoning as a guide. This review takes into account the context of the neighborhood and identifying criteria from the underlying zoning. One of the variations requested is for height. Table 1 on p. 39 of the agenda packet lists what is allowed in the zoned district and what is being proposed. The variations are highlighted in blue. The application is meeting the height limit in the Commercial Lodge (CL) Zoned District. The maximum height for the zoned district is 36-40 ft which can be increased through commercial design review. The application proposes 37.5 ft to the top of the third floor parapet which is used for the height measurement per code. The floor of the rooftop is 34 ft. On the roof there is a circulation corridor including the elevator overrun and the exterior stairs. She displayed a floor plan of the rooftop. Restrooms on the rooftop require a height variation. From Original St you cannot see the restrooms because they are behind the stairs. The code is very specific regarding the height of stairs and elevators. What is allowed in the code 2 P2 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 2, 2014 for restrooms is 39 ft and the proposal is for 43 ft. The top of the stairs is 4 ft, which meets code. The top of the elevator is 48.5 ft which is allowed under height exemptions. The other variation requested is for parking. The requirement is 25.5 spaces or 26 spaces with the lot size just under 7,000 sf. The number of spaces is based on the net leasable commercial and the lodge component which is half a space per lodge room. They are not proposing any onsite parking spaces considering the size of the lot and the proposed programming. They have talked with the City Manager’s office about having parking spaces in the Rio Grande Parking Garage which City Council will have to discuss and approve. Ms. Adams feels P&Z may want to comment on this in the resolution as a condition. The number of spaces discussed with the City Manager’s office was between 40 - 50 spaces for the fall, winter and spring seasons for both Base Lodge 1 (This application on Cooper St) and Base Lodge 2 (Main St). Base Lodge 2 is currently going through Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) review. For the summer season, 10-15 parking spaces have been discussed. The applicant has proposed valet parking for both projects. The approval and lease details would have to be discussed and approved by City Council. The applicant is committing to providing Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) information to guests prior to arrival, providing bus passes to down valley employees, providing a shuttle service to be shared by both lodges, partnering with WE-Cycle or providing bicycles to guests. In regards to affordable housing, there are two components to be considered. One, through growth management, the applicant is requesting to establish a different generation rate. The specific review criteria is identified in Exhibit C of the staff memo. Under the CL Zoned District, the generation rate is a flat rate of 0.6 full time equivalent (FTE) per bedroom. Other properties subject to this rate include the Sky Hotel, the Little Nell, St. Regis, and Aspen Square. Based on this rate, this proposal would require just under two FTEs. The request is to use the Lodge Preservation Overlay district for their generation rate of FTEs which would be half (0.3 FTEs per bedroom) of that allowed by CL Zoned District and the Lodge Zoned District typically including the smaller lodges located in Residential Zoned Districts like the Boomerang, Molly Gibson, and Hotel Aspen. After reviewing the criteria, Staff felt it is appropriate to use the lower generation rate of 0.3 FTEs per bedroom considering the levels of service provided by the project and their requirement would be just under one FTE if City Council found this to be appropriate based on the recommendation from P&Z. The applicant is not proposing affordable housing, but Staff wanted to highlight this aspect of the application and they are supportive of the 0.3 FTE generation rate. For the commercial design review, the public amenity space proposed includes the courtyard, a five foot setback were none is required, and the roof top deck with a public access easement. This would be reviewed under the alternative methods for providing public amenity space. The project is well over the required amount should P&Z decide to make the recommendation to City Council. For the design standard review on a conceptual level, the subject area is included in a Central Mixed Use Character Area which includes mixed use, affordable housing, RMF and CL zoned districts. She wanted to point this out because many of the design standards listed in the guidelines do not work for this project. Staff feels the intent is met, but for some design elements such as having a front yard setback when there is no requirement in the zoned district does not really relate to the project. In the area, there is a mix of roof forms, setbacks, fences, sunken courtyards and other different design elements. Overall, Staff feels the project provides an appropriate transition between the commercial character areas and the residential areas as well as a pedestrian scale to streetscape with beneficial outdoor areas. Staff feels it adds to the character of Aspen. Staff is supportive of the application and recommends approval of the application with conditions. 3 P3 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 2, 2014 Ms. Adams also wanted to add the applicant is requesting an impact fee waiver which is a policy discussion for City Council. Mr. Erspamer asked the commission for questions of Staff. Mr. Gibbs asked for clarification on the FTE generation calculation. Ms. Adams stated there are 44 bedrooms included in the project as well as a small credit of four bedrooms so they are mitigating for 40 lodge rooms. They also have commercial. The calculation is defined on p. 76 of the agenda packet. Ms. Tygre asked if the dimensional requirements would refer back to the underlying zone district as a guide. Ms. Adams stated the applicant is requesting the use of the LP overlay for the generation rate. Ms. Tygre asked how they can use the LP overlay if they are not zoned as such. She would like to see some mechanism defining how the zoning was applied. Ms. Adams stated the ordinance would specify the generation rate for the lodge rooms as 0.3 FTEs per bedroom. The LP overlay is less about the dimensional requirements and more about the process describing why they are asking for the reduction and establishing a different generation rate. The ordinance and resolution would be specific in defining the generation rate. Ms. Tygre asked for the City’s justification for setting the rate. Ms. Adams stated the criteria is used to determine if it is appropriate or not which are located on p 76-77of the agenda packet in items a) – f). Ms. Tygre stated she is uncomfortable mixing different zones for one zoned district. Mr. Bendon stated the generation rate is an outcome of the type of operation. You typically see projects in the LP zone as a low service type property where as properties in a lodge zone would have a high service. The Limelight has about 15% of the Little Nell in terms of the number of employees. He also noted the required audit to be conducted after a period of occupancy to allow the operation to stabilize and allow for any necessary reconciliations. Ms. Tygre stated she understands Staff’s rational, but finds it conflicting as to how the code states the generation rate should be calculated. The level of use standard makes sense, but that’s not what the code states. Mr. Erspamer asked if she reviewed item f) on p 77. Ms. Tygre feels it should be kept in mind for future lodge applications. Mr. McNellis asked if Staff is supportive of not only the LP overlay generation reduction, but are they also recommending the approval with no affordable housing. Ms. Adams state there is no review criteria for affordable housing so it needs to be a policy decision by City Council, not as a recommendation by Staff or P&Z. Mr. McNellis asked if affordable housing should be included in the discussion or simply the generation rate of 0.3 or 0.6 FTEs. Ms. Adams stated the draft resolution in section 4 (p 48) discusses the generation rate. Mr. McNellis stated the commission should identify the appropriate rate and not discuss policy at which Ms. Adams agreed. Mr. Erspamer asked if they were including storm water collection pits similar to the Art Museum. Ms. Adams stated that item would be part of the detailed review. Mr. Erspamer asked about the heights of the building. Ms. Adams stated the parapet is 37.5 ft. and the roof level is 34 ft. Mr. Erspamer asked if there was computer rendering showing the height of this building as it compares to neighboring structures. Ms. Adams responded she has not checked all the heights in the model. She 4 P4 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 2, 2014 displayed some the renderings, but some were based on old versions of neighboring buildings (City Market). Mr. Erspamer asked how far, approximately, the setback is from Bell Mountain Condominiums. Ms. Adams stated the condominiums have a sunken half story in the ground and thought it was 10-12 feet. Ms. Adams stated the condominiums have a different setback because they are zoned differently. A property zoned as CL has zero setback requirements on all sides, but the application provides for a five ft setback on the Bell Mountain Condominium side. Mr. Erspamer asked how many parking spaces are in the Rio Grande garage. Mr. Benson stated the total was about 350. Mr. Erspamer asked if there were other lodge project applications vying for those same parking spaces? Ms. Adams was not aware of any other applications and she would have to check with the City Manager. Mr. Erspamer asked if she knew occupancy statistics regarding the lodge. Ms. Adams stated she thought the number was based on it not being very full for three of the seasons. Mr. Erspamer asked if we had accurate history of its usage, which Staff did not have available. Mr. Erspamer asked if the Aspen\Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) board had reviewed the application and Ms. Adams replied they had on November 5, 2014. They recommended either housing credits or on-site units. Mr. Erspamer asked if there was a requirement for a Transportation Demand Management (TDM). Ms. Adams stated it would be part of the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) required for the detailed review. Mr. Erspamer asked if public amenity space was defined as starting at the ground and going to the sky. Ms. Adams stated that is the definition for the standard public amenity space. There are alternative methods that still meets the intent of public amenity, but it doesn’t meet the letter of the code. This project is applying under the alternative method. Mr. Erspamer asked Staff to explain the need for vestibules in the commercial space. Ms. Adams stated this is a requirement of the Detailed Design Review and would be finalized during the third step of the review. Mr. Erspamer asked why there wasn’t a recommendation to create a pedestrian amenity on the corner of the building similar to Boogie’s. Mr. Erspamer stated this is a recommendation in the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission (CCLC) guidelines. Ms. Adams stated Staff felt it was the most appropriate design for this property. Staff felt the new sidewalks and the roof top deck were more important than cutting the building out in weird areas. Mr. Erspamer asked about the reserved parking spaces. Ms. Adams stated the two spaces would serve as a loading zone for arriving and departing customers. Mr. Erspamer asked if staff had considered any sound walls on the roof deck. Ms. Adams stated that Staff had not considered any walls. Mr. Erspamer stated another recent application was considering sound walls. Ms. Adams stated it could be discussed during the detail review. Mr. Erspamer referred to Exhibit A, item B on p 55 of the packet where it states greater compatibility with existing and future land uses will be achieved in the development of land and asked how Staff 5 P5 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 2, 2014 considers this project to be compatible with existing buildings in the neighborhood. Ms. Adams stated the area is a transition area between downtown commercial to a more residential neighborhood with a range of roof forms and heights. The proposed height and use are compatible with the context of the neighborhood. Mr. Erspamer asked to confirm the setback on the employee housing behind the unit. Ms. Adams stated she would have to confirm this information. Mr. Erspamer asked Staff if there was a physical constraint to the project. Ms. Adams stated P&Z and City Council are asked to increase the height through commercial design review from 36 ft to 37. 5 ft and the guideline on the bottom of p 66 of the packet is to assist with the determination if the request for additional height is appropriate. Ms. Adams feels the intent of the guideline is to assist City Council in deciding if there is a community benefit for the project. Mr. Erspamer asked how the roof deck as a public amenity contributes to street vitality. Ms. Adams stated the application uses an alternative method for a public amenity and the project does not meet the specific standards. Mr. Gibbs asked if there are other hotels or lodges without parking onsite. Ms. Adams stated she would have to look to confirm. Mr. Bendon stated many of the older establishments have parking right of ways including the Boomerang, Hotel Aspen and Independence Square. Mr. Gibbs asked for examples of other hotels with about 40 units. Ms. Adams stated Hotel Aspen and Molly Gibson are similar in number of units but their room sizes are larger than the proposed 173 sf. Mr. Erspamer turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Mark Hunt and Mr. Spiro Tsaparas are members of the applicant’s team. Mr. Hunt provided background on the project. Mr. Hunt’s organization owns a handful of properties and lodging is not their main purpose. They were asked to explore some affordable lodging concepts as it seems to be important to the community. They looked at several sites to explore. They have this site and another site located at 232 Main St. at the corner of Monarch and Main. They are working on both together to obtain critical mass with upper management, book keeping and other services. The project is focused on the younger generation as identified by the size of the rooms. They are looking at both projects when thinking about design. Two items they considered are the mining shaft structures and chalet styles. He then displayed some inspiration shots. They focused on a year round activities including skiing, biking, and hockey activities. He mentioned the pod concept for rooms available in larger cities which are 75-90 sf, but the rooms here will be larger. They are looking to provide public amenity spaces including food and beverage services. For the lower level and roof, they are proposing bowling lanes and community spaces. He then reviewed the proposed floor plans. The main entrance will be off of Original St. The first floor will have storage lockers, courtyard, restaurant, and other retail. The bottom floor will have the bowling lanes and food and beverage. The second and third floors will have about 22 rooms each. The design of the roof top is still ongoing but he feels there are opportunities to gain more community space. The structure is inspired from a mine shaft. The window treatments would be incorporated within the glass which he feels would allow the building to have a different look throughout the day. 6 P6 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 2, 2014 He then described the materials used for the buildings including concrete with steel around the perimeter. The building is set back from the steel structure. On the west side of the building, there is a setback of five ft with a distressed panel and beams with no windows. They are excited with the design and tried to have fun, but wanted to respect the roots of Aspen. They are asking for some things, but they feel the lot is too small to park vehicles on it. It is very difficult to build an affordable lodge. Based on the lot and size allowable, this is really a 17 room lodge. It was designed to be affordable which requires mitigation. They typically do commercial and retail projects, so he feels they are already mitigating by providing what the community needs in an affordable lodge. He believes the community needs this project. Mr. Tsaparas explained there are costs associated with building lodge rooms and this project’s costs double because they are having more rooms. The construction costs would be almost half if they were only building a 17 room lodge. Mr. Hunt feels the town is in an interesting situation. When looking at a property, it always makes more sense to build for sale residential, commercial or retail. He feels the city has done a great job to preserve the loss of the beds and get some back. Mr. Hunt wrapped up by saying he is excited about the project and is interested in hearing the commission’s thoughts. Mr. Erspamer asked the commission for questions of the applicant. Ms. Tygre asked if they have any plans for hours of operation for the roof top. Mr. Hunt stated they do not at this time, but understands it will be important with the neighbors including City Market, the highest commercial load, other commercial and residential. Mr. Goode stated conceptually the building looks a lot like the Art Museum and asked if they thought about going in a different direction. Mr. Hunt feels the look of the proposed lodge and the museum are night and day. The lodge will look old and rugged. The design has a same grid look, but will be more glass and less basket weave. Mr. Goode asked if they are considering if they need to deal with light pollution. Ms. Adams stated the project is required to meet the lighting ordinance which does not allow light to spill over property lines. They are not asking for any exemption from any lighting code or standards. Mr. Erspamer asked if light from indoors is regulated or not. Ms. Adams stated you still cannot have lighting spill over property lines. Mr. Gibbs asked if the roof will be open to the public. Mr. Hunt stated yes, that is their plan. Mr. McNellis asked if the roof will be operated by the hotel or not at which Mr. Hunt replied the hotel will operate the roof. Mr. Erspamer asked the size of the smallest room. Mr. Tsaparas stated it is 156 sf. 7 P7 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 2, 2014 Mr. Erspamer asked how they plan to mitigate the impact on City Market for only having two loading parking spaces. He feels there will be spillover across the street. Mr. Hunt stated they will have people working with the valet service, shuttle services and the hotel operations will have to manage the spaces. He also thinks a lodge of this type opens it to be used by a lot of groups. Mr. Erspamer asked if they do not obtain the parking spaces in the garage, will they be purchasing parking passes for the neighborhood. Mr. Hunt is hopeful they can work something out with the City to use the parking spaces in the parking garage. Mr. Erspamer asked why the courtyard is in the back and not in the front similar to Spring Café. Mr. Hunt stated they designed the entrance to provide access to the commercial space from the lobby, but the U-shape of the building called for the entrance on Original St without having the light and vent open to the neighbors. Mr. Erspamer asked for confirmation that there are no parking requirements for CC and C1 Zoned Districts, which Ms. Adams confirmed as accurate. Mr. Erspamer asked what is exceptional about the parking plan. Mr. Hunt stated they will have a shuttle and valet service with the idea that customers will be in downtown and there should not be a reason to have their car. The idea is to have it more pedestrian, bike friendly. Mr. Erspamer asked if they have outreached the current tenants. Mr. Hunt said they have spoken to some of them, but feels it is still a bit premature. He purchased the building which is on a long term ground least until 2099. Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. Hunt if he had obtained permission from the land owner to change the building. Ms. Debbie Quinn stated the ground lease indicates they can make improvements on the property. Mr. Erspamer opened for public comment. Mr. Jay Maytin, who works with Mr. Hunt on the Main St Base 2 Lodge property, first saw this project when he was the HPC, which he is no longer a member. He has since set up meetings between Mr. Hunt and the Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA) and the Aspen Skiing Company (SKICO) to increase the community support. He feels this isn’t the best business use for the property, but feels the community has be vocal regarding the need for affordable lodges, loss of the bed base and increasing height, mass and scale for private residential use. There is no private part of this building. When someone approached by the City to use their property in not the most profitable way and the developer puts his best foot forward, he is asking for what he needs, not another 10 ft for a penthouse with no public amenity. He is not asking for separate residential units to financially support the project. Mr. Maytin feels we need these rooms and the alternative to this project will be exactly what this community hates including more high-end retail. He feels it is a community benefit. He feels the parking plan is admirable and doable. He feels the younger generation is probably staying down valley and driving their cars to Aspen. This lodge will keep the visitors in town. Mr. John Haley, City Market Manager, feels parking is their major concern. He feels there will be a negative impact on his business with the amount of people coming in there to park and he doesn’t see 8 P8 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 2, 2014 what Mr. Hunt plans to do to mitigate the impact. He asked where the employees would park. He has 28 parking spaces at City Market and in the high season the store has 35,000 customers a week. Mr. David Kashinski, brother of a neighbor for the project, watched the City Council meeting on the previous evening when parking was discussed. He feels there will be an impact with people parking locally. He feels they are asking for the sky regarding employee housing. He likes the look of the building, but feels it is too high and in the wrong place. Ms. Kim Raymond, an architect who lives directly across the street from proposed building, provided a handout which was entered as Exhibit H. It is a summation of people’s comments. She knew when she purchased her place that there would be a new building built at the proposed location. She does like the design of the building, but feels it is too much program for this site. She reviewed the handout with the commission. She feels the proposed site is surrounded by residential areas and the context should be examined more closely. She is concerned about the loss of the little park used as a public amenity. The neighbors are most concerned with the parking variance. This is a difficult area to park in now. She wanted to know where the shuttle bus would be parked since a spot is not currently designated at either proposed lodge. She proposed a car elevator with an estimated 21 spaces served by a valet. She feels there is a way to provide parking. In summary, she feels the lack of setbacks and public amenities is too much. Mr. Mike Kashinski, a resident of Benedict Commons, is in favor of affordable lodging and would like to work with Mr. Hunt rather than end up in a situation like the Art Museum where no one had any say. He feels parking is a huge issue and feels some onsite parking would be warranted. He feels people will want access to their cars so the parking garage plan will not work. It is a high traffic area, especially in the summer, and feels having a high volume traffic plan is important. He doesn’t feel the bowling alley lanes will be used. He also questions the need for the roof top deck. Mr. Dan Rubinoff, a new resident in town, spent 22 years in Telluride and Crested Butte. He walks most places. He feels the corner is one of the most busiest and dangerous corners in town. He feels the parking issue is paramount. It is a safety issue and regulations are there to protect the residents. He feels there is a need for affordable lodging. He likes the design of the building but feels it will be too bright. Ms. Karen Ryman lives in Twin Ridge and is the mother of Mike and David Kashinski. She has concerns of the scale of the building. The size and shape does not conform with neighboring properties. She asked how wide the sidewalks to be built. She feels the setbacks are not in proportion with the neighboring properties. She wanted to see if there could be an incentive plan to charge lodge customers to park at the parking garage so they would think about flying instead. She is concerned about the light from all the windows. She asked if there will be windows on the alley side of the building. She also why there couldn’t be parking on the lower level. She is concerned about having a bar on the roof area. She assumes this would be for summers only. She would not want to see permits given for temporary tents placed on the roof top deck. She also thinks there should be a limit on the number of people allowed on the roof top deck. She is concerned how people will navigate around trees placed in the sidewalk. She also wanted to know the anticipated rate to be charged for the single and bunk rooms. She respects what Mr. Hunt is trying to accomplish with affordable lodging, but she thinks they would have a difficult time obtaining variances if it was a commercial space. 9 P9 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 2, 2014 Ms. Rachel Schmidt questions how the traffic will flow with the two parking spaces on Original St if people arrive from Independence Pass. She does not believe the lodge customers will want to wait the time necessary to retrieve their car from garage. Mr. Erspamer closed the public comment session for the hearing. Ms. Adams wanted to inform the commissioners that she received an email from Ruth Carver that will enter into the record as Exhibit G. She is a next door neighbor and is not in favor of the project. Mr. Erspamer asked staff if there were any rebuttals or clarifications to the applicant’s presentation or public comments. Mr. Bendon wanted to clarify the Rio Grande parking garage has 350 parking spaces. The transportation department is unhappy with its utilization. It is full maybe 10 days per year. They have contemplated various incentives to increase the usage. Ms. Adams wanted to point out about the on street parking. With the new project, there will be more on street parking. There could also be loading zones on Cooper as well. Mr. Erspamer asked the applicant for rebuttal. Mr. Hunt appreciated the comments and is aware of some of them. The big thing he heard was parking and how busy it will be. The parking will need to be managed. He feels they put their best foot forward in providing affordable lodging. He looks at the entire building as a public amenity and does not want to give up the lower level for parking. He think the parking can be managed, even before the guests arrive. He wants to be a great neighbor but feels they need to be proactive. They were approached and asked to explore affordable lodging, this is what they can do. In regards to little park, he does not philosophically agree with. He feels there is plenty of public amenity space. There are some buildings that don’t work for longevity and you see people in and out of them because of the layout of the building. He did state there will be windows on the alley side. Mr. Tsaparas stated they would have to look further into the possibilities of parking. He stated the first design for this space was a commercial building. Mr. Hunt then asked the design team to look into an affordable lodge design. Parking was taken into consideration because parking is always an issue. What they have learned from parking studies completed by traffic consultants is that when there is no parking onsite, there is less impact. For example, if you take Carl’s Pharmacy parking, you will always hope there is a space available, so you will continue to loop. The valet approach solves the issue. The guests would also have the opportunity to drive their own car to the garage. The valet is not a profit center. Mr. Tsaparas remarked there will be a building there and the one proposed will be about the size and height of the building. He does not want to address the setback because that will be the size of the building built at this location. The passion of putting something together for the City, especially from Mr. Hunt, provided a great design for both lodges. In regards to the width of the sidewalk, Mr. Tsaparas stated it will be five ft wide and the parkway will be five ft wide for a total of 10 ft from the building to the curb. This is a single use building where the other options were not. Ms. Tsaparas felt they could do something in regards to the light coming from the building. Glass technology is advanced and either glazing or films could help the issue. He will reach out to someone tomorrow to look into potential issues. 10 P10 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 2, 2014 In regards to the courtyard, Mr. Tsaparas feels the glass walls will allow people to look through to the courtyard. Mr. Goode motioned to continue to 7:30 PM. Mr. Erspamer seconded. Vote: 2 yes; 3 no. Motion opposed. Mr. Gibbs motioned to continue the meeting until 7:15 PM. Mr. Erspamer seconded. Vote: 3 yes; 2 no. Motion carried. Mr. Tsaparas stated the option for onsite parking on the lower level is not possible based on the needs for access to the space and a ramp. Mr. Hunt stated it is affordable by design. The reality is these are small rooms and he thinks they will be around $200 per night. There may be times when they could be less than $100 per night. Mr. Hunt stated this is their attempt to be part of a solution and fill a need being heard by the City, the market, and SKICO. There is no perfect project, but he believes this offering outweighs what they are asking for and he hopes the community believes this as well. Mr. Hunt would like to see how the board feels about it now and vote on the proposal. Mr. Erspamer closed the rebuttal part of the hearing. Mr. Erspamer opened for discussion from the commission. Ms. Tygre suggested the commissioners state what other information they need. Ms. Tygre would like to continue the hearing to allow for a full discussion by the commissioners. She does not need additional information from the applicant, but thought it would be helpful to story poles at some point in the future. Mr. McNellis does not need additional information. Mr. Erspamer started talking and Ms. Tygre asked him if he had other questions which he stated he did not. He stated he is commenting at this point. Mr. Erspamer stated parking is a big issue for him. He doesn’t believe the parking studies that state if you take away the cars, there not be a traffic problem. He referred to Mr. Speck’s speech in which he stated a lack of parking leads to cycling. He has observed this from his office in downtown Aspen. Mr. Erspamer likes the project. He doesn’t like the design, but that doesn’t matter. He would like to see more about the possible solutions for dealing with the glass and the radiation. He would like to see the 0.3 or0.6 of affordable housing provided for. He would like to see at least the 0.3 provided. He likes a corner angle on the building. He asked if it is possible to make the building look smaller and place the courtyard in front by the entrance. He stated the design is request and not a requirement. Ms. Tygre stated she has a lot to say, but doesn’t want to do it now so the commissioners have the time to respond. She does not want to rush through her comments. She would like to see this hearing 11 P11 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 2, 2014 continued so there can be a dialog with the commissioners. She feels the applicant needs a consensus from the group and not just individual opinions. Mr. Erspamer doesn’t feel that having parking in the garage will work. Mr. Gibbs stated this is a good example of bad zoning. He doesn’t think a lodge fits in this particular location. It creates too much activity and density regardless if you can manage the parking. He admires the attempt made by Mr. Hunt. He feels people will try to park on the street. Mr. Gibbs stated they don’t have the criteria to wave the affordable housing. He feels the project should be treated as an LC zone which requires a 0.6 rate. Mr. Gibbs moved to extend the meeting to 7:25 PM, seconded by Mr. Erspamer. Vote: 3 yes; 2 no; motion carried. Mr. McNellis state he has a lot to say and has similar concerns as Ms. Tygre. He sees a lot of good in the application but he does have some concerns. His main concern is the architecture. He likes it on it’s own, but given the recent history in town, he finds it too in context with recent history. He foresees some backlash. The proposed mining design would have never been built in town. It would have been on a hillside. He feels a lot of people will not be able to disassociate this design with the art museum. Mr. Erspamer asked if this building would work with a penthouse and condos. Mr. McNellis feels the public amenity space should be immediately utilized by the pedestrian to activate the streetscape. This proposal does not provide this and we have examples of this in town already. Mr. Goode echoes what the others have stated. Mr. Erspamer asked the commission if they would vote on it at this meeting. Ms. Tygre would prefer not to. Mr. Goode made a motion to pass the resolution as stated. Mr. Erspamer seconded the motion. Ms. Tygre reiterated her thoughts that voting tonight would be a disservice to the applicant and the community. Mr. Goode felt the applicant wanted the commission’s feedback and go on to council with or without our recommendation. Ms. Tygre did not feel it was appropriate either way. Ms. Quinn stated the commission needs to make a recommendation whether to approve or disapprove the application. It doesn’t have to be tonight. Mr. Erspamer removed his second of the motion and Mr. Goode removed his motion. Motion removed. Mr. Gibbs then moved to continue the hearing until December 16, 2014. Ms. Tygre seconded the motion. Vote: 5 yes; 0 no; motion carried. Mr. Erspamer closed the meeting. 12 P12 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 2, 2014 Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager 13 P13 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014 1 Stan Gibbs, Vice-Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Jasmine Tygre, Brian McNellis, Ryan Walterscheid, Keith Goode and Jason Elliot. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan, Jessica Garrow and Sara Adams. Mr. Gibbs acknowledged Elise Thatcher, reporter from Aspen Public Radio, attending to cover the continued Base 1 lodge public hearing and make meeting attendees aware she may be recording parts of the meeting. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Jessica Garrow stated Staff was planning for 2014 and wanted to formalize some meetings to capture feedback from the commissioners regarding long range planning, code amendments and policy discussions the Council has requested. She asked if the commissioners would prefer a third night in a month or periodic lunch meetings. Mr. Gibbs, Ms. Tygre and Mr. Goode stated evenings were better. Mr. McNellis and Mr. Walterscheid prefers lunchtime meetings. Mr. Elliot stated he could work with either schedule. Ms. Garrow stated they would continue with lunchtime meetings and see if it works. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES: There were no minutes to approve. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. Walterscheid stated he would be recusing himself from the Base 1 Lodge hearing because of an ongoing relationship with Mr. Hunt. Public Hearing – Aspen Club & Spa PUD Amendment Mr. Gibbs opened the public hearing for the Aspen Club & Spa PUD Amendment. Ms. Quinn stated she had the affidavit of notice for publication was appropriately provided but the affidavit of notice was not and asked the applicant when it was posted was there a photograph, did the mailing occur according to the list and affidavit will be available by the end of the meeting. Mr. Mitch Haas, representing Aspen Club and Spa LLC, stated the mailing and posting was completed as necessary and his employee will bring the remainder to the meeting. Ms. Quinn stated with the stated representation, P&Z could proceed with the hearing. Ms. Jessica Garrow, City of Aspen Long Range Planner, will be reviewing the PUD Amendment and Growth Management Review for the Aspen Club and Spa owned by Michael Fox and represented by P14 IV.B. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014 2 Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning, Bob Daniel of Gateway Management and Matthew Smith from Poss Architecture. Ms. Garrow stated there are three reviews in front of the commission: 1. PUD Other Amendment review in which P&Z is a recommending body to City Council. 2. Affordable Housing Growth Management Review in which P&Z is the final review authority. 3. Lodge Development Growth Management Review in which P&Z is the final review authority. The bulk of the request is related to changes in the garage. The applicant is requesting to remove the currently approved garage. The planned parking in the garage will be replaced onsite. She then reviewed the currently approved site plan, the applicant’s proposed changes and the various amendments. Ms. Garrow then reviewed the current day and approved entrances to the club. The lower curb cut serves as the main entrance off Ute Ave. The parking consists of surface parking, landscaping, and an entry feature. Another mid curb cut entrance off Ute Ave is the approved ramp down to the subgrade garage. A third approved entrance provides access to the temporary parking spaces for the affordable housing units as well access to the service yard. Ms. Garrow then reviewed the proposed site plan keeping the three curb cuts. The middle curb cut providing access to the garage ramp is changed to an exit so all the traffic would enter from the lower curb cut. The ramp itself will become parking spaces. There are additional space and reduced landscaping proposed where there were already approved spaces. The turnaround area at the end of the parking lot has been expanded to accommodate a fire truck. The upper curb cut providing access to the temporary parking spaces and service yard will remain and also provide access to the valet parking spaces on the roof of the club. With the proposed parking changes, there is no net decrease in the amount of parking spaces. Staff and the Engineering Department do have concerns of the amount of impervious surface as a result of the amount of paving that will occur. They included a resolution condition for a reduction of five parking spaces to accommodate increased landscaping, particularly in the center of the site. With the elimination of the garage, the applicant estimates a reduction in construction impacts with a reduction of about 6,000 truck trips and decreases in the overall construction schedule by about three months. The City’s Engineering department has completed an analysis and estimate about a six percent (6%) trip reduction for the project. Ms. Garrow then described and pointed out the other proposed changes within the building including adding two lodge bedrooms to Unit 21. This triggered the growth management review for lodging requiring four lodge pillow allotments which are available for the project. It also triggered an affordable housing review. The applicant previously over mitigated their previous approval so they have a credit of full time equivalents (FTEs). The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) has reviewed the proposal and recommends the applicant be able to the use the credit for the addition of the two lodge bedrooms. Ms. Garrow stated the other changes involve setbacks. She displayed and pointed out the changed areas of the project. An approved stairway access currently has a 20 ft setback and the applicant needs an 18 ft setback. Near the affordable housing units, the applicant is proposing to move the storage spaces for the affordable housing units inside the building. This will require an access stair, so they are requesting a P15 IV.B. