HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20150317
AGENDA
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
REGULAR MEETING
March 17, 2015
4:30 PM Sister Cities Room
130 S Galena St, Aspen
I. SITE VISIT
II. ROLL CALL
III. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
IV. MINUTES
A. February 17, 2015 Meeting Minutes
V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 200 S Aspen Street (Hotel Lenado), Planned Development
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
VIII. BOARD REPORTS
IX. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 7
Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings
1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda)
2) Provide proof of legal 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 February 17, 2015
Mr. Keith Goode, Vice-Chair, called the Regular Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order
at 4:30 PM with members Stan Gibbs, Jasmine Tygre, Kelly McNicholas, Skippy Mesirow, and Brian
McNellis.
Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan and Hillary Seminick.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
There were no comments.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Ms. Phelan stated there are currently no hearings scheduled for the Mar 3rd so the meeting will probably
be cancelled.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
MINUTES – January 13, 2015:
Mr. Gibbs moved to approve the January 13th minutes with the requested corrections, seconded by Ms.
McNicholas. The change was noted to be made prior to finalizing the minutes. All in favor, motion
carried.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations.
Public Hearing – 511 Lazy Chair Ranch Road – 8040 Greenline Review
Mr. Goode opened the public hearing for 511 Lazy Chair Ranch Road – 8040 Greenline Review.
Ms. Quinn stated she has reviewed the affidavits and determined public notice has been appropriately
provided.
Ms. Seminick, Aspen Community Development Planner Technician, stated this is a hearing for an 8040
Greenline Review for 511 Lazy Chair Ranch Road, lot 2. This review is required for all development at or
above or 150 ft below 8,040 ft above mean sea level. She added that P&Z is the final review authority in
this process.
She stated the subject property is approximately 2.4 acres in size and located in the Rural Residential
(RR) zone district. It is completely surrounded by the Maroon Creek Club and Golf Course. The applicant
is proposing to demolish the existing structure and replace it with a new five bedroom/five and one half
bath structure.
1
P1
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 17, 2015
Ms. Seminick stated the 8040 Greenline completely transects the property almost in the middle.
Therefore almost the entire property is subject to the review. The property has an additional condition
placed on it by Ordinance number 12-2014 that no development may occur above 8060 ft mean sea
level. There are a few exceptions including infrastructure for reasonable utilities, wildfire mitigation,
maintenance or restoration of the native landscape, and storm water mitigation. The only development
proposed above the 8060 line is a connection to an existing utility line.
She then reviewed the criteria included in an 8040 Greenline Review which focuses on vegetation,
visual, watershed and air quality impacts. Additionally, the site is reviewed for geotechnical suitability
and if adequate services exist to support the development.
The site will be redeveloped within the existing disturbed area. The existing development has a large
concrete pad and driveway. The applicant is proposing to demolish the large concrete pad and replace it
with a smaller, narrow driveway which will reduce the impervious surface and runoff, yet still meet
snowplow and fire truck access requirements. Nearly half of the residence will have a green roof
reducing aerial and visual impacts and providing some stormwater benefit as well.
She stated the applicant has worked extensively with the Parks Department and neighboring Maroon
Creek Golf Course and HOA to develop a landscaping plan. The Parks Department supports this plan.
Native vegetation including large stands of gambel oak will be preserved to the greatest extent possible.
The plan includes extensive tree planting to visually shield the surrounding area from this development.
She stated engineering has reviewed the geotechnical reports and has concurred the site is suitable for
redevelopment. Additionally, they reviewed the stormwater plan and found the runoff water can be
treated with minimal disturbance. She added the standard services and infrastructure are already in
place.
Staff finds the proposal to be consistent with the 8040 Greenline review criteria and recommends
approval of the resolutions with conditions as included in the packet.
Mr. Goode asked if there were any questions for Staff.
Ms. Tygre asked to confirm the zoning of the property and that it is not part of the Maroon Creek Club
and subject to any of the PUD. Ms. Seminick replied it is part of the Arthur O. Pfister Subdivision and
subject to the underlying Rural Residential (RR) zoning. Ms. Phelan added it was annexed in with the
Maroon Creek Club. Ms. Tygre asked how large a house the zoning allows and what they are proposing.
Ms. Seminick stated the project is approximately 6,000 sf of floor area. Ms. Phelan mentioned the
previous version of this application included a double basement, but the current application does not
include the double basement. Ms. Seminick stated the project is below the maximum allowed amount of
floor area.
Mr. Wilson, representing the applicant, stated the maximum allowed is about 6,714 sf of floor area and
the actual development is 6,103 sf of above grade.
Ms. McNicholas asked staff to explain their conditions of the approval. Ms. Seminick provided the
following conditions.
2
P2
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 17, 2015
1. It will be subject to the dimensional requirements of the underlying zoning. The applicant is not
asking for any variances.
2. The Engineering Department wanted to ensure the final design complies with Municipal Code
Titles 21, 28 & 29 and the site design includes the engineering design standards including an
urban runoff plan, a construction mitigation plan and construction excavation standards.
3. The Utilities Department asked the water distribution standards be met.
4. The Parks Department asked that any removal or relocation of trees require a tree removal
permit.
5. The Parks Department also proposes the removal of the existing fence and not replacing it. The
removal of the fence which currently runs through the drip lines needed for the trees is to be
addressed by the Parks Department prior to building permit submittal.
6. Tree protection fencing shall be kept up prior to any construction or demolition on the property
to protect existing vegetation.
7. A fence line shall be erected to protect existing natural vegetation from any activity around the
proposed development. It was also requested the proposed development should minimize the
disturbance of native vegetation and preserve the groupings of gambel oak. A grouping located
at the lower area near the driveway and those located above the 8060 line should not be
disturbed per a condition set forth in Ordinance number 12-2014 with the exception of the
utility connection.
Mr. Mesirow asked what assurances exist that the best management practices will be implemented in
response to review criteria #2 on p 57 of the packet. Ms. Seminick stated there is a condition in the
Resolution in section 3 which outlines the standards the applicant would have to meet. She stated the
Construction Management Plan includes the best management practices. Mr. Richard Goulding, Roaring
Fork Engineering, serves as the civil engineer for the project. He stated the application includes an
erosion control plan would be considered as best practices. The Engineering Department has reviewed
this plan and made recommendations which have been incorporated. He added the City regularly
inspects the site to confirm the best practices are being followed.
Mr. Goode asked about the helicopter pad from the previous hearing and wanted to know if it is part of
this application. Ms. Seminick stated she was not aware a helicopter pad was part of the application. Mr.
Wilson stated the helicopter pad is registered with the FAA on lot 3 and they are not proposing to
develop it at this time.
Mr. Gibbs stated it would have been good to have the minutes from the previous meeting. He
remembers it being quite contentious and would like to have been able to review the minutes in
preparation for this meeting. Ms. Phelan remembered mostly from the previous meeting the neighbors
concern with the timeline of construction and the number of truck trips impacting the neighbors.
Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Steev Wilson of Forum Phi Architecture, is
representing the owner, Lazy Chair Lot 2, LLC. He was joined by Mr. Dustin Anderson, Forum Phi
Architecture and Mr. Richard Goulding of Roaring Fork Engineering.
Mr. Wilson stated this project is not a typical 8040 Greenline review. In most instances, it impacts
projects in the foothills, but this property is an island with a portion of it above the 8040 line. There is no
danger of rock fall or avalanche danger associated with the property.
3
P3
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 17, 2015
Mr. Wilson displayed the tree demolition plan that has been reviewed with Parks. The plan covers the
removal and planting of trees on the project.
Mr. Wilson then displayed additional drawings showing the run off which has been reviewed with
Engineering.
Mr. Wilson stated they have also worked with the Fire Department to ensure sufficient space for truck
turn-arounds and access to the site. They are adding a hydrant on the property in addition to the one
already located on the property. They also worked with the Water department to address their
concerns.
Mr. Wilson stated they are looking at using the existing utilities including Holy Cross, City Water, Aspen
Sanitation, and the gas company.
Mr. Wilson displayed the building plans including the bedrooms with a family room that walks out with
pools and patios. They are using natural materials per the Maroon Creek Club. The green roof will help
with the ongoing stormwater control.
He then provided a few 3D images and elevations drawings showing how they comply with the height
limits throughout the site. He reiterated there are no variances being requested.
Mr. Goode asked the commission for questions of the applicant.
Mr. Gibbs asked for an explanation how the project is under the Maroon Creek Club HOA rules. Mr.
Wilson stated the project has a partial subjectivity. They do not have to meet the entire Maroon Creek
Club Association’s full set of rules and regulations. However, they have been working with the Golf
Course and HOA to obtain approval of the exterior architecture design which they do have a say over.
Mr. Goode asked them to confirm how many trees will be planted. The tree survey shows the existing
trees on the property. Mr. Anderson stated the gambel oaks are shown as clusters. All the other trees
were marked on the survey. This will be used for the tree removal permit from the City.