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014 3 25 ft setback where the approved plan has a 29.25 ft setback. There will be a perpetual access agreement for the storage units. The next change is related to a State required fence\wall around the pool for safety. This had not been caught in the Design Review Committee (DRC) Comments in the original application. The applicant requests this to be memorialized. A portion of the fence\wall will be located on the townhome parcel 15-D so there would be an access easement for continuing maintenance. Ms. Garrow then described the applicant’s request for height variances. The club building is approved at 28 ft. The applicant has completed their construction plan they have found their building is actually 30 ft 6 in. The issue is that the building was memorialized less than it actually measures. They are keeping the existing club building. The amendment would memorialize the actual height of the building. The applicant is also asking for an additional 8 in to accommodate a reroof. The affordable housing unit have also been approved at 28 ft and the applicant has requested a height of 30 ft to increase the livability of the top floor units with higher ceilings. Staff is recommending in favor of the Growth Management Requests and the PUD amendment. Mr. Gibbs asked the commissioners for questions of staff. Ms. Tygre asked for clarification regarding the temporary parking spaces for the affordable housing units. Ms. Garrow stated there are 12 approved affordable housing units and approved for 17 parking spaces. There are five temporary spaces closer to the units and 12 spaces towards the middle of the parking area. Staff’s recommendation for a reduction of five parking spaces would eliminate the five spaces as temporary. They would become assigned permanent spaces for the affordable housing which would assign one permanent space for each of the 12 units with a net decrease of five units to be used for additional landscaping. The remaining seven assigned spaces would be located below the five spaces. Ms. Tygre asked how the spaces would be assigned and Ms. Garrow stated it would be up to the applicant to assign the spaces to the units. Mr. Gibbs asked for total sf of the proposed paved area. Ms. Garrow stated the proposed paved sf is a net decrease of the existing condition, but an increase from what was approved. Mr. Elliot asked to confirm the location of the assigned parking spaces at which Ms. Garrow pointed out on a slide. Mr. Elliot asked if the 6% reduction was used to calculate the 6,000 truck trips. Ms. Garrow stated the applicant calculated the number of trips from an estimation of the impacts to the construction site plan including dirt and materials. The Engineering Department took an estimate of the number of average trips on Ute Ave from August 2013 and then calculated the percentage of decrease. Mr. Gibbs noted the average number of trips was not based on a time period of construction though. Mr. Gibbs then turned the floor over to the applicant. In attendance with Mr. Michael Fox, the applicant, was Mr. Mitch Haas, Mr. Bob Daniel and Mr. Matthew Smith. Mr. Bob Daniel, representing the applicant, reviewed the applicant’s proposed amendments. He stated the Aspen Club and Spa wants to retain their off-street parking. They are reducing the project by about P16 IV.B. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014 4 30,000 sf by eliminating the garage which equates to about 560,000 cf of space. They will be able to reduce construction related trips by 6,800 trips including larger trucks in their initial estimation. The proposal improves the affordable housing by increasing the heights, providing access to parking and storage, add four pillows to the lodge program, keep the same number of curb cuts, simplify the access and include completed reviews with the fire and building departments. Mr. Daniel stated the existing club has about 123, 000 sf of impervious area including roofs, parking areas, and tennis courts. The previously approved plan has about 115,000 sf of impervious area. The proposed plan is about 122, 000 sf. Of the approximate 6,000 sf increase, only 1,400 sf is lawn. The proposed plan also reduces the built area along the back and front of the club. They felt the approved plan’s traffic flow was confusing to the customer and provided four access points to the club. The proposed plan simplifies the traffic flow in the parking area, access to the club and the valet service point. The new valet parking area will be built about 2 ft above grade on top of another structure. Mr. Daniel then showed slides of the existing, approved and proposed structures including heights, view planes and site lines. Mr. Daniel explained they had PCL Construction work with them to determine the estimated reductions in materials (concrete, snowmelt piping, mechanical systems and etc.), equipment (pumper trucks, delivery trucks, etc.). He displayed a slide listing the estimated items and amounts to be reduced. Mr. Matthew Smith reiterated the improved access to storage and parking for the affordable housing units. For the club, the two primary improvements include better site circulation for vehicles and a significant reduction in construction. Mr. Haas stated there will be a lot less material including a tremendous amount of concrete. The visual impacts are significant as well. Mr. Daniel also noted a significant reduction in the wall with the adjoining neighbor. Mr. Daniel stated they are concerned about reducing parking. They are not sure what the long term impacts might be and do not want to impact the neighborhood. Mr. Gibbs then asked the commissioners for any questions. Mr. McNellis asked if the entrance was on grade with the existing grade. Mr. Daniel replied yes, there will be some walls built as the parking lot extends into the property to accommodate the changes in grade. Mr. Smith stated the overall change of grade from top to bottom was approximately 35 ft. Mr. Elliot asked if the existing parallel parking along the wall would be eliminated. Mr. Daniel stated they are looking at the area. This area provides five to six spaces including one handicap space. Mr. Elliot asked for the route taken by the valet to confirm the car would not be utilizing Ute Ave. Mr. Daniel stated they anticipate the valet service using the service area and it would not be their intent to use Ute Ave. Mr. Walterscheid asked for a description of the area directly below the valet parking entrance. Mr. Daniel stated it is a service area for trash and other utility needs. P17 IV.B. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014 5 Mr. Goode asked the applicant to confirm the sf will be less with the increased parking on top at which Mr. Daniels confirmed. Mr. Gibbs asked if the height of the affordable housing units was 28 ft or 41 ft. Ms. Garrow stated the original approval in 2010 was not accurate because of changes to the grade. The subsequent amendment changes the height to state 28 ft from the finished grade. The 41 ft was measured from the natural grade and they are proposing 30 ft. A slide was then provided to demonstrate the approved and requested heights of the affordable housing units. Mr. Daniel stated another attribute of the proposed plan was to pull back the affordable housing units about three ft to create more of a buffer with the adjoining property. Mr. Daniel stated they are requesting the additional heights to address an energy model, specifically insulation requirements. For the affordable housing, the extra space is currently coming out of livable space. Mr. Gibbs asked if the access to the river from the affordable housing units has been improved with this proposal. Ms. Garrow stated the Engineering Department had suggested adding a path between the units and the property boundary. However it would need to meet accessibility requirements and because of the grade it cannot be built. There is a condition of the approval in the resolution that states more clearly than in the existing approval that the affordable housing residents have a perpetual easement through the site to get to the river and they can use the existing sidewalks. Mr. Gibbs wanted clarification the change in the wall height toward the Benedict property. Mr. Daniel showed on a slide where the wall would start and extend. He stated they would provide a tiered step with landscaping. Mr. Gibbs wanted to know the difference in truck trips between the approved and proposed projects. Mr. Daniel stated he does not have that number, but they tried to look at the number of reductions. The approved garage was substantial in materials and specification and they looked at the numbers associated with the garage. Mr. Fox also stated the garage would have required 560,000 cf of dirt to be removed. Mr. Gibbs feels the 6% reduction is too low. Mr. Walterscheid asked for the anticipated construction schedule and how will it be reduced. Mr. Daniel stated they originally had a 26 month schedule. They feel the reduction will be greater than the four months estimated. Mr. Daniel stated they are looking into ground sourced energy systems and the parking structure construction would impact those efforts. Mr. Gibbs then opened the hearing for public comment. Mr. Jim Farrey thinks the project is great. Mr. Gibbs closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Gibbs opened for commissioners’ comments. Ms. Tygre feels the proposed changes improve the project considerably and she is pleased to see the increase in height on the affordable housing units to make them more livable. She is not opposed to the surface parking and thinks this is a more simple design that will benefit everybody. She encouraged the P18 IV.B. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014 6 applicant to keep looking at the landscaping between Ute Ave and the club and include as much landscaping as possible. She doesn’t care about the interior landscaping and feels it is a factor the applicant is going to need an attractive site plan to sell the units. Mr. Walterscheid is in favor of proposed changes and feels it is an improvement from the approved project. Mr. Elliot is in favor of the height requests but is not in favor of removing the five temporary parking spaces. The temporary spaces in front of the units are needed from a livability standpoint. He feels the same as Ms. Tygre regarding the internal landscaping. Ms. Garrow pointed this was defined in Section 2 on p 6 of the resolution in the packet. She stated the second bullet from the bottom could be deleted if the commission does not want to make the internal landscaping and removal of the five temporary spaces a requirement. Mr. Elliot stated he would not be excited to see the valet parking traffic to use Ute Ave, but was not sure this was under the purview of the commission. Mr. Gibbs stated they could possibly add a recommendation to Council. Mr. McNellis believes the requested changes will make the project better. The reduction in construction traffic, materials and impact to the neighbors is significant. He agrees with the other commissioners not reducing the number of parking spaces. Mr. Gibbs asked Ms. Garrow if there was a handicap parking space next to affordable housing buildings and she replied the space nearest the building is designated as handicap parking per code. Mr. Gibbs agrees with Mr. Elliot regarding the five parking spaces and believes a couple of the spaces should be kept open all the time for temporary use in addition to the handicap. Mr. Gibbs felt eliminating the parking structure is a smart move and would have been difficult to manage. All of his concerns have been addressed. Ms. Tygre moved to approve Resolution number 17-2014 with the deletion of the fifth bulleted item in section 2 which removes five parking spaces. Mr. Elliot seconded the motion. Mr. Gibbs then opened for discussion. There was no discussion. Roll call to vote: Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes; Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. Elliot, yes; Mr. Gibbs, yes. Motion carried with count of yes-six (6) and no-zero (0). Public Hearing – 730 E Cooper – Base 1 Lodge – Continued from December 2, 2014 Mr. Gibbs opened the continued public hearing for the Aspen Club & Spa PUD Amendment. Ms. Sara Adams, City of Aspen Community Development Planner, provided the reviews the P&Z Commission is responsible for evaluating from this application as follows. 1. A recommendation to Council for the conceptual commercial design review P19 IV.B. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014 7 2. A recommendation to Council for the planned development project review. 3. A final decision for the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) review. She then reviewed the changes since the last meeting. The staff memo pointed out some of the concerns voiced at the December 2nd meeting including the following.  Size of the building  Off-site parking proposal utilizing the Rio Grande Parking Garage  Amount of glass proposed  Lighting  Affordable housing mitigations  Architecture style  Conversation around bringing public amenity space to the street level. The applicant will provide two alternate design options that address the glass and matching the architecture to the neighborhood. There is a wood and metal design option and Staff is supportive of the wood version more than the metal version but prefer the initial option presented on December 2nd which they feel fits into the context of the neighborhood and the type of architecture fits the use type. Ms. Adams reviewed the planned development project review conceptual and final steps. The purpose of the review is to look at the context of the proposal as it possibly satisfies a community goal as well as the underlying zoning to determine if there needs to be flexibility in the dimensional requirements in the underlying zoned district. Ms. Adams reviewed the community goals as listed in Exhibit A. She felt it was important to point out that lodging has been at the center of discussions of City Council and from many years now. It’s included in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) as a policy to replenish the declining lodging base with an emphasis on a balanced inventory and diverse price points. When the Community Development Department was weighing both this project and the Base 2 project on Main St, they felt the policy of the AACP and the goals of City Council are met in these variations including the height and parking. Staff is recommending approval of the project and has provided a draft resolution of approval in the agenda packet. There is a specific section on parking which recommends approval of parking in the Rio Grande Parking Garage or similar situation for off-site parking. She reiterated City Council would have to decide to allow parking in the Rio Grande Garage or not. As previously discussed in the December 2, 2014 meeting, Ms. Adams wanted to note Staff is recommending the employee generation rate be based on the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zoned District (0.3 FTE) as opposed to the Commercial Lodge (CL) Zoned District (0.6FTE). The LP is typically assigned to the small existing lodges in town that are primarily in residential zoned districts or along Main St. The reduced FTE rate relates to the types of amenities and hotel operations in the smaller lodges. Mr. Gibbs asked the commissioners for questions of staff. Ms. Tygre asked if Staff had considered the valet service when they determined this project provides a lower level of service and qualifies for the lower FTE rate. Ms. Adams replied they did consider the valet service. P20 IV.B. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014 8 Mr. Gibbs asked to confirm the parking on the City Market side of Cooper Ave is one hour parking and metered parking on the north side at which Ms. Adams confirmed. Mr. Gibbs then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, represented the applicant Mr. Mark Hunt, also present. Mr. Haas reviewed slides regarding the inspiration and design. He then provided a drawing of the existing site and reviewed the property as it stands today. It is essentially one long curb cut for the whole property except for the green space. There is no on-street parking on either frontage. The vehicles arrive and depart from both frontages. One parking spot is perpetually taken by the Johnny McGuire’s pickle car. The Parks Department has already issued a tree removal permit for a tree on the property. In regards to the picnic bench located on the property is not anyone’s amenity and could disappear tomorrow. The site is pretty much all concrete. They are also dealing with a tree located within the public right of way and makes the sidewalk impassable by a handicap person. Mr. Haas then provided a drawing of the proposed site. He pointed out five new on-street parking spaces. The current curb cuts providing multi-directional traffic and conflicts at the intersection will be eliminated. In regards to traffic and parking safety concerns, Mr. Haas stated the traffic and parking are regulated by the City Transportation and Engineering Departments and also the Colorado Department of Transportation. He doesn’t feel it is a zoning question. Mr. Haas then reviewed the floor plans of the proposed building. He stated the basement, first floor and roof deck will be open to the public. He feels it typically is a challenge to secure public benefits for a lodge and feels the proposed public access is significant including a couple of bowling lanes, lounge spaces, restaurant\bar space, and retail space. The applicant anticipates the prices for the amenities will match the room price options. Mr. Haas stated the rooms are small. Most rooms will have either a full or queen size bed. There are also rooms with bunk beds and several with twin beds. The applicant’s idea is to accommodate families, groups and sport teams to allow them to stay and experience Aspen instead of staying down valley. Mr. Haas stated one of the courtyard’s purpose is to allow the rooms on the inside to have access to natural light and windows. He stated the roof top deck will also provide public access. The issue in regards to the height on the roof top is for the restrooms. The height of the elevator and stairs is allowed by code. The height of the restrooms is lower than the elevator shaft and no higher than the stairs. They are set back from the edge so they will not be visible from the street level at the intersection. If the applicant cannot have the height, the restrooms will go away. They are not required, but the applicant was providing them for convenience. Mr. Haas then displayed elevation drawings of the buildings and pointed out the rooms will have blinds. In regards to light pollution and noise, he wanted to remind the commission the City already regulates these areas. In regards to having the public amenity space at ground level, he wanted to point out the proposed courtyard, walkway along the west side of the building, and the planter strips created in the right of way exceed the public amenity space requirement for the project. It’s a bonus the project includes 3,750 sf roof top deck. He feels the public amenity space for this project is exemplary. P21 IV.B. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014 9 Mr. Haas feels the off-street parking has been addressed and feels the City doesn’t want all or any of the parking at this location. The alley between the project and the Benedict Commons already has parking for the Benedict Commons, Bell Mountain Townhomes (subgrade), Hanna Dustin (subgrade) and leased parking. He feels it would be overkill for the area and the better solved using an existing City facility that is grossly underutilized and subsidized. He stated the City has guaranteed anywhere from 20-25 parking spaces in the summer months and anywhere from 40-50 parking spaces the other three seasons of the year to be used by the two lodge applications. Any additional spaces available could be used also. The third fallback on parking is that being a lodge they can obtain parking permits that allow people to park for up to a week for about $3. They are still looking for other solutions, but they think they have one that will work but the final terms and agreement without City Council’s acceptance of the concept. Mr. Haas stated in regards to affordable housing they are asking to waive less than one employee providing P&Z is willing to accept the 0.3 factor instead of the 0.6 factor. The applicant feels the 0.3 factor is fully justified and people in the housing office agreed with it. Staff also supports it and the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) agrees as well. The 0.6 factor is for the five star hotels in Aspen offering a higher level of service. It’s expected based on what they are paying per night to stay there. They expect to be waited on hand and foot. A customer of the proposed hotel paying for a 175 sf room does not expect the same level of service nor should they provided. This lodge will be much like the other small lodges that are zoned LP therefore the factor for LP lodges makes perfect sense. In fact, the City wanted this property included in the LP zoning, but during the “Super Block” discussion at the time the then owner of the property opted out of the LP zoning. Instead the LP zoning stuck next door on the Bell Mountain Lodge which is now five townhomes. He also added the parking requirement for the Aspen Square development one block west is zero. He stated they are not proposing zero parking, just off-site parking. He then reiterated the total affordable housing requirement for the application is less than one employee or less than a studio apartment. He feels there is a provision in the code to waive affordable housing which he read to the commission (26.470.100.A.1.f). If the credit is given, the project does not need any affordable housing to mitigate. Mr. Haas stated they did request some impact fee waivers only because the code tell us to. The code states as a way of incentivizing lodges the City is willing to waive park development fees and transportation demand management and air quality fees. Yet all those incentives should include a free market residential component, fractionals; things that take away from the true lodge development and the affordability of them. The code states to decrease the affordable housing requirements down to 300 sf per room average and the decrease is proportional to the room size, But it does not address when the average sf is below 300 sf. The lowest it can be decreased to is 10%. If the same scale was followed down to 175 sf average, the employee mitigation would only be 5.8% which would be a 0.2 FTE factor. He feels the employee mitigation is so minimal, it’s barely worth having a conversation about. Mr. Haas wanted to reemphasize they are asking for a small difference in height for one portion, parking waivers that are not true waivers, impact fees which are up to City Council to decide and AACP fully supports the project from a lodging and sustainability perspective. He also pointed out the AACP contains an entire chapter dedicated to decreasing parking. Mr. Hunt did hear everyone’s comments and looks at this project to fill a need. He sensed from most of the group that affordable lodging is something important to the community. The project is affordable by design. It may not be perfect, but it does offer so much directly and indirectly to the community. In regards to the parking, he wanted to be clear they are not providing no parking. He recognizes the intersection is one of the busiest in town, especially in the summer, but the majority of property will not P22 IV.B. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014 10 have a curb cut which may make the area safer. He feels the vehicular impact to the area will drop dramatically than what it is today. There are about 40 rooms in a market that runs 60% occupancy which would average 24 rooms. An estimated 20-30% of the people that stay in a hotel drive. Even at 50%, that equates to 12 cars. The average stay in Aspen is five to eight days. With a basic 3.5 day stay, the hotel would be burdened with about 24 cars per week. There is north of 100 cars coming in and out of this location per day currently. He thinks it is a win-win because Aspen gets an affordable lodge and use spaces at the Rio Grande Parking Garage that would otherwise sit dormant. Other than putting in a residential development at this location, a lodge is probably the next lowest on the list for generating traffic. If he were build a commercial development, it would generate more traffic and require zero parking spaces. Mr. Hunt then offered to show side by side comparisons to the Art Museum to show the differences in materials, size, and openings. He feels the architecture pays tribute to Aspen’s history and appropriately located. He personally prefers the original design. In regards to zoning, he heard the earlier comments that the property was more residential. He pointed out the busiest retailer is across the street. There is a gym, offices, condominium buildings that operate as hotels, and residences nearby and feels it is a mixed use area. The townhomes directly to the west used to be a lodge and he could easily make the argument that the townhome is inappropriate zoning as it’s across from the busiest retailer and its underlying zoning is LP. Mr. Hunt believes the entire building is a public amenity. As the Limelight is described as Aspen’s living room, he feels the Base Lodges could become Aspen’s extra bedroom. He feels this is a great opportunity and the project has the support of ACRA and StayAspenSnowmass, SKICO, business leaders, political leaders, independent reports, Planning Department, and HPC. He feels all they really are asking is to have parking off-site. They don’t need the restrooms on the roof, although he feels they would be convenient for everyone. Mr. Hunt then showed the original design and two additional designs with one with metal and one with weathered wood. The two new designs had less windows than the original design. Mr. Gibbs asked if there were any questions for the applicant. Mr. McNellis asked how they determined the percentage of public amenity space requirement is met without considering the roof deck. Mr. Haas stated the courtyard space, the walking area on the west side of the building, and the new planter strips in the right of way, add up to 24% of the lot area. The requirement is about 17.5%. Ms. Adams stated the right-of-way does not technically count per code. Mr. Haas added rooftops count as public amenity for restaurants all over town which in some instances are not truly open to the public. Mr. Goode asked them to confirm the number of spaces around the new building. Mr. Haas confirmed there will be five spaces in the right-of-way, two of them are meant to be passenger drop off / pick up spaces. Mr. Elliot asked them how the valet service would work and if it meant a valet would have to run between the hotel and parking garage. Mr. Haas stated there would be that type of service as well as a shuttle service shared between the two lodges. Mr. Hunt added that based on where the two lodges are located, the hotel guests are close enough to not need their car while in town. P23 IV.B. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014 11 Mr. Gibbs opened for public comment. Mr. John Haley, Manager of Aspen’s City Market, is concerned about the following: 1. How many employees will be working at the hotel? 2. Where will the employees park? 3. Where will visitors using the amenities to the hotel park? 4. What happens if the parking structure is not underutilized anymore? Ms. Dayna Horton lived in the neighborhood for thirteen years and her comment is twofold. She has been involved with the affordable lodging and she used to do sales and marketing for the Hotel Lenado hand in hand with the SKICO. The biggest comment she would receive from Europe was that they would love to send their guests to Aspen but it was not affordable. She feels this hotel offers what’s really been needed for so long. She added in Europe, no one drives a car and she feels Aspen is similar. In regards to the guests parking for the proposed restaurant and retail, it should be treated as similar businesses in town, such as the Hickory House and the trade-offs are too great to worry about it. Mr. Andrew Sandler, owner of Bootsy Bellows and Whisky Rush clubs, feels Aspen is at a 20 year point where the evolution of the next generation of businesses are coming to town. He feels Mr. Hunt knows what he is doing. He feels the project would improve the first stop sign when coming into town from Independence Pass. He feels we need more lodging. Aspen has lost the HBO Comedy Fest and other events. He doesn’t see the parking issue as an issue at all once you see the trade-off of the hotel. He stated anyone who lives in Aspen knows you can always find parking. You can even valet at the Nell. He feels this is a project that should be fast-tracked, not debated for the next six months. He remembers the old and now new Limelight and feels it’s more like Aspen’s living room. In regard to the mix of the neighborhood being more residential, he feels the Limelight is right next to residential as well. He feels we need the project desperately. Mr. Jim Farrey has been coming to Aspen for eight years. When he arrives in Aspen via Independence Pass he feels the project vs what is on the corner today would be a great gateway building. He applauds the effort of Mr. Hunt to provide the affordable lodging, which is absent from Aspen. Of the three designs shown, he prefers number three (stressed wood look). Ms. McNicholas, lives in Aspen, asked if the City has information if the offsite parking reduces trips into town. She also prefers the third option. Ms. Adams then read some public comment letters received that had not been included in the packet including Katie Hmielowski (in favor), Dayna Horton (in favor), Seth Hmielowski (in favor), Julie Young (In favor), Erin Lentz (in favor), Kristy Farrey (in favor), and Ernie Fyrwald (in favor). Mr. Gibbs then closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Gibbs then asked the applicant if he had any response to the public comment. Mr. Hunt replied no. Mr. Goode reminded Mr. Gibbs and the applicant of Mr. Haley’s questions during public comment. Mr. Haas responded to Mr. Haley’s questions. He felt this information was included in the application as well as more detail in the addendum. Employees will be encouraged to carpool and shuttle service would be available to pick up and drop off at the Intercept Lot. Down valley employees will be provided with bus passes. In regards to public amenity parking, the project does not propose to provide parking, P24 IV.B. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014 12 just as other businesses located in town. He stated they want to enter a long term agreement to guarantee parking spaces with the City to use the Rio Grande Parking Garage. Mr. Gibbs then opened for the commissioner’s discussion. Ms. Tygre wanted to discuss the parking because she walks to City Market daily and is very familiar with the traffic in this area. She thinks reducing vehicular circulation is an important part of a land use application. For many years, they have seen applications she feels are under parked. Applicants have become very creative at proposing solutions to the parking problem and mitigate having guests and employees use the facilities. Year after year she has heard the neighbors state it doesn’t work. Instead, everyone parks in the streets. Even when there were discussions regarding lodge incentives, the public continually brought up that you can’t pretend you don’t need parking. The idea of adding a 40 room hotel in this area and not providing adequate parking is something she will not do again. As a policy matter, it is up to City Council whether the Rio Grande Parking Garage should be used or not. Even if so, she doesn’t feel it is a practical solution. She would like to see a small lodge on this spot, but cannot accept the proposed parking plan. This is her major issue with the application. Ms. Tygre added she is in favor with the building. Mr. McNellis thanked the applicant for the clarifications. He feels there is a lot of good in the project and feels it is not in an inappropriate location. A lot of his concerns have been addressed. He still has two major concerns. He still has concerns with the parking but wants it to be addressed somewhere. 1. The public amenity space is still a concern. Looking at the Commercial Design Standards in regards to the public amenity space, it clearly states it is supposed to activate the streetscape. The courtyard is great, but that does not activate the streetscape. He doesn’t feel the five foot buffer on the back, the courtyard, or the roof top deck as an element that activates the streetscape. He would rather see a tradeoff of less space on the top of the building for more accommodations down on the street. For example, a wider sidewalk or possibly more seating areas could provide more vitality to this corner of town. He feels this is a blighted corner and a redevelopment of the area should happen sooner than later. He won’t support the project at the expense of the character of this portion of town. 2. He still has concerns about the character of the architecture. The board has the discretion to address the architecture. He would like to see if there could be a way to articulate the architecture differently. Of the three proposed designs, he prefers option three because it is a bit softer, has more vertical elements and is a contrast from the Art Museum. He encouraged the board to possibly continue the hearing until other architectural solutions could be explored. Mr. Goode motioned to continue the meeting until 7:15 PM with Mr. McNellis seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. McNellis stated he is referring to planned development review section 26.45.010 of the PUD Guidelines when addressing the character of the architecture. Mr. Elliot doesn’t feel the existing green space is not all that vibrant and doesn’t feel it adds any vitality to the corner. He is a bit concerned about the patio space being in the back of the building and wondered if the applicant had explored having the patio face Cooper Ave or at least be accessed from Cooper. He is in favor of the project and only making suggestions to address some concerns. He feels having the restrooms on the roof top make sense so he is accepting of the height variance for the restrooms. Parking is a big issue. He feels forcing affordable lodges to have parking on site collapses the P25 IV.B. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014 13 economic model. The solution is novel to pay to have spaces in the Rio Grande Parking Garage and feels they would be incentivized to use it. He would be curious to see how the valet would work, knowing it is a bit of a run between the locations. The lack of free market, the small size, designed for affordability. He feels having this building with a restaurant and retail adds more to the local vibrancy. He feels the area is currently underserved. Mr. Goode stated if you break down 40 rooms, 60% occupancy and 20 % of that will actually bring a car would be eight cars. He doesn’t think eight cars is that much of an issue. His biggest issue with the building is the amount of light pollution. He is happier with the new designs with less windows. He feels the traffic safety issues should be addressed by the other responsible entities. He is acceptable of height needed for the restrooms. Ms. Tygre stated her concerns regarding the public amenity space have been covered by the other commissioners. Mr. Gibbs feels there is conflict between central mixed use and commercial lodge zoned districts meeting there. He struggles with which one should take precedence. He feels this should be a central mixed use zoned district that should transition into the neighborhoods. He doesn’t’ think this large of a building belongs on this corner although he could be persuaded with a design that adhered to the Central Mixed Use Design Guidelines, but the only objective this design meets is the parking. He does not have a big problem with the parking. The parking solution is for City Council to accept or not. He feels it is bad policy to use a public facility to support a private business. He would love to see an affordable lodge, but he wants to see a design that is much more sensitive to the central mixed use district. The Commercial Lodge Zone District should be used for the planned development, but the conceptual design should follow the Central Mixed Use Zoned guidelines. He doesn’t feel the courtyard on the west side of the building has any public amenity affect at all. Mr. Elliot motioned to extend, Mr. Goode seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Gibbs continued that project should remain as a commercial lodge. Mr. Gibbs asked the applicant if they wanted to continue the hearing. Mr. Haas replied no. Ms. Quinn wanted to clarify to the commissioners even if the recommend denial, it will still go to Council. Ms. Tygre motioned to approve Resolution 18-2014 as written, seconded by Mr. Goode. Roll vote: Ms. Tygre, no; Mr. McNellis, no; Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. Elliot, yes; Mr. Gibbs, no. The motion did not carry with a total vote of no -3 to yes-2. Ms. Quinn wanted the commissioners to be aware that HPC recommended approval with areas to be restudied before the application went to Council. And HPC will see the application for final review just as the P&Z would see this application. Mr. Gibbs asked the commissioners if someone wanted to make a motion to approve with changes to the draft resolution provided in the packet. Mr. McNellis stated he would like to see more ground level public amenity space and a revised architecture. P26 IV.B. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014 14 Mr. Haas stated he would love to respond, but he is not allowed to. Mr. McNellis responded he would be happy to hear it. Ms. Adams asked if Mr. McNellis would be interested in adding the public amenity as a condition for approval for City Council to review. He stated he could add it if the sidewalk space actually meets the percentage required. Ms. Quinn clarified this is the time for the commissioners to do a resolution, not time for the applicant to respond to anything. Ms. Adams thought his condition would be reasonable. Council could look at it and give the applicant time to review and consider reworking their floor plans. She feels what helps Council the most is when there is actual feedback for the Council to understand where the board was when their approval or denial was made. His concern regarding ground level public amenity space could be added as a condition to the public amenity section 16 on p 251 of the packet. Mr. McNellis asked the other commissioners if they had a similar concern at which Mr. Gibbs and Ms. Tygre both responded yes. Mr. McNellis stated he was not comfortable pulling the trigger until he could actually see a site plan along with the percentage of public amenity space offered. Mr. Gibbs stated if they can’t decide by consensus on a positive resolution, then they need to craft a resolution to deny along with their concerns. Mr. Gibbs stated he does not feel comfortable voting affirmatively on an approval that he fundamentally doesn’t know. Ms. Quinn reminded the commission that the minutes would be included with the Council’s packet so they will see the commissioner’s concerns. She suggested they did not have to spend a great deal of time crafting really specific language. They could do this in a general way if they wish to. Mr. Gibbs asked for a motion. Ms. Quinn stated they need to pass a resolution recommending approval or denial. She suggested to make a motion to pass a resolution to recommend denial of the application for the reasons express during the comment period. She stated they could list the general areas of parking, public amenity space and design. Mr. Gibbs asked Ms. Adams to put that language in a resolution. Ms. Tygre made a motion to recommend denial based, but not limited to the concerns expressed during the December 16, 2014 P&Z meeting. Ms. Phelan stated Mr. Hunt is considering asking for a continuance until January 6th, 2015. Mr. Gibbs and Ms. Tygre both stated they would be in favor of a continuance. Mr. Goode motion for a continuance of the hearing to January 6, 2015 and Mr. Elliot seconded. Mr. Gibbs then stated Mr. Hunt could make some comments. Mr. Hunt asked for more clarity because at the end of the previous meeting, they specifically asked for anything else the commission would like to see or was there anything they could do or bring to tonight’s meeting and the unanimous answer was no. He is happy to come back only because he would like to respond to the comments that would be beneficial for everyone to know. He thanked the board for the P27 IV.B. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014 15 opportunity to come back again. He stated they cannot provide onsite parking. He asked if the requests for the next meeting should include commercial design and public amenity space on the ground floor. Mr. Gibbs stated he felt he had stated his concerns regarding the zoning but he had not really focused on the commercial design at that point which he did subsequent to the meeting. This only reinforced his feelings from the first meeting. He stated it is an evolutionary process and everyone needs to work together. Mr. Hunt asked Mr. Gibbs which zoned district they should focus on for the next meeting. Mr. Gibbs stated you have the Commercial Lodge Zone, but you also have the Central Mixed Use District which encompasses the same area. It is an overlay that engenders the CMU character design guidelines. He recommended the project team look at the design guidelines and they will come back with a better design. Mr. Haas reiterated there is nothing more they can do regarding the parking by January 6, 2015. He respects the board but is not sure how to address the zoning concerns mentioned. Mr. Gibbs stated the Central Mixed Use District overlays the property and so it has an effect and the Commercial Design Guidelines must also be used for the commercial design review. Ms. Adams stated the Community Development Department will work with the applicant in preparation for the January 6, 2015 meeting and hopefully address their concerns. Ms. Tygre added she is also very concerned about the affordable housing portion of the application. She does not agree with the calculation and the fact that the applicant should not mitigate. Mr. Gibbs asked for a vote on the motion to continue the hearing on January 6, 2015. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Erspamer closed the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager P28 IV.B. 730 E. Cooper Street – Base 1 Staff Memo 1/6/15 Page 1 of 11 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director RE: Base Lodge 1 – 730 East Cooper Street –Commercial Design Review, Variances, Growth Management Review, Planned Development – Project Review, Subdivision Review, continued from December 2, 2014 and December 16, 2014 MEETING DATE: January 6, 2015 APPLICANT : 730 S. Cooper LLC REPRESENTATIVE : Mitch Haas Land Planning, LLC LOCATION : 730 East Cooper Street, corner of Cooper Street and Original Street across from City Market. CURRENT ZONING : Commercial Lodge (CL) with a Planned Development (PD) Overlay SUMMARY : The applicant requests approval to redevelop the existing mixed use building into a lodge building with commercial use on the ground floor. STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends approval with conditions. Photo 1: Current image of mixed use building. FOLLOW UP FROM DEC . 16 TH MEETING : Since the December 16 th hearing, the applicant has looked into many different public amenity options to address the Commission’s concerns about street vitality. The location of this property has many challenges to creating a positive public amenity space: it is located across the City Market loading dock, on the corner of State Highway 82, and adjacent to residential townhomes. P29 VI.A. 730 E. Cooper Street – Base 1 Staff Memo 1/6/15 Page 2 of 11 The public amenity requirements in the Land Use Code recognize that not all properties can support a successful public amenity space onsite or in accordance with the specified review criteria by offering different options to meet the public amenity requirements: off-site improvements, cash in lieu ($145,467), or an alternative method that meets or exceeds the value of an otherwise required cash in lieu payment or nonmonetary community value. The applicant proposes two public amenity spaces to meet the alternative method option – an interior courtyard (intent is shown at right and below and the publically accessible rooftop deck. As stated in the Code, the purpose of public amenity is to contribute to “an attractive commercial and lodging district by creating public places and settings conducive to an exciting pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operations improvements to public rights of way or private property within these districts.” Public amenity is required in the following zone districts: CC, C-1, MU, NC, SCI, L, CL, LP and LO. With the exception of City Market, which has no public amenity space, the properties surrounding 730 E. Cooper are not required to provide public amenity space. Dust, noise, atmosphere and overall ambiance of the area need to be considered when designing a successful public amenity space in this location. The applicant looked at pushing the building off of the property line along Original Street to provide some benches and also looked at moving the interior courtyard to the front of the property along Cooper Street. The applicant researched other successful public amenity spaces in different cities that deal with challenging context, and proposes operable windows, a take-out window and a more developed interior courtyard space. Photo 2: Design intent for the interior courtyard space. Photo 3: Design intent of the Cooper Ave. take out window P30 VI.A. 730 E. Cooper Street – Base 1 Staff Memo 1/6/15 Page 3 of 11 FOLLOW UP FROM DEC . 2ND MEETING : The Planning and Zoning Commission voiced concerns about the size of the building, off-site parking proposal, the amount of glass proposed and lighting, affordable housing mitigation, the style of architecture, and bringing the public amenity to street level. The applicant has included a second design option that incorporates wood and a different window pattern in response to neighbor comments about the amount of glazing and Commission member comments about the design fitting into the neighborhood. A metal version of the new design is also proposed. Staff is supportive of both the original design and the wood design option. The new metal design option does not seem to fit into the context of the neighborhood as well as the wood option. The Planning and Zoning Commission did not request additional information during the Dec. 2nd public hearing; however questions were raised about onsite parking for 40 room lodges. Staff compiled the following current parking information for some small lodges: St. Moritz Lodge – 37 units, no onsite parking, all head-in parking is in the ROW Annabelle Inn – 35 units, 5 onsite parking spaces off of the alley but 2 are for the AH units Aspen Bed and Breakfast – 38 units, about 20 onsite parking spaces Hotel Aspen – 45 units, no onsite parking, all head-in parking is in the ROW Hotel Lenado – 19 units, no onsite parking Molly Gibson - 53 units, no onsite parking, all head-in parking is in ROW or alley Hotel Durant – 20 units, no onsite parking, all head-in parking is in the ROW Mountain Chalet - 58 units, 37 onsite parking spaces in garage Photos 4 and 5: Detail of operable windows along Cooper Ave. and photo of design intent. P31 VI.A. 730 E. Cooper Street – Base 1 Staff Memo 1/6/15 Page 4 of 11 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION : The Applicant has requested to consolidate all conceptual and growth management reviews at City Council . The following land use approvals are requested: • Conceptual Commercial Design Review (Chapter 26.412, and the Commercial Design Guidelines) for construction of a mixed-use lodge building. (The Planning and Zoning 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, free market residential floor area, lodge floor area, setbacks. (The Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council is the final review authority .) • GMQS Reviews (Chapter 26.470) for lodge, affordable housing, and commercial development and allotments. (The Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council is the final review authority .) BACKGROUND : The Buckhorn property was built in the 1960s as a mixed use building with commercial space on the ground floor and lodge units on the upper floor. Some commercial and lodge associated space existed in the basement as well. At the time, the property was zoned C-1. In the 1970s and 1980s, as the City went through various efforts to properly zone and locate tourist accommodations, the Buckhorn was first zoned Office and then Commercial Lodge (CL). The CL rezoning included a condition that limited the property to a 1:1 floor area ratio. In 2009, the property owner received approval through Ordinance #2, from the City to lift the floor area ratio limit, replacing it with a requirement that any future development be processed as a Planned Unit Development. All dimensional requirements for this site, including floor area, height, and parking, are now approved by City Council on a site specific basis. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT : The applicant proposes to demolish the existing building and to construct a three story above grade building with a roof deck and a basement. The project is a mix of lodge and commercial uses as described below. Basement: associated lodge use, back of house Ground level: commercial (retail/restaurant), lodge lobby Second floor: 22 lodge rooms Third floor: 22 lodge rooms Rooftop: publically accessible deck, bathrooms, mechanical The following dimensions are proposed (blue highlight indicates a variance request): P32 VI.A. 730 E. Cooper Street – Base 1 Staff Memo 1/6/15 Page 5 of 11 TABLE 1: Requirement in CL Proposed front yard (Cooper St.) 0’ 0’ side yard (Original St.) 0’ 0’ side yard (west) 0’ 5’ rear (alley) 0’ 0’ maximum height 36’- 40' through Commercial Design Review 39’ allowed for bathrooms 50’ allowed for stair and elevator 37’6” top of third floor parapet 43’ top of bathrooms 43’ top of stairs and 48’6” top of elevator public amenity 21% or 1,465 sf 65% or 4,503 sf mostly on the rooftop *subject to approval as an alternative method minimum off-street parking spaces 25.6 0 cumulative floor area 2.5:1 (17,317.5 sf) 2.46:1(17,032 sf) lodge floor area 2:1 (13,854 sf) 1.58:1 (10,930 sf) average lodge unit size n/a about 173 lodge net livable area n/a 7,612 sf Commercial floor area 1:1 (6,927 sf) 0.52:1 (3,574 sf) Commercial net leasable area n/a 3,351 sf Lodge: The applicant proposes 44 lodge units with an average room size of 173 square feet. The majority of the units are rooms with a single bed (36 singles). There are 4 rooms with 2 twin beds each and 4 dormitory style rooms with 4 beds each. Commercial: The applicant proposes 2 commercial spaces on the ground floor to house retail and restaurant uses. P33 VI.A. 730 E. Cooper Street – Base 1 Staff Memo 1/6/15 Page 6 of 11 Parking: The property currently includes 6 parking spaces. Based on the existing development of 3,751 sf of commercial space and 3 lodge units, the code required parking is 5.2 spaces 1. There is no existing deficit of parking. The project is required to provide 25.6 parking spaces 2. The applicant proposes to provide offsite parking spaces and 0 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. 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 2. • Either partner with Wecycle or provide bicycles for guests. 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 (1.97 FTEs or 0.9 FTEs, respectively). The applicant requests a waiver of affordable housing requirement. The project provides lodging with room sizes that are about 173 square feet and some ground floor commercial space. The proposed commercial space is less than the existing space, so there is no mitigation required for the commercial component. The applicant requests an employee generation review pursuant the Land Use Code to apply the Lodge Preservation employee generation rate of 0.3 FTEs/ bedroom rather than a rate of 0.6 FTEs/ bedroom that is applied in the lodge Zone Districts (L, CL, SKI, etc). The lodges in the lodge zone districts are located at the base of the mountain: Sky Hotel, Little Nell, St. Regis, and the Grand Hyatt to name a few. The high level of services provided by the hotels is reflected in the generation rate. Hotels with a Lodge Preservation Overlay are smaller lodges that are located along Main Street and in the residential neighborhoods. The Lodge Preservation zone district has a much lower employee mitigation rate of 0.3 FTE/bedroom. 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. 1 1.5 spaces for the lodge (.5 spaces per lodge unit are required) and 3.7 spaces for the commercial uses (1 space per 1,000 sf of commercial net leasable space). = 5.2 spaces required. 2 22 spaces for the lodge (.5 spaces per lodge unit are required) and 3.5 spaces for the commercial use (1 space per 1,000 sf of commercial net leasable space) = 25.5 spaces required. P34 VI.A. 730 E. Cooper Street – Base 1 Staff Memo 1/6/15 Page 7 of 11 Impact Fee Waivers: 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 net leasable area. The existing commercial size decreases in the proposal, so there are no fees associated with the commercial component. The requested impact fees are as follows: Parks Development Fee : Lodge - (8, 794.7 sf proposed - 2,238 sf existing = 6,556.7 sf new) 6,556.7 * $5.45 = $35,734.02 Commercial – (3,351 sf proposed – 3,751 sf existing = no increase) TDM/Air Quality Fee : Lodge – 6,556.7 * $0.61 = $3,999.59 Commercial – no increase STAFF FINDINGS : PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) – PROJECT REVIEW (E XHIBIT 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. Context and Design : The applicant proposes a three story building with a roof deck. The proposed architecture uses exposed steel and glass with concrete accents to reference Aspen’s mining past. In terms of the design objectives for this area of Aspen, Staff finds that the project is successfully addressing the transition between the Commercial Core and residential neighborhoods, is designed at a pedestrian scale, activates the streetscape, and provides beneficial outdoor areas. Three quarters of the Cooper Avenue blockface where Base 1 Lodge is proposed to be constructed is occupied by the Bell Mountain Condominiums. These condominiums replaced a circa 1950s lodge. While the condominiums have a front setback of about 25', the sideyards are only approximately 5'. The complex includes two primary building modules which are each 64’ wide; identical to the proposed width of Base 1. The highest ridgelines of the complex are approximately 31’. P35 VI.A. 730 E. Cooper Street – Base 1 Staff Memo 1/6/15 Page 8 of 11 To the rear of Base 1 is the Benedict Commons affordable housing development. Front and side setbacks on this property range from 6-10’. The tallest ridgeline faces Hyman Avenue, and is 36’ above grade. The Original Street façade is 82’ in length, whereas Base 1 is proposed to be 100’ in length on the Original Street façade. Continuing down this streetfrontage is the former Aspen Athetic club, which has a size and bulk similar to Base 1 and is up to 35’ tall. Image 6: Bell Mountain Condominiums Photo 7: Benedict Commons P36 VI.A. 730 E. Cooper Street – Base 1 Staff Memo 1/6/15 Page 9 of 11 To the east of the project site is a mix of former small lodges converted to condominiums, many of which are vacation rental properties. 802 E. Cooper, directly adjacent to the project site, is a recently remodeled multi-family structure with an overall height of 32’. Staff finds that Base 1 Lodge, with a proposed height of 37’6” to the primary parapet, is consistent with surrounding development. While some nearby properties have a street-facing Photo 8: Aspen Athletic Club Photo 9: 802 East Cooper Street P37 VI.A. 730 E. Cooper Street – Base 1 Staff Memo 1/6/15 Page 10 of 11 yard or greenspace, this is not a dominant characteristic of the neighborhood. Numerous adjacent sites have tall fences, street facing parking areas, garden level units, windowless facades, or other conditions that affect the relationship of the building to street. Base 1 Lodge overcomes many of these issues, which are present in the Buckhorn Lodge building that is being replaced. Variations: Through the PD process the applicant requests to vary the parking requirement and the maximum height for the bathrooms on the roof. The majority of the project meets the underlying zone district. The bathrooms are more than 20 ft. setback from the building edge on all street facing facades and the alley. The subject lot is just under 7,000 sf in size, which is too small to support a parking garage (considering ramp requirements) and surface parking would only amount to a few spaces (considering trash/utility requirements). Staff is supportive of the requested height variation for the bathrooms and the parking requirement with the condition that parking be provided in the Rio Grande parking garage with valet service or some similar parking situation. The size of the trash/utility area is included as a condition of approval for Detailed Review. The Planning and Zoning Commission and ultimately City Council are asked to weigh the importance of small lodge rooms and a lodge project that does not contain any free market residential use against the request for affordable housing and parking waivers, a slight height increase for bathrooms, and a waiver of impact fees. A policy of the Aspen Area Community Plan is to: “replenish the declining lodging base with an emphasis on a balanced inventory and diverse price-points.” One of City Council’s Top Ten Goals is to “Implement an incentive program for the short-term bed base.” This goal came about partly because of the recognition that Aspen has lost a significant amount of our bed base since the 1990s. Between 1995 and 2006, the city lost 27% of the bed base – including both traditional hotels as well as condominium rentals. COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW (E XHIBIT B) Staff finds that the intent of the Conceptual Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines are met with conditions. Staff has included the following as conditions of approval for Detailed Review: • A public access easement is provided for the rooftop public amenity space. • Trash/utility area is approved by Environmental Health and the Utility Department. • Vestibules are added to the commercial spaces. GROWTH MANAGEMENT (E XHIBIT C) See discussion on previous page. City Council is asked to conduct Growth Management as part of the consolidated review. 