Ms. McNicholas asked them to explain the green roof design. Mr. Wilson demonstrated on a drawing of
the building where the runoff would take place after hitting the building with the flat roof. Instead of
using an impervious roof and placing the run off back on the property creating an erosion condition,
they are using a green roof to filter the run off and slow down the water. The roof will act as a six inch
sponge that will hold the water and allow for the plants to use the water or it can leaks out of the roof
slowly to greatly reduce the storm surge. Mr. Goulding stated this also improves the quality of the water
as it filters through the roof. The materials used include a sedum in a 2 ft by 2 ft basket with a
lightweight soil and a grass which is tolerant to water and sunshine. Mr. Anderson stated the type of
grass grown is similar to the low growing vegetation seen on the nearby high peaks. The grass is a low
fire hazard as well.
Mr. Goode asked if the existing structure was in place prior to an 8040 Greenline Review at which Mr.
Wilson stated it was.
Mr. Goode asked for the expected time from demo to construction. Mr. Wilson stated the construction
schedule is about 18 months.
4
P4
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 17, 2015
Mr. Goode then opened for public comment. There was none so it was closed.
Mr. Goode then asked for rebuttal or clarification from staff and the applicant. There was no rebuttal.
Mr. Goode closed the rebuttal part of the hearing.
Ms. Tygre moved to adopt Resolution 6, series 2015 approving the 8040 Green line review with the
project located at 511 Lazy Chair Ranch Road. Mr. McNellis seconded.
Mr. Goode opened for discussion from the commission.
Mr. McNellis asked if you can see the property from Maroon Creek Road. Mr. Wilson agreed you can see
the property, but will be tucked into the hillside. In looking at the proposed planting plan, he suggested
a closer look at the proposed materials to allow it to blend as much as possible. He questioned if
ponderosa and pinon specimens were appropriate. Mr. Wilson stated the Parks Department
recommended the list of recommended trees and the Maroon Creek Golf Club also recommended trees
as well. There was some concern with the Colorado Spruces providing too much shade, so a mixture of
pines were added to the plan.
Mr. Gibbs asked Staff about the history of Ordinance number 12, Series 2014 having the condition of no
development above the 8060 line. Ms. Seminick stated this went before Council when the zoning from
the Pitkin County was removed and rezoned as RR under the City. Parks added this condition to preserve
the stands of gambel oak and eliminate any development on the steepest part of the property per the
Engineering Department.
Mr. Goode requested a roll call. Roll call vote; Tygre, yes; Gibbs, yes; McNicholas, yes; McNellis, yes;
Mesirow, yes and Goode, yes. Motion passed with a total six (6) yes – zero (0) no.
Mr. Goode closed the meeting.
Cindy Klob
City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager
5
P5
IV.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Page 1 of 12
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
RE: Hotel Lenado (200 S. Aspen Street) – Planned Development, Resolution No. ,
Series 2015 – Public Hearing
MEETING
DATE: March 17, 2015
APPLICANT /O WNER :
DCBD2 LLC
REPRESENTATIVE :
Stan Clauson Associates, Inc.
LOCATION :
200 S. Aspen Street, the property is
legally described as Lots A, B and
C, Block 75, City and Townsite of
Aspen and also described on the
Hotel Lenado Condominiums Plat
recorded February 6, 1997, in Plat
Book 41 at Page 79, as Reception
No. 401585, Pitkin County,
Colorado
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Located in the Mixed Use (MU)
zone district with a Lodge
Preservation (LP) overlay. Lodge is
the current land use.
PROPOSED LAND USE :
The applicant is proposing to
demolish the existing lodge
(containing 17 lodge units with 19
keys and 2 affordable housing units)
and redevelop it with a mixed use
building containing 8 lodge units
with 9 keys, 3 free-market
residential units and 2 affordable
housing units.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION :
Staff recommends that the Applicant substantially revise
the proposed plans prior to April 7 th .
SUMMARY :
The Applicant requests of the Planning and Zoning
Commission multiple land use approvals as well as a
recommendation of approval for Planned Development to
redevelop the site.
Photo: Existing hotel
P6
VI.A.
Page 2 of 12
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES :
The applicant is requesting the following land use approvals and recommendation of approval
from the Planning and Zoning Commission:
• 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 is the final review authority . City Council has the option to call-up the
decision.)
• Special Review (Chapter 26.430) for the project’s parking calculation for the lodge
component. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority .)
• Special Review (Chapter 26.430) for the project’s allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for
the lodge component. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review
authority .)
• Special Review (Chapter 26.430) for variations from the design standards for Affordable
Housing. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority .)
• Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Reviews (Chapter 26.470) for lodge,
affordable housing, and free-market residential development and allotments. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority .)
• A Planned Development Project Review (Chapter 26.445) to establish dimensional
requirements for the development. The Applicant requests a PD Review to allow an
increase in height and a decrease in setbacks. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council is the final review authority .)
NOTE ON PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS : Two meetings have been scheduled to review the
proposal: March 17 th and April 7 th . The entire project may be discussed during March 17 th
but due to additional noticing that is required for the proposal, no formal decision on the
project should be made until April 7 th .
BACKGROUND :
The Hotel Lenado was approved by the city circa 1983/1984. The proposal at the time was to
demolish and redevelop the Edelweiss Lodge with an increase in lodge units. The original
Edelweiss contained 13 lodge units with 15 keys (lock-off units). One affordable housing unit
and 2 on-site parking spaces were associated with the 13 lodge units. The Hotel Lenado approval
increased the lodge by 4 units (for a total of 17 units and 19 keys), adding a second affordable
housing unit and 4 on-site parking spaces (for a total of 6 spaces) for the additional units.
Provision of parking for the affordable housing units was exempted at the time. The hotel was
condominiumized with certain operational requirements included in the Condominium
Declaration to which the City Council is a party. The hotel was sold last year to the current
applicant.
PROJECT SUMMARY :
The applicant, DCBD2 LLC, is proposing to redevelop the Hotel Lenado into a mixed use
building with “exceptional community spaces available to all residents of the building.” The new
P7
VI.A.
Page 3 of 12
proposal reduces the number of lodging units on the property from 17 to 8 units, reduces the
number of keys from 19 to 9, adds three free-market residential units, and maintains the number
of affordable housing units (2) on the site while proposing any additional required mitigation be
provided off-site or via a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits. In summary, the new
proposal contains:
Table: 1 Existing and Proposed Development
Proposed Existing
8 hotel units with 9 keys 17 hotel units with 19 keys
3 free market residences No free market residences
2 affordable housing units 2 affordable housing units
2 parking spaces 6 parking spaces
14,663 sq. ft. of Floor Area 9,424 sq. ft. of Floor Area
32 feet in height unknown
Table 2, below, outlines the proposed dimensional requirements for the project. The bold text
highlights the proposed standards that exceed the underlying zone district allowances and may
be approved via Planned Development or Special Review.
Table 2: Comparison of Proposed vs. Required Dimensional Requirements
Dimensional Requirement Existing
Development
Proposed
Development
Zone District
Allowances
Minimum Lot Size 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft.
Minimum Front Yard
Setback (Hopkins Ave.)
7 ft. 8.5 ft. (wall)
5 ft. (window
well)
5 ft. (upper
balconies)
10 ft.
Minimum Side Yard
Setback (Aspen St.)
10 ft. 0 ft. (wall)
5ft.
Minimum Side Yard
Setback (park)
5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft.
Minimum Rear Yard
Setback (alley)
26 Feet 0 Feet 5 Feet
Maximum Height unknown 32 Feet 28 - 32 Feet
Cumulative Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
1.05:1 1.63:1 2:1
Lodge FAR 1:1 .96:1 .75:1 to 1:1
P8
VI.A.
Page 4 of 12
Dimensional Requirement Existing
Development
Proposed
Development
Zone District
Allowances
Affordable Housing FAR .04:1 .19:1 No limitation
Free-Market Residential
FAR
0 .48:1 .5:1
Max. Multi-Family Unit
Size
N/A ≤ 1,190 sq. ft. 2,000 sq. ft.
Parking:
The property currently includes 6 parking spaces associated with the lodge use. The previous
approval exempted the parking requirement for the affordable housing; however, with the
demolition of the building the exemption is void. Based on the proposed development, the code
requires .5 spaces per lodge key and 1 space per residential unit. A fraction of a parking space
may be provided via a cash payment-in-lieu. A cash payment-in-lieu may also be provided for
any residential unit. Fewer spaces for the lodge use may be approved via Special Review. The
project proposal requires the following parking:
9 New Hotel Keys: 4.5 spaces
2 Affordable Housing Units: 2 spaces
3 Free-Market Residential Units: 3 spaces
Total: 9.5 spaces
The applicant proposes a cash payment-in-lieu rather than providing off-street parking for the
residential units and the fraction of the parking space which equals 5.5 spaces. A balance of four
(4) spaces is required for the lodge use; however, the Applicant has requested Special Review to
set the lodge parking at two spaces.