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. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission support a recommendation of approval to City Council for the proposed project with conditions listed in the draft resolution. P38 VI.A. 730 E. Cooper Street – Base 1 Staff Memo 1/6/15 Page 11 of 11 PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution # ___, Series of 2014 recommending Planned Development- Project Review, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, 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 – Development Review Committee Comments Exhibit E – Application P39 VI.A. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. __, Series 2014 Page 1 of 9 RESOLUTION NO. __ (SERIES OF 2014) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL GRANT CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT – PROJECT REVIEW APPROVAL, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPROVALS, FOR A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR BASE 1 LODGE LOCATED ON PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 730 E COOPER STREET, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-182-27-004 AND 2737-182-27-904 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application for the Base 1 Lodge (the Application) from 730 E. Cooper 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; 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: 44 lodge units and 44 bedrooms in 7,612 square feet of net livable area. 3,351 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, 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 P40 VI.A. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. __, Series 2014 Page 2 of 9 after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning 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 Planning and Zoning 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 Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on December 2, 2014, continued from November 18, 2014, during which the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were requested and heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 6, 2015,continued from December 16, 2014, continued from December 2, 2014, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution __, Series of 2014, by a __________ vote recommending City Council approve the Base 1 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: Recommendation Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council grant – Project Review approval, Growth Management approvals, and Conceptual Commercial Design approval, for a Site Specific Development Plan for Base 1 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 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 3.1 Reconstruction Credits . Based on the existing development at 730 E. Cooper St. (aka Buckhorn Lodge), the Applicant is entitled to the following reconstruction credits, pursuant to Land Use Chapter 26.470 P41 VI.A. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. __, Series 2014 Page 3 of 9 a. A total of 4 lodging bedrooms, 8 lodge pillows, are credited toward the Project’s lodge GMQS allotment request. b. A commercial reconstruction credit of 3,751 square feet of net leasable area is credited toward the Project’s 3,351 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 1 Lodge: a. 40 lodging bedrooms = 80 lodging pillows. Added to the reconstruction credits, the project represents 44 lodging bedrooms or 88 pillows. Section 4: Affordable Housing The Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone District employee generation rate of 0.3 FTEs per bedroom is established for Base 1 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. 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. 2. Planned Development Project and Detail Review Plans. 3. Public Infrastructure Plan. 4. Final Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA), including a monitoring plan. P42 VI.A. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. __, Series 2014 Page 4 of 9 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 : The corner of Cooper Ave and Original St could be a potential location for a pedestrian bulb out. This option should be considered given the long crossing distances and level of pedestrian traffic in this area. All sidewalk curb and gutter shall meet the Engineering Standards of City of Aspen Municipal Code Title 21. Sidewalks within the Right of Way may not be altered to accommodate hotel entrances. Directional ADA ramps are required on the corner of Cooper Ave. and Original St. 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. 7.6 Survey Requirement : Pothole and provide depth to utilities on the survey as part of building permit submittal. P43 VI.A. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. __, Series 2014 Page 5 of 9 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 for the cottonwood tree in front of the property is required prior to Detailed Review application submittal. Tree removal permits for the remaining trees may 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. The applicant shall explore potential sites around the property to allow full maturation of trees. This shall be included as part of the PD Detail Review. 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 Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. 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. P44 VI.A. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. __, Series 2014 Page 6 of 9 Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line). A “Line 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. 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 P45 VI.A. Planning and Zoning 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 shall be signed loading zones with approval from the Parking Department. 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. 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: 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. Section 18: 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 19: P46 VI.A. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. __, Series 2014 Page 8 of 9 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 January, 2015. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: __________________________ ______________________________ James R True, City Attorney LJ Erspamer, Chair Attest: _______________________________ Cindy Klob, Records Manager Attachments: Exhibit A: Approved Dimensional Requirements P47 VI.A. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. __, Series 2014 Page 9 of 9 Exhibit A – Approved Dimensional Requirements Approved Dimensions front yard (Cooper St.) 0’ side yard (Original St.) 0’ side yard (west) 5’ rear (alley) 0’ maximum height 37’6” top of third floor parapet 43’ top of bathrooms 43’ top of stairs and 48’6” top of elevator public amenity 65% or 4,503 sf mostly on the rooftop minimum off-street parking spaces 0 cumulative floor area 2.46:1(17,032 sf) lodge floor area 1.58:1 (10,930 sf) average lodge unit size about 173 lodge net livable area 7,612 sf Commercial floor area 0.52:1 (3,574 sf) Commercial net leasable area 3,351 sf Number of lodge units 44 P48 VI.A. Exhibit A – PD, Project Review 730 E. Cooper Street, Base 1 12/2/14 Page 1 of 7 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 P49 VI.A. Exhibit A – PD, Project Review 730 E. Cooper Street, Base 1 12/2/14 Page 2 of 7 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: 730 East Cooper Street is already developed with a two story above grade building and subgrade level. 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 mixed use building with a large parking 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: A large cottonwood is located in the right of way along Cooper Street. The Parks Department has indicated that the tree may not be granted a removal permit. A tree removal permit has been submitted and is being process by the Parks Department. Staff finds this criterion is met with the condition that the tree issue is resolved by the Parks Department or City Council. 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 Cooper Street and Original Street. The parcel is accessible by an alley. Staff finds this criterion is met. D. Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, mass, and height shall be established during the Project Review. The proposed dimensions are below: P50 VI.A. Exhibit A – PD, Project Review 730 E. Cooper Street, Base 1 12/2/14 Page 3 of 7 Table 1: Proposed Dimensions ( Blue indicates variation request) Requirement in CL Proposed front yard (Cooper St.) 0’ 0’ side yard (Original St.) 0’ 0’ side yard (west) 0’ 5’ rear (alley) 0’ 0’ maximum height 36’- 40' through Commercial Design Review 39’ allowed for bathrooms 50’ allowed for stair and elevator 37’6” top of third floor parapet 43’ top of bathrooms 43’ top of stairs and 48’6” top of elevator public amenity 21% or 1,465 sf 65% or 4,503 sf mostly on the rooftop *subject to approval as an alternative method trash access area 20’w x15’d x 10’ h 7’8”w x 18’3” d x 10’h *subject to approval by Environmental Health minimum off-street parking spaces 25.6 0 cumulative floor area 2.5:1 (17,317.5 sf) 2.46:1(17,032 sf) lodge floor area 2:1 (13,854 sf) 1.58:1 (10,930 sf) average lodge unit size n/a about 173 lodge net livable area n/a 7,612 sf Commercial floor area 1:1 (6,927 sf) 0.52:1 (3,574 sf) Commercial net leasable area n/a 3,351 sf 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 173 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. P51 VI.A. Exhibit A – PD, Project Review 730 E. Cooper Street, Base 1 12/2/14 Page 4 of 7 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 a height variation for bathrooms on the roof and a waiver of the parking requirement. The neighborhood is a mix of uses – City Market is located directly across Cooper Street. Multifamily residential townhomes are located to the west and across Original Street is a mix of residential uses. Moving toward the east (independence pass) the neighborhood become mostly residential and moving toward the west (gondola) the neighborhood is commercial and mixed use. An affordable housing complex is located across the alley. A block away is the Art Museum and the Aspen Athletic Club – both large boxy buildings. The neighborhood context is varied which supports a range of building styles, development patterns and dimensions on the property. Furthermore, there are a mix of zone districts in the immediate vicinity that have different dimensional requirements and permitted uses. A zone district map is below. Figure 1: Zone District Map. Star indicated subject parcel which is zoned Commercial Lodge (CL). P52 VI.A. Exhibit A – PD, Project Review 730 E. Cooper Street, Base 1 12/2/14 Page 5 of 7 The project complies with the maximum height limits allowed in the CL Zone District with the exception of the rooftop bathrooms, which are about 4 ft. over the allowable height. The bathrooms are centrally located and have setbacks of at least 20 ft. on the two street facing facades and the alley. Staff is supportive of the height increase for the bathrooms considering the generous setbacks and the value of the proposed publically accessible rooftop deck. 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 property currently provides 6 parking spaces. Based on the existing development of 3,751 sf of commercial space and 3 lodge units, the code required parking is 5.2 spaces 1. There is no existing deficit of parking. The project is required to provide 25.6 parking spaces 2. The applicant proposes 0 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. Other alternative methods such as: • 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. • Either partner with Wecycle or provide bicycles for guests. The project is centrally located near the downtown core of Aspen with many nearby amenities, such as a grocery store, directly across the street. A RFTA bus stop is located about a block away. Staff finds that this criterion is met with the condition that the Rio Grande parking garage, or a similar situation, provides off-site parking spaces for the development. 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 1.5 spaces for the lodge (.5 spaces per lodge unit are required) and 3.7 spaces for the commercial uses (1 space per 1,000 sf of commercial net leasable space). = 5.2 spaces required. 2 22 spaces for the lodge (.5 spaces per lodge unit are required) and 3.5 spaces for the commercial use (1 space per 1,000 sf of commercial net leasable space) = 25.5 spaces required. P53 VI.A. Exhibit A – PD, Project Review 730 E. Cooper Street, Base 1 12/2/14 Page 6 of 7 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 criterion is met with conditions. 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 – exposed steel, glass and concrete 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 be removed and replaced with parallel parking and a detached sidewalk. 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 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 as part of 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. P54 VI.A. Exhibit A – PD, Project Review 730 E. Cooper Street, Base 1 12/2/14 Page 7 of 7 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 lot 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. 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. P55 VI.A. Exhibit B- Commercial Design Standards 730 E. Cooper St. – Base 1 Page 1 of 10 Exhibit B - Commercial Design Standards 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 Commercial Design Standards assigns the Central Mixed Use (CMU) Character Area to this parcel. P56 VI.A. Exhibit B- Commercial Design Standards 730 E. Cooper St. – Base 1 Page 2 of 10 Figure 1: Zone District Map. Star indicates subject parcel. Box indicates character area for the purposes of Commercial Design Review. The existing character of the CMU area is described as mostly multifamily residential with shallow setbacks. The main objectives for this area are described as: 1. Reflect a transition in character between the Commercial Core and the outlying residential neighborhoods. 2. Maintain a sense of front yards with landscaping. 3. Provide a sense of human scale. 4. Maintain a visually interesting street edge. 5. Encourage outdoors use areas. 6. Minimize visual impacts of parking. The character area is directed toward the parcels that are zoned Mixed Use, as shown above in the zone district map. The guidelines, such as front yards, do not correspond to the Commercial Lodge Zoning of the subject parcel which has no setback requirement. As stated in the review criterion C below, the City may determine that the intent of the guideline is met through alternative methods. P57 VI.A. Exhibit B- Commercial Design Standards 730 E. Cooper St. – Base 1 Page 3 of 10 The applicant proposes a three story building with a roof deck. The proposed architecture uses exposed steel and glass with concrete accents to reference Aspen’s mining past. In terms of the design objectives for this area of Aspen, staff finds that the project is successfully addressing the transition between the Commercial Core and residential neighborhoods, is designed at a pedestrian scale, activates the streetscape, and provides beneficial outdoor areas. Three quarters of the Cooper Avenue blockface where Base 1 Lodge is proposed to be constructed is occupied by the Bell Mountain Condominiums. These condominiums replaced a circa 1950s lodge. While the condominiums have a front setback of about 25', the sideyards are only approximately 5'. The complex includes two primary building modules which are each 64’ wide; identical to the proposed width of Base 1. The highest ridgelines of the complex are approximately 31’. Staff finds that Base 1 is appropriately sized relative to Bell Mountain Condominiums, shown below. To the rear of Base 1 is the Benedict Commons affordable housing development. Front and side setbacks on this property range from 6-10’. The tallest ridgeline faces Hyman Avenue, and is 36’ above grade. The Original Street façade is 82’ in length, whereas Base 1 is proposed to be 100’ in length on the Original Street façade. Continuing Figure 2: Bell Mountain Condominiums Figure 3: Benedict Commons P58 VI.A. Exhibit B- Commercial Design Standards 730 E. Cooper St. – Base 1 Page 4 of 10 down this streetfrontage is the former Aspen Athetic club, which has a size and bulk similar to Base 1 and is up to 35’ tall. To the east of the project site is a mix of former small lodges converted to condominiums, many of which are vacation rental properties. 802 E. Cooper, directly adjacent to the project site, is a recently remodeled multi-family structure with an overall height of 32’. Figure 4: Aspen Athletic Club Figure 5: 802 East Cooper Street P59 VI.A. Exhibit B- Commercial Design Standards 730 E. Cooper St. – Base 1 Page 5 of 10 Staff finds that Base 1 Lodge, with a proposed height of 37’6” to the primary parapet, is consistent with surrounding development. While some nearby properties have a street-facing yard or greenspace, this is not a dominant characteristic of the neighborhood. Numerous adjacent sites have tall fences, street facing parking areas, garden level units, windowless facades, or other conditions that affect the relationship of the building to street. Base 1 Lodge overcomes many of these issues, which are present in the Buckhorn Lodge building that is being replaced. The design guidelines relevant to this proposal are: 2.1 Development on a site of two or more traditional lot width may accommodate additional public walkways and through courts. These should: • Respect the setting of and avoid conflict with an adjacent historic building. • Design the frontage of any walkway or through court with similar attention to articulation, detail and material accorded the primary street facades. 