Lodging Units:
The proposal includes 8 lodge units with 9 keys, which is a net decrease of 9 units. The lodge
units are proposed to be between 389.5 sq. ft. and 1,741 sq. ft. The average unit size is 578
square feet 1, and the density is one lodge unit per 1,000 square feet of gross lot area. 2 A lock-off
is proposed in one of the units, meaning the unit can be rented as two individual units or as a
two-bedroom unit. Lodge units are located on the second (junior suites level) and third floors
(presidential suites level) of the building.
Free-Market Residential Units:
The applicant proposes three (3) free-market residential units located on the basement (lower
level) and ground floor (entry level). The units are proposed to be divided into two (2) two-
1 5,142.25 sq ft lodge net livable / 9 lodge units = 571 sq ft net livable per unit.
2 9,000 sq ft gross lot area / 9 lodge units = 1,000 sq ft gross lot area per unit.
P9
VI.A.
Page 5 of 12
bedroom units and one (1) three-bedroom unit. The two-bedroom units will range in size from
1,704 sq. ft to 1,893 sq. ft, while the three-bedroom unit will be 1,910 sq. ft. The Mixed Use
zone district caps unit size at 2,000 sq. ft. for multi-family development unless a Transferable
Development Right is extinguished.
Affordable Housing Units:
The Applicant proposes two (2) affordable housing units located on the ground floor. The units
are proposed to be a one bedroom unit and a two bedroom unit. The applicant currently envisions
the units to be available for rental to the hotel’s employees.
Staff Comments:
Growth Management Reviews: Growth Management Reviews are required for the
redevelopment of the affordable housing units, to meet the requirements of demolishing the
affordable housing units, for the new free-market residential units and to confirm the mitigation
required for the lodging and free-market residential uses. The existing lodge currently has
enough lodge allotments available for the new proposal.
The lodge development includes:
• Nine (9) lodge bedrooms requiring eighteen (18) lodge pillow allotments (2 pillows per
bedroom). As the existing lodge has nineteen (19) lodge bedrooms no additional
allotments are required;
• Two (2) replacement affordable housing units requiring two (2) affordable housing
allotments. As the existing lodge has two units no additional allotments are required;
• Three (3) new free-market residential units requiring three (3) residential allotments.
The mitigation required for the project is as follows (and is detailed in Exhibit A):
Lodge:
Mitigation for the nine lodge bedrooms is required at 60% of the employees generated due to the
density of lodge units proposed.
9 lodge bedrooms * 0.3 FTEs = 2.7 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs)s generated
2.7 FTEs @ 60% mitigation = 1.62 FTEs required mitigation for lodge
Free-Market Residential:
Mitigation for the free- market residential is required to be 30% of the free-market residential net
livable proposed.
Provide 30% of free-market residential square feet as affordable housing
7,325.57 sq ft * 30% = 2,197.7 square feet net livable area required as affordable housing or
5.49 FTEs
1.62 FTEs + 5.49 FTEs = 7.11 FTEs
Affordable Housing:
Adopted regulations require the number of employees housed prior to the demolition of
affordable housings units be maintained on site. The existing Hotel Lenado contains two
affordable housing units. One is a one-bedroom unit and the other is a two-bedroom unit.
According to the city’s land use code 1.75 employees are housed by a one-bedroom unit and 2.25
employees are housed by a two-bedroom unit, totaling 4 employees. Of the 7.11 employees
P10
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Page 1 of 12
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
RE: Hotel Lenado (200 S. Aspen Street) – Planned Development, Resolution No. ,
Series 2015 – Public Hearing
MEETING
DATE: March 17, 2015
APPLICANT /O WNER :
DCBD2 LLC
REPRESENTATIVE :
Stan Clauson Associates, Inc.
LOCATION :
200 S. Aspen Street, the property is
legally described as Lots A, B and
C, Block 75, City and Townsite of
Aspen and also described on the
Hotel Lenado Condominiums Plat
recorded February 6, 1997, in Plat
Book 41 at Page 79, as Reception
No. 401585, Pitkin County,
Colorado
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Located in the Mixed Use (MU)
zone district with a Lodge
Preservation (LP) overlay. Lodge is
the current land use.
PROPOSED LAND USE :
The applicant is proposing to
demolish the existing lodge
(containing 17 lodge units with 19
keys and 2 affordable housing units)
and redevelop it with a mixed use
building containing 8 lodge units
with 9 keys, 3 free-market
residential units and 2 affordable
housing units.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION :
Staff recommends that the Applicant substantially revise
the proposed plans prior to April 7 th .
SUMMARY :
The Applicant requests of the Planning and Zoning
Commission multiple land use approvals as well as a
recommendation of approval for Planned Development to
redevelop the site.
Photo: Existing hotel
P6
VI.A.
Page 2 of 12
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES :
The applicant is requesting the following land use approvals and recommendation of approval
from the Planning and Zoning Commission:
• 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 is the final review authority . City Council has the option to call-up the
decision.)
• Special Review (Chapter 26.430) for the project’s parking calculation for the lodge
component. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority .)
• Special Review (Chapter 26.430) for the project’s allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for
the lodge component. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review
authority .)
• Special Review (Chapter 26.430) for variations from the design standards for Affordable
Housing. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority .)
• Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Reviews (Chapter 26.470) for lodge,
affordable housing, and free-market residential development and allotments. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority .)
• A Planned Development Project Review (Chapter 26.445) to establish dimensional
requirements for the development. The Applicant requests a PD Review to allow an
increase in height and a decrease in setbacks. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council is the final review authority .)
NOTE ON PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS : Two meetings have been scheduled to review the
proposal: March 17 th and April 7 th . The entire project may be discussed during March 17 th
but due to additional noticing that is required for the proposal, no formal decision on the
project should be made until April 7 th .
BACKGROUND :
The Hotel Lenado was approved by the city circa 1983/1984. The proposal at the time was to
demolish and redevelop the Edelweiss Lodge with an increase in lodge units. The original
Edelweiss contained 13 lodge units with 15 keys (lock-off units). One affordable housing unit
and 2 on-site parking spaces were associated with the 13 lodge units. The Hotel Lenado approval
increased the lodge by 4 units (for a total of 17 units and 19 keys), adding a second affordable
housing unit and 4 on-site parking spaces (for a total of 6 spaces) for the additional units.
Provision of parking for the affordable housing units was exempted at the time. The hotel was
condominiumized with certain operational requirements included in the Condominium
Declaration to which the City Council is a party. The hotel was sold last year to the current
applicant.
PROJECT SUMMARY :
The applicant, DCBD2 LLC, is proposing to redevelop the Hotel Lenado into a mixed use
building with “exceptional community spaces available to all residents of the building.” The new
P7
VI.A.
Page 3 of 12
proposal reduces the number of lodging units on the property from 17 to 8 units, reduces the
number of keys from 19 to 9, adds three free-market residential units, and maintains the number
of affordable housing units (2) on the site while proposing any additional required mitigation be
provided off-site or via a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits. In summary, the new
proposal contains:
Table: 1 Existing and Proposed Development
Proposed Existing
8 hotel units with 9 keys 17 hotel units with 19 keys
3 free market residences No free market residences
2 affordable housing units 2 affordable housing units
2 parking spaces 6 parking spaces
14,663 sq. ft. of Floor Area 9,424 sq. ft. of Floor Area
32 feet in height unknown
Table 2, below, outlines the proposed dimensional requirements for the project. The bold text
highlights the proposed standards that exceed the underlying zone district allowances and may
be approved via Planned Development or Special Review.
Table 2: Comparison of Proposed vs. Required Dimensional Requirements
Dimensional Requirement Existing
Development
Proposed
Development
Zone District
Allowances
Minimum Lot Size 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft.
Minimum Front Yard
Setback (Hopkins Ave.)
7 ft. 8.5 ft. (wall)
5 ft. (window
well)
5 ft. (upper
balconies)
10 ft.
Minimum Side Yard
Setback (Aspen St.)
10 ft. 0 ft. (wall)
5ft.
Minimum Side Yard
Setback (park)
5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft.
Minimum Rear Yard
Setback (alley)
26 Feet 0 Feet 5 Feet
Maximum Height unknown 32 Feet 28 - 32 Feet
Cumulative Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
1.05:1 1.63:1 2:1
Lodge FAR 1:1 .96:1 .75:1 to 1:1
P8
VI.A.
Page 4 of 12
Dimensional Requirement Existing
Development
Proposed
Development
Zone District
Allowances
Affordable Housing FAR .04:1 .19:1 No limitation
Free-Market Residential
FAR
0 .48:1 .5:1
Max. Multi-Family Unit
Size
N/A ≤ 1,190 sq. ft. 2,000 sq. ft.
Parking:
The property currently includes 6 parking spaces associated with the lodge use. The previous
approval exempted the parking requirement for the affordable housing; however, with the
demolition of the building the exemption is void. Based on the proposed development, the code
requires .5 spaces per lodge key and 1 space per residential unit. A fraction of a parking space
may be provided via a cash payment-in-lieu. A cash payment-in-lieu may also be provided for
any residential unit. Fewer spaces for the lodge use may be approved via Special Review. The
project proposal requires the following parking:
9 New Hotel Keys: 4.5 spaces
2 Affordable Housing Units: 2 spaces
3 Free-Market Residential Units: 3 spaces
Total: 9.5 spaces
The applicant proposes a cash payment-in-lieu rather than providing off-street parking for the
residential units and the fraction of the parking space which equals 5.5 spaces. A balance of four
(4) spaces is required for the lodge use; however, the Applicant has requested Special Review to
set the lodge parking at two spaces.
Lodging Units:
The proposal includes 8 lodge units with 9 keys, which is a net decrease of 9 units. The lodge
units are proposed to be between 389.5 sq. ft. and 1,741 sq. ft. The average unit size is 578
square feet 1, and the density is one lodge unit per 1,000 square feet of gross lot area. 2 A lock-off
is proposed in one of the units, meaning the unit can be rented as two individual units or as a
two-bedroom unit. Lodge units are located on the second (junior suites level) and third floors
(presidential suites level) of the building.
Free-Market Residential Units:
The applicant proposes three (3) free-market residential units located on the basement (lower
level) and ground floor (entry level). The units are proposed to be divided into two (2) two-
1 5,142.25 sq ft lodge net livable / 9 lodge units = 571 sq ft net livable per unit.
2 9,000 sq ft gross lot area / 9 lodge units = 1,000 sq ft gross lot area per unit.
P9
VI.A.
Page 5 of 12
bedroom units and one (1) three-bedroom unit. The two-bedroom units will range in size from
1,704 sq. ft to 1,893 sq. ft, while the three-bedroom unit will be 1,910 sq. ft. The Mixed Use
zone district caps unit size at 2,000 sq. ft. for multi-family development unless a Transferable
Development Right is extinguished.
Affordable Housing Units:
The Applicant proposes two (2) affordable housing units located on the ground floor. The units
are proposed to be a one bedroom unit and a two bedroom unit. The applicant currently envisions
the units to be available for rental to the hotel’s employees.
Staff Comments:
Growth Management Reviews: Growth Management Reviews are required for the
redevelopment of the affordable housing units, to meet the requirements of demolishing the
affordable housing units, for the new free-market residential units and to confirm the mitigation
required for the lodging and free-market residential uses. The existing lodge currently has
enough lodge allotments available for the new proposal.
The lodge development includes:
• Nine (9) lodge bedrooms requiring eighteen (18) lodge pillow allotments (2 pillows per
bedroom). As the existing lodge has nineteen (19) lodge bedrooms no additional
allotments are required;
• Two (2) replacement affordable housing units requiring two (2) affordable housing
allotments. As the existing lodge has two units no additional allotments are required;
• Three (3) new free-market residential units requiring three (3) residential allotments.
The mitigation required for the project is as follows (and is detailed in Exhibit A):
Lodge:
Mitigation for the nine lodge bedrooms is required at 60% of the employees generated due to the
density of lodge units proposed.
9 lodge bedrooms * 0.3 FTEs = 2.7 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs)s generated
2.7 FTEs @ 60% mitigation = 1.62 FTEs required mitigation for lodge
Free-Market Residential:
Mitigation for the free- market residential is required to be 30% of the free-market residential net
livable proposed.
Provide 30% of free-market residential square feet as affordable housing
7,325.57 sq ft * 30% = 2,197.7 square feet net livable area required as affordable housing or
5.49 FTEs
1.62 FTEs + 5.49 FTEs = 7.11 FTEs
Affordable Housing:
Adopted regulations require the number of employees housed prior to the demolition of
affordable housings units be maintained on site. The existing Hotel Lenado contains two
affordable housing units. One is a one-bedroom unit and the other is a two-bedroom unit.
According to the city’s land use code 1.75 employees are housed by a one-bedroom unit and 2.25
employees are housed by a two-bedroom unit, totaling 4 employees. Of the 7.11 employees
P10
VI.A.
Page 6 of 12
required to be mitigated by the new development, the applicant is proposing that 4 employees
continue to be housed on-site and the balance of mitigation (3.11 FTEs) is proposed as off-site
units or Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits (AHCs).
Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to replace the existing affordable housing units with the
same number/type of units on site and provide the balance of mitigation via off-site units or
AHCs. The existing units are basement units and the new units are considered garden level due
to the sloped topography of the site. Since the finished floor of the two units are considered
below grade per code, Special Review approval is required to approve the design of the units
related to grade.
The APCHA recommendation supports the design and size of the two units but recommends that
the one bedroom unit be deed restricted at a category 1 income level and that the two bedroom
unit be deed restricted at a Category 2 income level. Both units are recommended to be rental
units.
Community Development staff proposes an alternative recommendation for the Commission to
consider. The land use code permits the affordable housing mitigation to be provided at a
Category 4 income level, unless an applicant chooses to provide at a lower income category.
Although the APCHA board is recommending the lower categories the applicant is not obligated
to deed restrict the units at the lower income level. Additionally, the two bedroom unit does not
meet the minimum net livable unit size standard within the APCHA guidelines (850 sq. ft for a
Category 1 or 2 unit and 950 sq. ft. for a Category 3 or 4 unit). Finally, the one bedroom unit
provides mitigation for the lodging use on the property while the two bedroom unit provides
mitigation for the new free market residential component. Community Development staff
recommends that the units be deed restricted at a Category 4 income level, that the two bedroom
unit meet the minimum net livable unit size and, at a minimum, the two bedroom unit be required
to be a ‘for sale’ rather than a rental unit because it is mitigation for the free-market unit.
Special Review: The applicant is requesting three special review approvals to 1) increase the
lodge use Floor Area, 2) reduce the off-street parking requirement and, 3) to provide an
alternative design for the affordable housing units as they relate to grade.
Increase in Lodging Floor Area The applicant is requesting an increase in the Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) for the lodge use from .75:1 or 6,750 sq. ft. to 1:1 or 9,000 sq. ft., which is an increase of
2,250 sq. ft.
Reduction in Off-Street Parking The overall parking requirement for the project is 9.5 parking
spaces (3 spaces for the 3 free-market residential units, 2 spaces for the affordable housing units
and 4.5 spaces for the 9 lodging keys).The parking for any residential units and any fraction of a
parking space are permitted to be provided via a cash payment-in-lieu (currently $30,000 per
space). The applicant is proposing to pay a payment-in-lieu for the entire residential parking
requirement and the fraction of a space, leaving 4 lodging spaces as the off-street parking
obligation. Two off-street parking spaces are proposed for the development. According to the
Trip Generation calculator adopted by the city, the pm peak hour trips equal 6.05 trips. On-street
parking in the neighborhood is highly utilized and does not have excess capacity to
accommodate additional cars within the neighborhood.
P11
VI.A.
Page 6 of 12
required to be mitigated by the new development, the applicant is proposing that 4 employees
continue to be housed on-site and the balance of mitigation (3.11 FTEs) is proposed as off-site
units or Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits (AHCs).
Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to replace the existing affordable housing units with the
same number/type of units on site and provide the balance of mitigation via off-site units or
AHCs. The existing units are basement units and the new units are considered garden level due
to the sloped topography of the site. Since the finished floor of the two units are considered
below grade per code, Special Review approval is required to approve the design of the units
related to grade.
The APCHA recommendation supports the design and size of the two units but recommends that
the one bedroom unit be deed restricted at a category 1 income level and that the two bedroom
unit be deed restricted at a Category 2 income level. Both units are recommended to be rental
units.
Community Development staff proposes an alternative recommendation for the Commission to
consider. The land use code permits the affordable housing mitigation to be provided at a
Category 4 income level, unless an applicant chooses to provide at a lower income category.
Although the APCHA board is recommending the lower categories the applicant is not obligated
to deed restrict the units at the lower income level. Additionally, the two bedroom unit does not
meet the minimum net livable unit size standard within the APCHA guidelines (850 sq. ft for a
Category 1 or 2 unit and 950 sq. ft. for a Category 3 or 4 unit). Finally, the one bedroom unit
provides mitigation for the lodging use on the property while the two bedroom unit provides
mitigation for the new free market residential component. Community Development staff
recommends that the units be deed restricted at a Category 4 income level, that the two bedroom
unit meet the minimum net livable unit size and, at a minimum, the two bedroom unit be required
to be a ‘for sale’ rather than a rental unit because it is mitigation for the free-market unit.
Special Review: The applicant is requesting three special review approvals to 1) increase the
lodge use Floor Area, 2) reduce the off-street parking requirement and, 3) to provide an
alternative design for the affordable housing units as they relate to grade.
Increase in Lodging Floor Area The applicant is requesting an increase in the Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) for the lodge use from .75:1 or 6,750 sq. ft. to 1:1 or 9,000 sq. ft., which is an increase of
2,250 sq. ft.