2.2 Public walkways and through courts shall be designed to facilitate access to uses within the link and/or to the rear of the site. • Locate walkways at the sidewalk level. • Locate retail frontage along walkways. • Use architectural detailing to enhance the pedestrian experience. • Design lighting, signage and landscapes to create human scale and to enhance the pedestrian experience. A walkway is proposed along the west property line that accesses an interior courtyard from the sidewalk level. Staff finds that Guidelines 2.1 and 2.2 are met. Parking areas are addressed in Guidelines 2.3 and 2.4, which is not relevant to the proposed project. The next set of Guidelines 2.5 – 2.10 address public amenity space, which is discussed below – the applicant requests an alternative method as mitigation. Guidelines 2.11 – 2.12 address setbacks, however there are no setback requirements for the CL zone district. The building is oriented perpendicular to the street frontage as described in Guideline 2.13. The applicant requests a height increase from 36’ to 37’6” through Commercial Design Review. The maximum height achievable through Commercial Design Review is 40’. The review criteria are listed in 2.14 below. The intent of the guideline is to possibly allow additional height if there is a physical constraint on the property or a community benefit. The Commission and City Council need to decide if the proposed building supports the community by providing diverse lodge room sizes. Staff is supportive of the proposal and recommends approval of the 1.5’ height increase. 2.14 A new building or addition should reflect the existing range of two or three stories. • Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height on the subject property. • Step back upper levels to reduce the perceived scale at the street edge. P60 VI.A. Exhibit B- Commercial Design Standards 730 E. Cooper St. – Base 1 Page 6 of 10 • Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the following reasons: o In order to achieve at least a two foot variation in height with an adjacent building. o The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum, Civic Building, 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 contribution to the building’s overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved daylighting. The 62.5’ width of the proposed building along its primary façade (Cooper St.) meets Guideline 2.15. The proposed grid pattern on the façade visually breaks up the building to meet the intent of guideline 2.16. Physical breaks in the building plane are not proposed. 2.15 The width of a building should convey a human scale. • A new building should step down in height next to a single story historic buildings • Maximum building width should be limited to three traditional lot widths (90ft.) 2.16 Subdivide the mass into smaller “modules” that convey a human scale. • Multiple modules can be connected to create a larger building. Staff is supportive of the project and recommends approval of conceptual commercial design review. 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. P61 VI.A. Exhibit B- Commercial Design Standards 730 E. Cooper St. – Base 1 Page 7 of 10 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 a walkway located along the western edge of the building. Section 26.575.030 allows alternative methods of public amenity as described below: “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 – 1,465 sf is required and 4,503 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 and 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: Street trees are proposed. The standard does not apply because the applicant proposes rooftop public amenity to satisfy the alternative method requirement. P62 VI.A. Exhibit B- Commercial Design Standards 730 E. Cooper St. – Base 1 Page 8 of 10 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 – 1,465 sf is required and 4,503 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 and 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 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 retail space and is accessed off of the alley. 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 15’x 10’h. Approval by the Environmental Health Department is a condition of Detailed Review. 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. P63 VI.A. Exhibit B- Commercial Design Standards 730 E. Cooper St. – Base 1 Page 9 of 10 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. Staff Finding: A 0’ setback is proposed. 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 P64 VI.A. Exhibit B- Commercial Design Standards 730 E. Cooper St. – Base 1 Page 10 of 10 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. 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 center/west side 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. P65 VI.A. Exhibit C Base 1 – 730 E. Cooper Ave. Growth Management Page 1 of 7 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 80 new lodge pillows (44 new lodge bedrooms – 4 existing lodge bedrooms = 40 new lodge units). 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 uses along Durant 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. P66 VI.A. Exhibit C Base 1 – 730 E. Cooper Ave. Growth Management Page 2 of 7 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 P67 VI.A. Exhibit C Base 1 – 730 E. Cooper Ave. Growth Management Page 3 of 7 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. P68 VI.A. Exhibit C Base 1 – 730 E. Cooper Ave. Growth Management Page 4 of 7 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% P69 VI.A. Exhibit C Base 1 – 730 E. Cooper Ave. Growth Management Page 5 of 7 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 decrease the existing commercial net leasable area, which results in a credit of FTEs (full time equivalents). There is a credit of 4 lodge bedrooms existing on the property, so the project proposes to add 40 lodge bedrooms. Following is the calculation for affordable housing mitigation: Existing: Commercial – (3,751 sf commercial nla * 4.7 FTEs/1,000 sf nla)= 17.63 FTEs Lodge – (4 bedrooms * 0.6 FTEs) = 2.4 FTEs Total credit – 20.03 FTEs Proposed: Commercial – (3,351 sf commercial nla * 4.7 FTEs/1,000 sf nla) = 15.75 FTEs Lodge - 40 new lodge bedrooms = (40 * 0.6 FTEs/bdrm) = 24 FTEs Total proposed – 39.75 FTEs Total FTEs generated: 39.75 – 20.03 = 19.72 FTEs According to the table above, mitigation is required at 10% based on the average lodge unit size. The mitigation requirement is 1.97 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 review criteria is requested: Applicants may request an employee generation review with the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.470.110, Growth Management review procedures, and according to the following criteria. All essential public facilities shall be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission to determine employee generation. In establishing employee generation, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the following: 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, P70 VI.A. Exhibit C Base 1 – 730 E. Cooper Ave. Growth Management Page 6 of 7 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. 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 zone district 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. The high level of services provided by the hotels is reflected in the generation rate. Hotels with a Lodge Preservation 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 Commercial Lodge/PD zoning. Existing: Commercial – (3,751 sf commercial nla * 4.7 FTEs/1,000 sf nla)= 17.6 FTEs Lodge – (4 bedrooms * 0.3 FTEs) = 1.2 FTEs Total credit – 18.8 FTEs Proposed: Commercial – (3,351 sf commercial nla * 4.7 FTEs/1,000 sf nla) = 15.75 FTEs Lodge - 40 new lodge bedrooms = (40 * 0.3 FTEs/bdrm) = 12 FTEs Total proposed – 27.75 FTEs Total FTEs generated: 27.75 – 18.8 = 8.95 FTEs The calculation using the 0.3 FTE/bedroom generation rate and the 10% mitigation requirement in accordance with the Land Use Code equals 0.9 FTE. In either the 0.6 or 0.3 generation rate scenario, the affordable housing requirement is minimal (1.97 FTEs is a one bedroom affordable housing unit and 0.22 FTEs of housing credits. A 0.9 FTE mitigation requirement is less than a full FTE and can be a housing credit). P71 VI.A. Exhibit C Base 1 – 730 E. Cooper Ave. Growth Management Page 7 of 7 The applicant requests a waiver of the affordable housing requirement. The project provides affordable lodging with room sizes that are about 173 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. P72 VI.A. 1 DRC- Comments for BASE 1 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) Please 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) 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. c) Demonstrate the pedestrian directness factor is between 1 and 1.2. 2) Pedestrian Improvements: a) Address the connection between the alley and west pedestrian path. How will this western path be utilized and does there need to be accommodation for pedestrians in the alley? Depending on the use of the walkway the project may need improvements within the alley to make it ADA compliant. b) The corner of Cooper Ave and Original St could be a potential location for a pedestrian bulb out. This option should be considered given the long crossing distances and level of pedestrian traffic in this area. c) The building overhang into the ROW must have a minimum height of 7’. Include information on how the overhang is supported. 3) 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. 4) Snow Storage: a) 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? 5) 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 the entire property will need to be replaced. b) Detectable domes are not required where pedestrian walkways cross an alley. c) Provide details of building entrances to accommodate ADA standards. Sidewalks within the ROW may not be altered to accommodate hotel entrances. P73 VI.A. 2 d) A commercial building requires an 8’ sidewalk and 5’ buffer between the sidewalk and street. This standard is not met on the proposed plan. e) Directional ADA ramps are required on the corner of Cooper Ave and Original St. 6) Alley: a) Alley entrance shall meet COA Standards with a concrete apron. 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. 7) Parking a) 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. 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 Our comments for Base 1 are that this project fits under the category of a lodge with a restaurant and fewer than 60 rooms which means it will need 200 square feet of trash space that fits the following section on the municipal code Sec. 12.10.040. Space required for trash and recycling storage for Lodges , specifically paragraph c which states- c. Lodges with sixty (60) or fewer guest rooms must provide a minimum of twenty (20) linear feet adjacent to the alleyway for trash and recycling storage. The required area shall have a minimum vertical clearance of ten (10) feet and a minimum depth of ten (10) 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. P74 VI.A. 3 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. 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. P75 VI.A. 4 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. Parks Department Ben Carlsen, 970.429.2034, ben.carlsen@cityofaspen.com I would like for the contractors to plan on preservation of the cottonwood tree in the right of way in front of Johnny McGuire’s. I apologize for not being clear on that in the beginning. However, after taking a closer look at that tree, I would like to discuss a plan for its preservation. It will take some planning and management, however, I think that there are real benefits to maintaining that canopy on site. The spruce tree in front will likely be full mitigation, but may be removed. 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. Shared shuttle service (as defined in the guidelines) indicates an employee shuttle. Within the application materials it seems that the applicant is planning a hotel shuttle but there is no indication of an employee shuttle. Please address in the narrative so that applicability can be determined. c. 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)? P76 VI.A. 5 d. 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 These plans seem pretty conceptual with very little engineering components (Utilities at least) contemplated. The Developer has been in talks with The City Electric Department For Base 1. If three phase power is requested there may need to be some substantial electrical distribution system upgrades required as there is not currently a 3 phase circuit in the vicinity, these upgrade costs shall be borne solely by the developer. The site has also not contemplated a Transformer on site which would be a requirement. The transformer area should be a minimum of 10x10 clear to sky. Continued discussions with City electric including submittal of all load calculation forms is required. City water system has capacity in the vicinity of the development. All 2014 (or newest adopted at time of building permit) Water Distribution System Standards will apply. 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. 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, dinning 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. P77 VI.A. 6 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Cindy Christensen, 970.920.5455, cindy.christensen@cityofaspen.com 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 730 East Cooper with the requirement that the applicant must provide on-site mitigation for 2.22 FTE’s. Should the applicant be unable to provide on-site housing, the preferred method for the mitigation requirement of 2.22 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 2.22 FTE’s are mitigated at no higher than Category 2. The land use code states that the additional employee generation mitigation of 2.22 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. P78 VI.A. UPUP UP ME C H A N I C A L L1 1 0 ST A I R # 2 L1 0 4 ST A I R # 1 L1 0 5 BA C K O F H O U S E L1 0 7 8 6 ' - 6 " 1 0 ' - 6 " 7 1 ' - 0 " 1 6 ' - 0 " 11 ' - 6 " 3' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 6 " BO W L I N G A L L E Y L1 0 0 BO W L I N G SE R V I C E A R E A L1 0 8 LO U N G E L1 0 1 WO M E N ' S L1 1 2 ME N ' S L1 1 1 CO R R I D O R L1 0 6 LO B B Y L1 0 9 2 ' - 5 " EL E V A T O R L1 0 2 EL E V A T O R L1 0 3 6 ' - 6 " 5' - 9 " 4' - 1 0 " 5 ' - 7 " 1 0 0 ' - 0 " 63 ' - 8 " ST A I R # 1 10 9 EL E V A T O R 11 0 EL E V A T O R 10 3 ST A I R # 2 10 4 RE C E P T I O N 107 BU I L D I N G OV E R H A N G AB O V E SK I S T O R A G E 10 6 EXIT PA S S A G E W A Y 105 CO O P E R S T R E E T ORIGINAL STREET AL L E Y TR A S H & UT I L I T Y A R E A FI R E PI T RE S T A U R A N T / B A R RE T A I L 31 ' - 1 " 8 0 ' - 0 " 1 8 ' - 1 1 " 62 ' - 5 " RE T A I L A 10 1RE T A I L B 10 2 LO B B Y 10 0 OFFICE 108 CO U R T Y A R D 11 1 TR A S H A R E A 11 2 11 ' - 4 " 2 0 ' - 1 0 " 31 ' - 1 " PI C K - U P WI N D O W DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 11/11/14 TTRA11-11-14 1ISSUE FOR CITY SUBMISSION A-111PRELIMINARY FLOOR PLANS__730 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 LO W E R L E V E L F L O O R P L A N 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 MA I N F L O O R P L A N REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P79 VI.A. DNDN FD FD 20 ' - 5 " 6" 9' - 8 " 6" 9' - 8 " 6" 9' - 8 " 6" 10 ' - 0 " 6 " 1 6 ' - 9 " 6 " 9 ' - 3 " 6 " 9 ' - 3 " 6 " 1 7 ' - 5 " 6 " 2 0 ' - 1 1 " 4 ' - 1 1 " TO T A L : 3 6 B E D S P E R F L O O R TO T A L : 2 2 U N I T S P E R F L O O R AD A D O R M UN I T ST A I R # 1 20 1 ST A I R # 2 20 4 CO U R T Y A R D BE L O W 2 1 ' - 1 " EL E V A T O R 20 3 EL E V A T O R 20 2 1 5 ' - 1 1 " 7' - 9 " 1 9 ' - 7 " 20 ' - 0 " 1 6 ' - 5 " 7' - 9 " 4' - 2 " 4' - 2 " 8" 10 ' - 9 " 6" 9' - 4 " ø 5 ' - 0 " 3' - 1 0 " 4' - 2 " 3 ' - 8 " 1 ' - 6 " 3 ' - 8 " 3 ' - 8 " TY P . D O R M UN I T 2' - 8 " 2 ' - 8 " 2 ' - 8 " 2 ' - 8 " 2 ' - 8 " 2' - 8 " 6' - 5 " 5 ' - 2 " AD A GU E S T RO O M ø 5' - 0" 3' - 8 " 2 ' - 8 " 3' - 9 " 3' - 1 0 " 2 ' - 8 " 3' - 1 0 " 2 ' - 8 " ø 5 ' - 0 " 4 ' - 5 " Ro o m 3 20 7 LO B B Y / C O R R I D O R 20 0 Ro o m 4 20 8 Ro o m 5 20 9 Ro o m 6 21 0 Ro o m 7 21 1 Ro o m 9 21 3 Ro o m 1 0 21 4 Ro o m 1 1 21 5 Ro o m 1 2 21 6 Ro o m 1 3 21 7 Ro o m 1 4 21 8 Ro o m 1 5 21 9 Ro o m 1 6 22 0 Ro o m 1 7 22 1 Ro o m 1 8 22 2 Ro o m 1 9 22 3 Ro o m 2 0 22 4 Ro o m 2 1 22 5 4' - 2 " Ro o m 8 21 2 2 ' - 8 " 8 ' - 9 " 6 " 6 ' - 1 1 " 6 " 1 0 ' - 6 " 6 " 6 ' - 6 " 4' - 1 " 12 ' - 1 " 6" 9' - 4 " 6" 9' - 3 " 6" 9' - 2 " 6" 9' - 7 " 6" 9' - 7 " 3 ' - 8 " 8" 10 ' - 9 " 6" 9' - 4 " 1 1 ' - 4 " 6 " 1 0 ' - 4 " 6 " 1 0 ' - 1 0 " Ro o m 1 20 5 5' - 3 " 2 ' - 8 " 2 ' - 8 " 1' - 7 " 5 ' - 2 " 5' - 6 " 2 ' - 8 " 5' - 0 " ø 5 ' - 0 " Ro o m 2 20 6 4' - 0 " B U N K B E D ST O R A G E HO O K S 3' - 8 " ST O R A G E HO O K S B U N K B E D B U N K B E D B U N K B E D B U N K B E D B U N K B E D 6' - 6 " S T O R A G E H O O K S S T O R A G E H O O K S Ro o m 2 2 22 6 5' - 3 " 5' - 3 " 5' - 0 " B U N K B E D B U N K B E D 4' - 6 " B U N K B E D B U N K B E D CO U R T Y A R D BE L O W 20 ' - 0 " EL E V A T O R 30 1 EL E V A T O R 30 2 ST A I R S # 2 30 3 ST A I R S # 1 30 4 ADA DORM UNIT ø 5 ' - 0 " ø 5 ' - 0 " AD A GU E S T RO O M ø 5 ' - 0 " 8" 10 ' - 9 " 6" 9' - 4 " 8" 10 ' - 9 " 6" 9' - 4 " 3' - 1 0 " 4 ' - 1 1 " 3' - 8 " 4' - 2 " 4' - 2 " 4' - 2 " 4' - 0" 5 ' - 2 " 6' - 5 " 4' - 2 " 3 ' - 8 " 3 ' - 8 " 4 ' - 0 " ø 5' - 0" 4' - 1 " 3' - 8 " 3' - 9 " 3' - 1 0 " 5' - 0 " 5' - 3 " 3' - 1 0 " 4 ' - 5 " 12 ' - 1 " 6" 9' - 4 " 6" 9' - 3 " 6" 9' - 2 " 6" 9' - 6 " 6"9' - 7" 8 ' - 9 " 6 " 6 ' - 1 1 " 6 " 1 0 ' - 6 " 6 " 1 0 ' - 1 0 " 1 1 ' - 1 0 " 1 0 ' - 1 0 " 1 0 ' - 1 0 " 6' - 6 " 2 ' - 8 " 2 ' - 8 " 2 ' - 8 " 2 ' - 8 " 2 ' - 8 " 2' - 8 " 2' - 8 " 2 ' - 8 " 2 ' - 8 " 2 ' - 8 " 2 ' - 8 " 8" 10 ' - 9 " 6" 9' - 2 " 6" 9' - 8 " 6" 9' - 8 " 6" 9' - 8 " 6"10' - 0"20' - 8"18' - 7"9' - 3"6"9' - 3"17' - 9"21' - 1" LO B B Y / C O R R I D O R 30 0 6 ' - 6 " Ro o m 2 3 30 5Ro o m 2 4 30 6 Ro o m 2 5 30 7 Ro o m 2 6 30 8 Ro o m 2 7 30 9 Ro o m 2 8 31 0 Ro o m 2 9 31 1 Ro o m 3 0 31 2 Room 31 313 TYP. DORM UNITRoom 32 314 Room 33 315 Room 34 316 Room 35 317 Room 36 318 Ro o m 3 7 31 9 Ro o m 3 8 32 0 Ro o m 3 9 32 1 Ro o m 4 0 32 2 Ro o m 4 1 32 3 Ro o m 4 2 32 4 Ro o m 4 3 32 5 Ro o m 4 4 32 6 BUNK BEDSTORAGEHOOKSSTORAGEHOOKSBUNK BED BUNK BED BUNK BED BUNK BED BUNK BED 4' - 0"3' - 8" S T O R A G E H O O K S S T O R A G E H O O K S B U N K B E D B U N K B E D B U N K B E D B U N K B E D DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 11/11/14 TTRA11-11-14 1ISSUE FOR CITY SUBMISSION A-112PRELIMINARY FLOOR PLANS__730 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 SE C O N D F L O O R P L A N REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 TH I R D F L O O R P80 VI.A. EL E V . # 1 40 3 LO B B Y 40 0 ST A I R # 1 40 2 EL E V . # 2 40 4 ST A I R # 2 40 5 OU T D O O R TE R R A C E OU T D O O R TE R R A C E CO U R T Y A R D BE L O W ME N ' S 40 1 OU T D O O R TE R R A C E 40 9 2 1 ' - 1 " 1 6 ' - 1 1 " 20 ' - 1 1 " 17 ' - 5 " 17 ' - 5 " 2 1 ' - 1 " 1 6 ' - 1 1 " 20 ' - 1 1 " ø 5' - 0 " ø 5 ' - 0 " 7' - 9 " ME C H A N I C A L SC R E E N I N G ME C H A N I C A L SC R E E N I N G ME C H . A R E A 40 8 WO M E N ' S 40 6 ME C H . A R E A 40 7 LO W E R TE R R A C E DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 11/11/14 TTRA11-11-14 1ISSUE FOR CITY SUBMISSION A-113PRELIMINARY FLOOR PLANS__730 E. COOPER ASPEN, COREVISIONSNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 RO O F T E R R A C E P L A N P81 VI.A. r EXHIBIT Cindy Mob From: Sara Adams Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 3:09 PM To: Cindy Klob; Mhunt@mdevco.com; mitch@hlpaspen.com; Debbie Quinn; Brian McNellis; Jasmine Tygre;Jason Elliott; Keith Goode; U Erspamer; 011ie Nieuwland-Zlotnicki; Ryan Waltersheid; Stan Gibbs (stan@kr7c.net) Subject: FW: Hunt Lodges Letter for tonight... From: Maria Morrow [mailto:maria@okglaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 2:11 PM Subject: FW: Hunt Lodges Here is a letter in support of the Hunt Lodges, which I think are scheduled to be before P&Z tonight. Would you please make sure it gets in the packet? Thanks! To the Planning and Zoning Commission — I am writing in support of the Hunt Lodge project. The community has been asking its leadership to foster the