Reduction in Off-Street Parking The overall parking requirement for the project is 9.5 parking
spaces (3 spaces for the 3 free-market residential units, 2 spaces for the affordable housing units
and 4.5 spaces for the 9 lodging keys).The parking for any residential units and any fraction of a
parking space are permitted to be provided via a cash payment-in-lieu (currently $30,000 per
space). The applicant is proposing to pay a payment-in-lieu for the entire residential parking
requirement and the fraction of a space, leaving 4 lodging spaces as the off-street parking
obligation. Two off-street parking spaces are proposed for the development. According to the
Trip Generation calculator adopted by the city, the pm peak hour trips equal 6.05 trips. On-street
parking in the neighborhood is highly utilized and does not have excess capacity to
accommodate additional cars within the neighborhood.
P11
VI.A.
Page 7 of 12
Affordable Housing below finished or natural grade The applicant proposes garden level
affordable housing units that are at or above finished grade, but below natural grade.
Staff Comment: The applicant requests an increase in the allowable lodging Floor Area by 2,250
sq. ft., a reduction in parking for the lodge component of the project from four to two spaces, and
to provide affordable housing units that are partially sub-grade.
To allow the increase in Floor Area, the Commission must determine that “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 that adverse impacts are mitigated. The proposed design includes cantilevers,
balconies and horizontal elements that do not relate to the historic resources across Hopkins and
do not relate to the residential context west of the lot. The floor plans for the building do not
provide the typical amount of back of house uses that are designed into a lodge such as linen and
storage closets on each floor, a break room for employees, a commercial kitchen or prep room,
and adequate storage. The front desk is awkwardly located towards the rear of the building.
Typical uses such as a small restaurant, bar or limited commercial is also absent. Common
areas are greatly oversized in comparison to typical lodge development. The design is rather
boxy and the roof forms do not relate well to the neighborhood, nor assist in reducing the
perceived scale of the building. Staff does not recommend approval of the Floor Area increase.
To reduce the off-street parking requirement, the parking generation for the project should be
taken into account, as well as the availability of on-street parking and the practical difficulty of
providing the parking. The peak pm parking demand for the building is six trips, on-street
parking is quite limited in this area of town, and as a new project the site can be redeveloped
with appropriate parking incorporated into the site. Staff does not recommend a reduction in
parking.
With regard to the design of the affordable housing units, staff does not support the variation
request for the units. Alternative locations within the building can be provided that are above
grade. Most importantly, the units do not meet the minimum size required for Category 4 income
levels and exceeding the minimum size of a unit is one of the criteria for allowing an alternative
design. Essentially the units are garden level, tucked behind a balcony or cantilevered living
space.
Commercial Design Review: The Hotel Lenado is assigned the Small Lodge Character Area
according to the Commercial Design Guidelines. The guidelines further state that “each of these
buildings is individual and the setting of every site is unique.” A lodge’s “dimensions and
character should respect their surroundings.” The main objectives for the character area are
described as:
1. New development should be compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located.
2. Create a distinctive experience for lodging with a sense of being in a neighborhood.
3. Enhance the character of the street edge.
4. Minimize the visual impacts of cars.
Conceptual Design Review focuses on the street and alley system, parking design, the design of
public amenity space and building placement including height, mass and scale.
P12
VI.A.
Page 8 of 12
Figure 1: Zone Districts within the Area
Staff Comment: The immediate neighborhood includes a mix of single-family residences, some
multi-family residential buildings, a small lodge, a few office buildings and two parks. Small
lodges are required to be compatible with the neighborhood according to the design guidelines.
Two story residences with gabled roofs are the dominate form along Hopkins Avenue east of
Aspen Street. Some of these are designated landmarks (Figures 2 & 3). Directly across Aspen
Street single family homes on the south side of Hopkins are typical within the corridor.
Diagonally, on the corner of Aspen and Hyman sits the Hearthstone House which is nestled into
its site. Across the alley are the ParkWest condominiums which read along the alley as two and a
half stories.
Figure 2:208 W. Hopkins Ave. Figure 3: 214 W. Hopkins Ave.
MU – Mixed Use
CC – Commercial
Core
L – Lodge
R/MF –
Residential Multi-
Family
R-6 – Medium
Density
Residential
P - Park
P13
VI.A.
Page 9 of 12
This neighborhood transitions from the commercial core of downtown that has lot line to lot line
development to a development pattern that has a more residential feel, with landscaped yards
and heights that are lower than the downtown. New development should reflect this transition
with appropriate heights, yards that frame the building, and landscaping.
Figure 4: Hopkins Ave. Figure 5: The Hearthstone Lodge
The garage is accessed by a driveway that has a curb cut on the alley which is located ten feet
from the S. Aspen Street property line. The surface parking space, driveway, and garage door
are fairly visible from the street. The parking area is not located towards the interior or rear of
the property. Staff does not find the Parking portion of the guidelines met, specifically Guideline
5.2 which requires the visual impacts of parking to be minimized. Staff recommends that the site
plan be restudied to screen the parking entrance from Aspen Street .
The design objectives for Public Amenity space include reflecting “a transition in character with
landscape design from the core to residential neighborhoods,” providing a sense of landscaped
front yards, providing an interesting street edge and encouragement of outdoor uses. The
amenity space proposed along Hopkins generally follows the topography and essentially
provides a modest side yard to the property on the north side of the property; however, the depth
of the amenity space does not relate well to the depth of the residential front yards across the
street. Retaining walls are present on both Hopkins Avenue and Aspen Street. The larger
amenity space, provided along Aspen Street, is predominately hardscape. Along Aspen Street,
where the western sun and southern views can be used advantageously, the design includes some
areas for seating but it is located next to private, not common interior space such as a restaurant
or bar area. The entry to an affordable housing unit and a large window well interrupt the
amenity space. The objective for these areas includes “the creation of well designed public
gathering space adjacent to the street edge.” A portion of the public amenity space along Aspen
Street is not level with the sidewalk, which impairs the space and its relationship to the public
realm of the street and sidewalk and does not meet Guideline 2.7 which requires street facing
amenity space be level with the street. Staff recommends additional study to develop a prominent
street entrance to the lodge to “appear related to the context in their design, while also
conveying the unique character of an exciting accommodations facility” and ensure that the
design of the space will allow for an activated amenity space.
With regard to building height, mass and scale , the applicant proposes a flat roof building that
cuts into the natural slope. The proposal includes substantial areas of floor to ceiling glazing in
the range of 12-15 feet in height that do not relate to the historic buildings across Hopkins Ave.
and do not relate to the residential context west of the lot. The balconies on Hopkins are
P14
VI.A.
Page 10 of 12
continuous, some 75 feet in length, with a solid railing that blocks interaction with street, in
contrast to the open and engaging deck space on the existing building (see Figures 6 and 7).
Figure 6: Proposed building
Figure: Existing building
The boxy design may be more appropriate in the downtown area where a flat roof building is
contextual. The location of this project in a residential neighborhood adjacent to a city park is a
challenging context that requires a sensitive design. Finding a balance of traditional forms and
modern applications is recommended for this site. One way to balance these objectives is noted
in the design guidelines: “the pitched roof form of residential type buildings provide a medium
which can create a perceived reduction in scale and an interesting and varied profile where the
building is modulated.”
There is no significant modulation of form to reflect traditional lot size widths as required in
Guidelines 5.5 and 5.7, particularly along Hopkins Avenue. Height undulation is not proposed
but is required in Guideline 5.6. Relationship and response to the existing context, much of
which is preserved through historic designation, is unclear. The site plan redefines the street
P15
VI.A.
Page 11 of 12
edge by cutting into the natural topography with retaining walls which does not create an
inviting pedestrian experience and does not meet the design objective that “lodge overlay sites
offer a special opportunity to experience the community more closely, and to feel a part of a
neighborhood.”
The street façade composition does little architecturally to highlight or express the main entry or
the mix of residential and lodge uses in the building. This makes the building hard to navigate,
reading more like an office building, and also misses an opportunity to break down the scale of
the building. Staff finds the current design of the building does not fit into the context of the
neighborhood.
Planned Development – Project Review:
The property is located within the Mixed Use (MU) zone district with a Lodge Preservation (LP)
overlay. The dimensional standards for a development are those established for the underlying
zone district but may be established through Planned Development “upon consideration of the
neighborhood compatibility and the dimensional requirements of surrounding zone districts.”
The applicant is requesting three setback variations through Planned Development.
1. A front yard setback variation along the Hopkins Ave. property line from a required ten
feet to five feet (to allow for the building wall, window wells and balconies).
2. A side yard setback variation along Aspen Street from five feet to zero feet for the large
street facing window well.
3. A rear yard setback variation along the alley from five feet to zero feet for the
trash/recycling/utility enclosure.
Staff Findings: As noted in greater detail under the Commercial Design Review section of this
memo, staff does not find the proposed building to be compatible with the context and visual
character of the area. The location of this project is in a residential neighborhood adjacent to a
city park. There is no significant modulation of form to reflect traditional lot size width. The
building reads more like an office building and also misses an opportunity to break down the
scale of the building.
This neighborhood transitions from the commercial core of downtown that has lot line to lot line
development to a development pattern that has a more residential feel with yards and
landscaping. A reduction in setbacks decreases the opportunity for yards that surround the
building, which is a typical development pattern in the neighborhood. Staff does not find this
criterion met.
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS :
The City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Water Department, Aspen Sanitation District, Housing
Authority, Building Department and the Parks Department have all reviewed the proposed
application and their requirements have been included as conditions within the resolution when
appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION: At this point, staff recommends the applicant make substantial
revisions to the plans before returning to the Commission on April 7 th . The current design does
not address basic needs for a lodge, such as parking, adequately and the overall design, mass, and
scale of the building does not relate well to the context of the neighborhood. Specifically, staff
recommends the design of the building be amended to incorporate the following.
P16
VI.A.
Page 12 of 12
• The two-bedroom affordable housing unit be required to meet the minimum size
requirement of either 850 sq. ft. or 950 sq. ft. dependant on the proposed income
category.
• The affordable housing units are designed to be completely above grade.
• The lodging Floor Area is not increased via Special Review.
• The height is increased from 28 to 32 feet.
• A minimum of four off-street parking spaces are provided on-site.
• The mass, scale and design be amended to be compatible with the neighborhood.
• Setbacks be met and not varied.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to continue the Hotel Lenado application to April 7 th .”
ATTACHMENTS :
EXHIBIT A – Growth Management Review Criteria
EXHIBIT B – Special Review Criteria
EXHIBIT C – Commercial Design Review Criteria
EXHIBIT D – Planned Development- Project Review Criteria
EXHIBIT E – Development Review Committee Comments, March 2015
EXHIBIT F – Public Comment
EXHIBIT G – Applicant responses to Development Review Comments
EXHIBIT H – Application – dated 1/2015
EXHIBIT I – Amended Architectural Drawings
P17
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No. __, Series 2015
Page 1 of 7
RESOLUTION NO. ___
(SERIES OF 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL GRANT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REVIEW APPROVAL AND APPROVING CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN
REVIEW, SPECIAL REVIEW, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS FOR THE
HOTEL LENADO, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, BLOCK 75, LOTS A
THROUGH C, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 200 S ASPEN STREET, CITY OF ASPEN,
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 273707337001
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application for the Hotel
Lenado from DCBD2, LLC (Applicant), represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. for the
following land use review approvals:
• Planned Development – Project Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445.
• Growth Management Review – Lodge Development, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter
26.470.
• Growth Management Review – New Free Market Residential Units, pursuant to Land
Use Code Chapter 26.470.
• Growth Management Review – Affordable Housing, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter
26.470.
• Growth Management Review – Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing,
pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470.
• Special Review to establish off-street parking, dimensional requirements and affordable
housing unit standards pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.430.
• Commercial Design Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412; and,
WHEREAS, the application for the redevelopment proposes:
8 hotel units with 9 keys.
3 free-market residential units.
2 affordable housing units.
2 parking spaces; and ,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire Protection
District, Environmental Health Department, Parks Department, Parking Department,
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Utilities 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
P18
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No. __, Series 2015
Page 2 of 7
recommendation for approval by the board was provided at their March 4, 2015, regular meeting;
and,
WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department
reviewed the proposed application and recommended restudy of the project so the design, mass
and scale of the project better fit with the context of the immediate neighborhood; and,
WHEREAS , the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application at a duly
noticed public hearing on March 17, 2015, and continued to April 7, 2015, 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 ________, the Planning and Zoning
Commission approved Resolution __, Series of 2015, by a ___ to ___ (_-_) vote recommending
City Council approve the Hotel Lenado Planned Development application and the Commission
approved all necessary land use reviews, as identified herein.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: Approvals
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council grant the Hotel Lenado
Planned Development – Project Review approval. The Commission approves Growth
Management approvals, Special Review approvals, and Conceptual Commercial Design
approval, for a Site Specific Development Plan for the Hotel Lenado, subject to the conditions of
approval as listed herein to develop a mixed use building containing 8 lodge units and 9 keys, 3
free-market residential units, and 2 affordable housing units. The dimensions are attached as
Exhibit A.
Section 2: Planned Development – Project Review
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Planned
Development request inclusive of the setback variations requested.
Section 3: Growth Management Allotments
3.1 Reconstruction Credits. Based on the Hotel Lenado redevelopment proposal, the Applicant is
entitled to the following reconstruction credit, pursuant to Land Use Chapter 26.470
a. As the redevelopment proposal reduces the number of lodging bedrooms, for a total of 9
lodging bedrooms, equating to 18 lodge pillows, 18 pillows are credited towards the
Project’s lodge component.
b. As the redevelopment proposal provides for the same number of affordable housing units,
totaling 2 units, 2 dwelling units are credited towards the Project’s affordable housing
component.
3.2 Growth Management Allotments. The following growth management allotments are granted
to the Hotel:
a. 3 free market residential dwelling unit allotments.
P19
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No. __, Series 2015
Page 3 of 7
Section 4: Special Review
The applicant is granted three special review approvals to 1) increase the lodge use Floor Area,
2) reduce the off-street parking requirement and, 3) to provide an alternative design for the
affordable housing units as they relate to grade.
4.1 Increase in Lodging Floor Area The applicant is approved an increase in the Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) for the lodge use from .75:1 or 6,750 sq. ft. to 1:1 or 9,000 sq. ft., which is an increase
of 2,250 sq. ft.
4.2 Reduction in Off-Street Parking The overall parking requirement for the project is 2 spaces
due to the applicant receiving a reduction in parking via Special Review and providing a cash
payment-in-lieu for a portion of the required parking. Of the 9.5 parking spaces (3 spaces for
the 3 free-market residential units, 2 spaces for the affordable housing units and 4.5 spaces
for the 9 lodging keys) calculated as the parking requirement, the applicant shall pay a
payment-in-lieu for the entire residential parking requirement and the fraction of a space
equaling 5.5 spaces. Of the 4 remaining spaces, the Planning and Zoning Commission grants
a reduction in parking of 2 spaces, leaving a requirement of 2 off-street parking spaces. The
cash payment-in-lieu shall be calculated at the time of building permit submission.
4.3 Affordable Housing below finished or natural grade The applicant proposes garden level
affordable housing units that are at or above finished grade, but below natural grade. The
design of these units, as represented by the applicant, are approved.
Section 5: Affordable Housing
5.1 Mitigation Requirements. The project is proposed to include two (2) affordable housing
units, including one (1) one-bedroom unit and one (1) two-bedroom unit. The mitigation
required for the project is as follows:
Lodge:
Mitigation for the nine lodge bedrooms is required at 60% of the employees generated due to
the density of lodge units proposed.
9 lodge bedrooms * 0.3 FTEs = 2.7 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs)s generated
2.7 FTEs @ 60% mitigation = 1.62 FTEs required mitigation for lodge
Free-Market Residential:
Mitigation for the free- market residential is required to be 30% of the free-market residential
net livable proposed.
Provide 30% of free-market residential square feet as affordable housing
7,325.57 sq ft * 30% = 2,197.7 square feet net livable area required as affordable
housing or 5.49 FTEs
1.62 FTEs + 5.49 FTEs = 7.11 FTEs
The proposed one-bedroom and two-bedroom affordable housing units include 1,317 sq ft of
net livable area and have access to two separate storage rooms equaling 226 sq ft. A total of
P20
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No. __, Series 2015
Page 4 of 7
4 FTEs are housed by the two units. The balance of mitigation required for the development
(3.11 FTEs) shall be provided by off-site affordable housing units or through the use of
Affordable Housing Certificates.
No Certificate of Occupancy shall be granted for any component of the project until the on-
site affordable housing units receive their Certificate of Occupancy. If off-site units are
provided for the balance of mitigation no Certificate of Occupancy shall be permitted for the
entire redevelopment until the off-site units receive their Certificate of Occupancy. If
Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit are used for the balance of mitigation required,
they will be extinguished prior to the issuance of a building permit for the redevelopment.
5.2 Affordable Housing Conditions. The two affordable housing units shall be deed restricted at
a Category 4 income level, are permitted to be rental units, and shall comply with the APCHA
Guidelines, now and as amended.
Section 6: 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. Additional materials shall be submitted as part of the Planned Development
Detailed Review application inclusive of, but not limited to, an engineering report and a detailed
grading plan.
Section 7: 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 8: Parks Department
Tree removal permits are required prior to issuance of a building permit for any demolition or
significant site work. Mitigation for removals must be met by paying cash in lieu, planting on
site, or a combination of both, pursuant to Chapter 13.20 of the City Municipal Code. Additional
materials shall be submitted as part of the Planned Development Detailed Review application
inclusive of, but not limited to, a detailed plan for existing tree protection and sidewalk
development for the property.
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 9: 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. The current sanitary sewer service line is substandard and
shall be replaced with a new connection to the District’s main sewer line in the alley.
P21
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No. __, Series 2015
Page 5 of 7
Section 10: Environmental Health Department
The State of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regard to asbestos.
Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a
prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements, noise abatement
and pool designs.