development of diverse lodging, especially affordable lodging. In the Aspen Area Community Plan, our community leaders described why this goal is so important to preserving our community and its values: "Without a diversity of lodging options, we limit the ability of future generations of visitors to experience the Aspen Area and its surrounding public lands. Many of today's longtime locals first experienced Aspen thanks to 'entry-level' lodging. The concept of providing equal access has been present in long range plans dating back to 1976." The Hunt Lodge project is a truly affordable lodging project, which is what the community has been demanding. The rooms are designed to be affordable—not just compared to other lodges in Aspen, but affordable to regular people. We should be excited about this opportunity to build a lodge that will, for many generations, bring regular people to Aspen. I am a regular person. When I travel, I seek out affordable product so that I can spend my money exploring all the destination has to offer. Rarely, if ever, does my search for an affordable hotel include the requirement that there be in-lodge parking. An affordable traveler who is looking for a $200 room does not want to pay $40 per day to park a car. That is especially true when the hotel is located within walking distance from most of the key attractions, and when there is a great public transportation system. In the last two years, I have travelled to Paris, Vietnam, Cambodia, Mexico, and Vegas. Not once did I look for in-hotel parking. If I was traveling to Aspen, I wouldn't either. ' You are all smart business people. As such, you understand that it costs money for a lodge operator to pay Aspen prices for land, pay Aspen prices to build, buy housing for several employees, pay our extraordinarily 1 high building and planning fees, and provide extensive on-site parking. If we do not provide relief from one of these components, we will continue to see the gentrification of our lodging and visitor base. That is exactly the opposite of what the community wants. We must face the fact that only the best-funded operators who will recover these costs from renting high-priced rooms can meet all of our development requirements because, as independent analysts have said, our development exactions "are the highest in North America." This is not about making a developer "pay its own way." It is about what kind of relief the community is willing to give to achieve its goal of creating affordable lodging and maintaining a diverse visitor base. I would very much like to see an affordable lodge in Aspen—especially a new one because a newly-built affordable lodge will be around for the next 40 or 50 years. We know that many of the existing affordable lodges are at the end of their useful life. We have lost some already, and we are going to lose more. To get an affordable lodge that will sustain this demographic in our visitor base, we need to provide some relief from our development.exactions. I think parking is an appropriate area in which to provide some sacrifices. If guests want to park their cars, they can drive a few blocks to the City parking lot and pay for parking themselves. When I go to Denver, I rarely pay the exorbitant prices for in-hotel parking. I drive a few blocks and park in the cheap lots. Don't you? ***Please note that 1 now have a direct dial number. Please call me on my direct line if possible, and update your contacts accordingly. *** Maria Morrow Oates, Knezevich,Gardenswartz, Kelly& Morrow, P.C. 533 E. Hopkins Avenue Third Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-1741 (Direct) (970)920-1700(General) (970)920-1121 (Telefax) This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is attorney work product, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under the applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address via email or the United States Postal Service. 2 Page 1 of 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: 212 Lake Avenue – Special Review Resolution No. , Series 2015 – Public Hearing MEETING DATE: January 6, 2014 APPLICANT /OWNER: Aspen River Rendezvous, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Bill Harriman, Harriman Construction and David Kelly, Oates, Knezevich, Gardenswartz, Kelly & Morrow, PC LOCATION: 212 Lake Avenue CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the Medium Density Residential (R-6) zone district and subject to the Hallam Lake Bluff review. Property is a designated historic landmark. PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting Special Review approval to replace a nonconforming structure. The building remodel has triggered demolition and Applicant proposes to replace the nonconforming building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request to replace the nonconforming structure. SUMMARY: The Applicant requests of Planning and Zoning Commission approval of Special Review to allow the replacement of a nonconforming structure. Vicinity map of the site 212 Lake Ave. P82 VI.B. Page 2 of 5 LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES : The Applicant has requested the following land use approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission: • Special Review – Replacement of nonconforming structures, for the replacement of a structure after demolition which does not conform with the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.430, Special Review. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority). PROJECT SUMMARY : 212 Lake Avenue is a designated historic landmark and subject to the Hallam Lake Bluff review. It is also nonconforming in a number of areas including parking (short 2 on-site spaces), side and combined setbacks, floor area, site coverage and the Hallam Lake Bluff setback and height requirements. With regard to Floor Area, a 1980s Council ordinance/plat permitted a Floor Area of .4:1 for either a single family residence or a duplex on the property. The maximum allowable Floor Area is 4,183 sq. ft but the existing conditions are in excess of the number by approximately 1,500 sq. ft. The Applicant, Aspen River Rendezvous, LLC, was granted approvals to remodel the existing duplex from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and subsequently issued a building permit. The HPC allowed the applicant to maintain the construction in the setbacks for the approved design as well as granted a parking variance of one space per unit. The Applicant was to reconstruct the roof in certain areas to simplify the building form and to become more compliant with the Hallam Lake Bluff requirements at the rear of the building (Figure 1 – next page). As a nonconforming structure, as long as demolition is not triggered, the nonconformities may be maintained. When demolition of a nonconforming structure occurs, a replacement structure may be constructed only if the new structure is in conformance with the requirement of the Land Use Code (unless Special Review is granted). The Land Use Code specifies, under the Definitions section, that demolition is “to raze, disassemble, tear down or destroy forty percent or more of an existing structure (prior to commencing development) as measured by the surface of all exterior wall and roof area above finished grade and associated assembly components necessary for the structural integrity for such wall and roof area” (emphasis added). The Land Use Code further notes that “it shall be the responsibility of the applicant to accurately understand the structural capabilities of the building prior to undertaking a remodel. Failure to properly understand the structural capacity of elements intended to remain may result in an involuntary collapse of those portions and a requirement to recalculate the extent of demolition. Landowner’s intent or unforeseen circumstances shall not affect the calculation of actual physical demolition . Additional requirements or restrictions of this Title may result upon demolition” (emphasis added). P83 VI.B. Page 3 of 5 Figure 1: Existing and Approved Site Plan In order to receive a building permit, the Applicant submitted a number of sheets within the plan set that included both a demolition diagram showing what assemblies were to be removed as part of the building permit and an accompanying calculation to verify that the removal would not exceed the forty percent threshold. Based upon the representations within the diagram and calculation, as well as compliance with other requirements, a building permit was issued. Prior to issuance of the building permit for the approved project, an Interior Finish and Fixture Removal (IFFR) permit was issued allowing for initial investigation of the integrity of the building. Mold was uncovered and the contractor hired a consultant to assess it in July 2014, Orange ovals indicate areas of roof form changes P84 VI.B. Page 4 of 5 prior to building permit issuance in October 2014. Applicant did not point out or raise the issue of mold to the city prior to the initiation of demolition. During demolition and reconstruction the Zoning Officer requested an on-site inspection and verification of the demolition calculations. At that point Harriman Construction noted that they had encountered mold within the building and a greater amount of demolition had occurred than what was identified in the building permit. Updated calculations were provided to the city and the current demolition calculation, submitted by the contractor, is that fifty-five percent of the building’s exterior wall, roof and assemblies have been removed, thus triggering demolition and the requirement to cure any nonconformities. Photos of the site are provided below. Figure 2: Demolition Photos Land Use Reviews: The following land use review, Special Review - Replacement of nonconforming structures, is being requested by the Applicant to maintain the nonconformities that existed prior to the project exceeding the demolition allowance. Staff Comment: The existing house is considered a nonconforming structure as it exceeds the allowable Floor Area permitted for the lot, does not meet required setbacks, parking requirements and the Hallam Lake Bluff requirements. Nonconforming structures are permitted to be maintained but the intent of the nonconformities regulations “is to regulate and limit the P85 VI.B. Page 5 of 5 continued existence of those uses, buildings and structures that do not conform to the provisions of this Title as amended.” Additionally, nonconforming structures that are purposefully demolished or destroyed shall only be replaced with a conforming building unless granted Special Review to maintain the nonconformity. The Special Review criteria (Exhibit A) focus on whether there exist special characteristics unique to the property and whether enforcement of the dimensional provisions would not allow reasonable use of the property and unnecessary hardship. Staff does not believe that there are special characteristics associated with the property that would differentiate it from other properties within the neighborhood and the subject zone district. There are many designated landmarks within the city as well as properties that are subject to the Hallam Lake Bluff review and some properties that are subject to both. The property may be developed with up to 4,183 sq. ft. of Floor Area on a 11,102 sq. ft. lot. At its narrowest the lot is 59 ft. wide, similar to many lots within the West End. Although the lot is subject to review as a designated landmark and under the Hallam Lake Bluff review, reasonable use of the property can be maintained. “Reasonable use” does not require maximum use. A property need not be developed to the absolute maximum potential to be considered a reasonable use. Staff believes a home, compliant with today’s current land use regulations, achieves reasonable use of the property. Although the city has no adopted regulations or policies with regard to mold remediation, demolition is a reviewed and regulated part of a building permit. If a change to the demolition plan is necessary due to unforeseen circumstances then an Applicant should confer with city representatives prior to taking action. Other options may have been available to not trigger demolition. At the end of the day, the allowances and limitations of the approved building permit was not followed. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the application for Special Review to maintain certain nonconformities of the building. As noted in the Land Use Code “Landowner’s intent or unforeseen circumstances shall not affect the calculation of actual physical demolition.” The project is not compliant with the building permit that was issued for the project and has exceeded the demolition allowance of up to forty percent of an existing structure. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to deny the request for Special Review to maintain certain nonconformities associated with 212 Lake Avenue.” ATTACHMENTS : EXHIBIT A – Special Review Criteria EXHIBIT B – Application P86 VI.B. Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. ___ (Series of 2015) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DENYING SPECIAL REVIEW TO REPLACE A NONCONFOMING STRUCTURE FOR 212 LAKE AVENUE, UNITS A AND B OF THE 212 LAKE AVENUE CONDOMINIUMS, ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel Nos. 273512489004 and 273512489005 WHEREAS, the applicant, Aspen River Rendezvous LLC, represented by Benjamin Genshaft, as well as Harriman Construction and David Kelly of Oates, Knezevich, Gardenswartz, Kelly & Morrow, PC, submitted an application requesting Special Review – Replacement of a nonconforming structure for the property located at 212 Lake Avenue, legally described as Units A and B of the 212 Lake Avenue Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, 212 Lake Avenue is a designated landmark; and WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended denial of Special Review – Replacement of a nonconforming structure; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on January 6, 2015; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare by a vote of --- to --- (_-_). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Decision The Planning and Zoning Commission denies the request of Special Review – Replacement of a nonconforming structure for the building commonly known as 212 Lake Avenue as the request does not meet all standards required under Section 26.430.040 B, Replacement of nonconforming structures. The Commission specifically finds that 1) there are not existing special characteristics unique to the property that differentiate the property from other properties located with the same zone district (Section 26.430.040 B.2) and that 2) literal enforcement of the dimensional provisions of the zone district does not prohibit reasonable use of the property (Section 26.430.040 B.4). P87 VI.B. Page 2 of 2 Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: 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 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 6th day of January, 2015. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: __________________________ ______________________________ Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney LJ Erspamer, Chair Attest: _______________________________ Cindy Klob, Records Manager P88 VI.B. Exhibit A 26.430.040. Review standards for special review. No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all standards and requirements set forth below. A. Dimensional requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met. 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. Staff Finding: The use of the property, as a duplex, is consistent with the character of other uses within the neighborhood and the purpose of the zone district. The purpose of the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district, which is generally limited to the Aspen Townsite, is to “contain relatively dense settlements of predominantly detached and duplex residences within walking distance of the center of the city.” To regulate and standardize development within the zone district, permitted uses as well as dimensional standards have been adopted; however, Staff does not believe the existing mass and configuration are consistent with the purpose of the underlying zone district. Staff finds this criterion is not met. 2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated view plane. Staff Finding: As a nonconforming structure, the building is allowed to maintain its nonconformities such as development within the Hallam Lake Bluff. When demolition occurs, a property is expected to come into conformance with adopted regulations. Permitting a continuance of a nonconformity within the Hallam Lake Bluff area will not assist in things such as limiting the noise and visual impacts to the nature preserve. Staff finds this criterion is not met. B. Replacement of nonconforming structures. Whenever a structure or portion thereof, which does not conform to the dimensional requirements of the zone district in which the property is located is proposed to be replaced after demolition, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed development shall comply with the conditions of Subsection 26.430.040.A above; Staff Finding: As noted in the review criteria previously listed, Staff does not find this criterion met. P89 VI.B. Exhibit A 2. There exist special characteristics unique to the property which differentiate the property from other properties located in the same zone district; Staff Finding: There are no special characteristics associated with the property that would differentiate it from other properties within the neighborhood and the subject zone district. There are many designated landmarks within the city as well as properties that are subject to the Hallam Lake Bluff review and some properties that are subject to both. Although the city has no adopted regulations or policies with regard to mold remediation, demolition is a reviewed and regulated part of a building permit. If a change to the demolition plan is necessary due to unforeseen circumstances an applicant should confer with city representatives prior to taking action. Other options may have been available to not trigger demolition. Staff does not find this criterion met. 3. No dimensional variations are increased, and the replacement structure represents the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the property; and Staff Finding: If approved, the proposed replacement structure will maintain the existing non-conformities associated with the property as reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission; however, these variations are greater than what is needed for reasonable use of the property as the property could be developed to meet the land use code. “Reasonable use” does not require maximum use. A property need not be developed to the absolute maximum potential to be considered a reasonable use. Staff does not find this criterion met. 4. Literal enforcement of the dimensional provisions of the zone district would cause unnecessary hardship upon the owner by prohibiting reasonable use of the property. Staff Finding: The property may be developed with up to 4,183 sq. ft. of Floor Area on a 11,102 sq. ft. lot. At its narrowest the lot is 59 ft. wide, similar to many lots within the West End. Although the lot is subject to review as a designated landmark and under the Hallam Lake Bluff review, reasonable use of the property can be maintained. Staff does not find this criterion met. P90 VI.B. P91 VI.B. P92 VI.B. P93 VI.B. P94 VI.B. P95 VI.B. P96 VI.B. P97 VI.B. P98 VI.B. P99 VI.B. P100 VI.B. P101 VI.B. P102 VI.B. P103 VI.B. P104 VI.B. P105 VI.B. P106 VI.B. P107 VI.B. P108 VI.B. P109 VI.B. P110 VI.B. P111 VI.B. P112 VI.B. P113 VI.B. P114 VI.B.