Additional materials shall be submitted as part of the Planned Development Detailed Review
application inclusive of but not limited to appropriate sizing of the trash/utility enclosure,
delineation of clearance of the waste enclosure, clarity on co-location of trash and utilities to
ensure adequate room is provided.
Section 11: Transportation Department
Additional materials shall be submitted as part of the Planned Development Detailed Review
application inclusive of, but not limited to, amendment of the Transportation Impact Analysis to
address existing deficiencies.
Section 12: Water/Utilities Department
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and
with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of
the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. All Water
System Distribution standards in place at the time of building permit shall apply, and all tap fees
will be assess per applicable codes and standards. Utility placement and design shall meet
adopted City of Aspen standards. An on-site transformer will most likely be required for this
development with all transformer setbacks addressed (essentially 10’x10’ for the actual
transformer, 10’ clear distance in front of the doors, and Free to sky) at submission of Planned
Development Detailed Review.
Section 13: Public Amenity Spaces
The Applicant has committed to providing ground floor public amenity spaces. These spaces
shall be permanently accessible by the public.
Section 14:
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 15:
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.
P22
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No. __, Series 2015
Page 6 of 7
Section 16:
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 _____ day of _____, 2015.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
__________________________ ______________________________
Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Ryan Waltersheid, Chair
Attest:
_______________________________
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Approved Dimensional Requirements
P23
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No. __, Series 2015
Page 7 of 7
Exhibit A – Approved Dimensional Requirements
Dimensional Requirement Existing
Development
Proposed
Development
Zone District
Allowances
Minimum Lot Size 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft.
Minimum Front Yard
Setback (Hopkins Ave.)
7 ft. 8.5 ft. (wall)
5 ft. (window
well)
5 ft. (upper
balconies)
10 ft.
Minimum Side Yard
Setback (Aspen St.)
10 ft. 0 ft. (wall)
5ft.
Minimum Side Yard
Setback (park)
5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft.
Minimum Rear Yard
Setback (alley)
26 Feet 0 Feet 5 Feet
Maximum Height 32 Feet 28 - 32 Feet
Cumulative Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
1.05:1 1.63:1 2:1
Lodge FAR 1:1 .96:1 .75:1 to 1:1
Affordable Housing FAR .04:1 .19:1 No limitation
Free-Market Residential
FAR
0 .48:1 .5:1
Max. Multi-Family Unit
Size
N/A ≤ 1,190 sq. ft. 2,000 sq. ft.
P24
VI.A.
Exhibit A
Growth Management Reviews
Page 1 of 5
Exhibit A - Growth Management Reviews
1. 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 Findings: The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) Guidelines have
minimum standards associated with the development of affordable housing unit including the
minimum net livable area of a unit based on the deed restricted income category. The
board’s recommendation is included as Exhibit E; however, it does not follow income
Category requirements or unit size requirements, depending on income category. APCHA
recommends:
• The two units are rental units.
• The two units be at a lower income category level than required.
• Both units are approved as designed, partially below grade.
• That the two bedroom not meeting the minimum size requirements per the APCHA’s
ability to reduce the size of the unit by twenty percent. The minimum size requirement
for Category 1 or 2 income level is 850 sq. ft and 950 sq. ft. for a Category 3 or 4
income level. The two bedroom will meet the size requirement at the Category 1 or 2
income level but not at a Category 3 or 4 income level with the reduction.
Staff finds this criterion is not met.
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 Findings: The affordable housing mitigation requirement for the redevelopment
proposal is 7.11 employees. Four employees are proposed to be housed on-site by two units.
P25
VI.A.
Exhibit A
Growth Management Reviews
Page 2 of 5
While the balance is proposed to be mitigated via off-site units or through the purchase of a
Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit. Staff finds this criterion met.
c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent
(50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade,
whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special
Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430.
Staff Findings: The design of the two on-site units does not meet this standard and the
applicant is requesting that the dimensional requirement be varied via Special Review.
Currently, the finished floor is below natural grade. Staff does not find this criterion met.
d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified
purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The
owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned
qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The
deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to
own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing
Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended.
The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by
an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the
City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages
affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with
the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge.
Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin
County or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject to
this mandatory "for sale" provision.
Staff Findings: Of the two affordable housing units provided on-site, the one bedroom houses
1.75 employees which is in excess of the employees (1.62) required to be mitigated for the
lodge component of the mixed-use project. The two bedroom unit on-site provides mitigation
for a portion of the free-market residential component of the project. The applicant is
requesting that both units be rental units; however, staff recommends that both units be ‘for
sale’ or at a minimum the two bedroom unit be a mandatory ‘for sale’ unit as it is not
required as mitigation for the lodge component of the project.
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 Findings: The applicant is not proposing any affordable units that are not required for
Mitigation. Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
5. Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing. The City's neighborhoods have
traditionally been comprised of a mix of housing types, including those affordable by its
working residents. However, because of Aspen's attractiveness as a resort environment and
because of the physical constraints of the upper Roaring Fork Valley, there is constant
P26
VI.A.
Exhibit A
Growth Management Reviews
Page 3 of 5
pressure for the redevelopment of dwellings currently providing resident housing for tourist
and second-home use. Such redevelopment results in the displacement of individuals and
families who are an integral part of the Aspen work force. Given the extremely high cost of
and demand for market-rate housing, resident housing opportunities for displaced working
residents, which are now minimal, will continue to decrease.
Preservation of the housing inventory and provision of dispersed housing opportunities in Aspen
have been long-standing planning goals of the community. Achievement of these goals will
serve to promote a socially and economically balanced community, limit the number of
individuals who face a long and sometimes dangerous commute on State Highway 82, reduce the
air pollution effects of commuting and prevent exclusion of working residents from the City's
neighborhoods.
The Aspen Area Community Plan established a goal that affordable housing for working
residents be provided by both the public and private sectors. The City and the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority have provided affordable housing both within and adjacent to the
City limits. The private sector has also provided affordable housing. Nevertheless, as a result of
the replacement of resident housing with second homes and tourist accommodations and the
steady increase in the size of the workforce required to assure the continued viability of Aspen
area businesses and the City's tourist-based economy, the City has found it necessary, in concert
with other regulations, to adopt limitations on the combining, demolition or conversion of
existing multi-family housing in order to minimize the displacement of working residents, to
ensure that the private sector maintains its role in the provision of resident housing and to
prevent a housing shortfall from occurring.
The combining, demolition, conversion or redevelopment of multi-family housing shall be
approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on
compliance with the following requirements (see definition of demolition .):
1. Requirements for demolishing affordable multi-family housing units: In the event a
project proposes to demolish or replace existing deed-restricted affordable housing units,
the redevelopment may increase or decrease the number of units, bedrooms or net livable
area such that there is no decrease in the total number of employees housed by the
existing units. The overall number of replacement units, unit sizes, bedrooms and
category of the units shall be reviewed by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
and a recommendation forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
2. Fractional unit requirement. When the affordable housing replacement requirement of
this Section involves a fraction of a unit, cash-in-lieu may be provided only upon the
review and approval of the City Council, to meet the fractional requirement only,
pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3, Provision of required affordable housing via a cash-
in-lieu payment.
3. Location requirement . Multi-family replacement units, both free-market and affordable,
shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner
shall demonstrate and the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that replacement
P27
VI.A.
Exhibit A
Growth Management Reviews
Page 4 of 5
of the units on site would be in conflict with the parcel's zoning or would be an
inappropriate solution due to the site's physical constraints.
When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum
number of units on site which the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the
site can accommodate and may replace the remaining units off site, at a location
determined acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission. A recommendation
from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard.
Staff Findings: The existing Hotel Lenado contains two affordable housing units. One is a
one-bedroom unit and the other is a two-bedroom unit. According to city land use code 1.75
employees are housed by a one-bedroom unit and 2.25 employees are housed by a two-
bedroom unit, totaling 4 employees. The applicant is proposing to replace both the unit type
and number of units on-site so that 4 employees will continue to be housed. Staff finds that
these criteria are met.
6. 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:
b. If the project contains less than 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 thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-
market residential net livable area shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable
housing.
2) Sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated by the additional lodge, timeshare lodge,
exempt timeshare units and associated commercial development, according to Paragraph
26.470.050.A.1, Employee generation, shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable
housing.
Staff Findings: The proposed lodge includes 9 keys on a 9,000 sq. ft. lot so the lodge density
is 1 lodge unit per 1,000 sq. ft. of lot area, requiring 30 % of the free-market residential net
livable area to be mitigated and 60% of the employees generated by the lodge use to be
mitigated.
The three free-market residential units include a total of 7,325.57 sq. ft of net livable are for
mitigation purposes 5,507.5 sq. ft. with the units and 1,818.07 sq. ft. of shared area within
the building that is allocated towards residential use). The following calculation shows that -
2,197.7 sq. ft. or 5.49 employees are generated by the new residential development.
7,325.57 sq. ft. x .3 = sq. ft.
1 FTE = 400 sq. ft.
2,197.7sq. ft. / 400 = 5.49 FTEs
P28
VI.A.
Exhibit A
Growth Management Reviews
Page 5 of 5
The Lodge Preservation overlay employee generation rate is .3 employees generated per
lodging bedroom. The following calculation shows that 1.62 employees are generated with
the development of 9 lodging bedrooms.
9 lodge bedrooms x .3 employees generated = 2.7 employees generated
2.7 employees x .6 required mitigation = 1.62 employees
With a one-bedroom and a two-bedroom unit provided on-site, 4 employees are housed. A
balance of 3.11 employees are required to be provided off-site. The applicant proposes to
provide the 3.11 employees via off-site units or through a Certificate of Affordable Housing
Credits. Staff finds this criterion met.
P29
VI.A.
Exhibit B
Special Review
Page 1 of 3
Exhibit B – Special Review
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.
Special Review for lodge use Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
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 Findings: The applicant is requesting an increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for
the lodge use from .75:1 or 6,750 sq. ft. to 9,000 sq. ft. which is an increase of 2,250 sq. ft. As
noted in the Commercial Design Guidelines, the dimensions and character of a small lodge
should “respect their surroundings.” The neighborhood development pattern has a
residential feel, yards with landscaping and heights that are lower than the downtown. The
proposed design includes cantilevers, balconies and horizontal elements that do not relate to
the historic resources across Hopkins and do not relate to the residential context west of the
lot. The design is rather boxy and the roof forms to not relate well to the neighborhood, nor
assist in reducing the perceived scale of the building. Staff does not find this criterion met
and recommends a restudy to better relate to the surrounding context.
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 Findings: The applicant notes that “the proposed lodge will not have an adverse impact
to the surrounding uses” and that the applicant will “mitigate these impacts to the maximum
extent possible.” The applicant is proposing not to meet the parking needs created by the
trips generated for the development , adding to on-street parking demand in a highly utilized
area. Shading impacts of the building have not been shown. Staff finds this criterion not met.
Special Review for off-street parking
D. Off-street parking requirements. Whenever a special review is conducted to determine
a change in the off-street parking requirements, it shall be considered in accordance with the
standards set forth at Chapter 26.515.
26.515.040. Special review standards
Whenever the off-street parking requirements of a proposed development are subject to special
review, an application shall be processed as a special review in accordance with the common
P30
VI.A.
Exhibit B
Special Review
Page 2 of 3
development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304 and be evaluated according to the
following standards. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
If the project requires review by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Community
Development Director has authorized consolidation pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B, the
Historic Preservation Commission shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the
special review application.
A. A special review for establishing, varying or waiving off-street parking requirements may be
approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have
been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation
of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands,
the projected impacts on the on-street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass
transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for
residents, guests and employees.
Staff Findings: The overall parking requirement for the project is 9.5 parking spaces (3
spaces for the 3 free-market residential units, 2 spaces for the affordable housing units and
4.5 spaces for the 9 lodging keys). Any residential units and any fraction of a parking
requirement are permitted to be provided via a cash payment-in-lieu (currently $30,000 per
space). The applicant is proposing a payment-in-lieu for the entire residential parking
requirement and the fraction of a space, leaving 4 lodging spaces as the required off-street
parking requirement. Two off-street parking spaces are proposed for the development.
According to the Trip Generation calculator adopted by the city, the pm peak hour trips
equal 6.05 trips. On-street parking in the neighborhood is highly utilized and does not have
excess capacity to accommodate additional cars within the neighborhood. Staff recommends
the minimum 4 spaces be required. Staff does not find this criterion met.
2. An on-site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in
an undesirable development scenario.
Staff Findings: The proposed project will demolish the existing hotel and redevelop the site
with a new building that can be designed in a way to meet the parking requirement of the
lodge use. Providing the required parking is not practically difficult. Staff does not find this
standard met.
3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the
development, including the availability of street parking.
Staff Findings: The applicant is proposing a payment-in-lieu for 5.5 parking spaces, leaving
the requirement of 4 spaces for the lodging use of the property. The current proposal is for
two off-street parking spaces. On-street parking in the neighborhood is highly utilized and
there is not excess capacity to accommodate additional cars within the neighborhood. The
design of the parking area is an underutilization of the potential to create off-site parking.
Staff does not find this standard met.
P31
VI.A.
Exhibit B
Special Review
Page 3 of 3
Special Review for Affordable Housing
I. Affordable housing unit standards. Whenever a Special Review is conducted to reduce the
required percentage that the finished floor level of the unit’s net livable area is at or above
natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, a recommendation from the Housing Board shall
be obtained and all of the following criteria shall be met. The criteria below address only the
affordable housing units that require a variation from the standard.
1. The proposed affordable housing units are designed in a manner that is compatible with
the character of the neighborhood.
Staff Findings: This neighborhood transitions from the commercial core of downtown that
has lot line to lot line development to a development pattern that has a more residential feel.
The street façade composition does little architecturally to highlight or express the main
entry or the mix of residential and lodge uses in the building. Staff does not find this criterion
met and recommends a restudy of the architecture to be more compatible with the character
of the residential neighborhood.
2. The proposed amount that the affordable housing units are below natural or finished grade,
whichever is more restrictive, is an appropriate response to unique site constraints, such
as topography.
Staff Findings: The building cuts into the natural topography with retaining walls which does
not create an inviting living experience and does not create an inviting pedestrian
experience. Although the topogrghy creates challenges for redevelopment, two stories of the
building are above grade allowing for a reconfiguration of or different location of the units.
Staff does not find this criterion met.
3. The proposed affordable housing units are designed in such a manner which exceeds the
expectations of the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, and promotes the
unit’s general livability by demonstrating compliance with as many of the following
conditions as possible:
a) Significant storage, such as additional storage outside a unit.
b) Above average natural light, such as adding more window area than the Building Code
requires.
c) Net livable unit sizes exceed minimum requirement.
d) Unit amenities, such as access to outdoor space or private patios.
Staff Findings: Each unit is provided a storage unit in the basement. Natural light is limited
on the north and south facades by balcony elements and cantilevered living space above the
units. The applicant has not shown that additional window area is provided. The one-
bedroom unit at 600 sq. ft. meets the minimum net livable area requirement for an income
category 1 or 2 unit but does not meet it for an income category of 3 or 4 unit (where 700 sq.
ft. is required). The two-bedroom unit at 717 sq. ft. does not meet the minimum net livable
area requirement for an income category 1 or 2 unit (where 850 sq. ft. is required) or for an
income category of 3 or 4 (where 950 sq. ft. is required). The project does not provide
private patios but does provide some common outdoor space and is proposing access to the
common areas of the building. Staff finds this criterion is not met.
P32
VI.A.
Exhibit C
Commercial Design Review
Page 1 of 10
Exhibit C - Commercial Design Standards
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: Responses to Sections 26.412.060-070 are outlined below. Staff finds this
criterion is not met.
B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the
proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design
standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the façade of the building may be required
to comply with this Section.
Staff Findings: The proposal is for a new structure. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and
Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate
Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to
be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal
is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards
and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways
of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must
determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means.
Staff Findings: Responses to the Design Guidelines are outlined below. This property is located
in the Small Lodge Character Area. Overall, Staff finds this criterion is not met.
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
P33
VI.A.
Exhibit C
Commercial Design Review
Page 2 of 10
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 Findings: The applicant proposes 1,733 sq ft of public amenity space, primarily located
on a second floor terrace and on the roof. This represents 19% of the site. The public
amenity spaces will be accessible to the general public, as well as the hotel guests,
affordable housing residents, and free-market residential owners. Parts of the public amenity
space is essentially treated as side yards allowing for little, if any, use. The amenity space
along Aspen Street has the potential to be an active, used space but is interrupted with a
window well and additional study is necessary. Staff finds this criterion is not met.
2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this
characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade
trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent
rights-of-way are encouraged.
Staff Findings: The amenity space proposed along Hopkins generally follows the topography
and essentially provides a modest side yard to the property on the north side of the property;
however, the depth of the amenity space does not relate well to the depth of residential front
yards across the street. The larger amenity space, provided along Aspen Street, is
predominately hardscape. Along Aspen Street, where the western sun and southern views can
be utilized, the design includes some areas for seating but also includes an entry to an
affordable housing unit and a large window well that interrupts the space. The objective for
these areas include “the creation of well designed public gathering space adjacent to the
street edge.” A portion of the public amenity space along Aspen Street is not level with the
sidewalk, which impairs the space and its relationship to the public realm of the street and
sidewalk. Staff finds this criterion not met.
3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures,
rights-of-way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment.
Staff Findings: The proposed streetscape improvement along Hopkins (sidewalk) will
enhance the pedestrian environment; however, the grade change between the sidewalk and
the amenity space along Aspen Street detracts from the pedestrian environment. Staff finds
this criterion is not met.
4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls,
sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian
environment.
Staff Findings: The proposed amenity does not include any of the items listed. Staff finds
this criterion is met.
P34
VI.A.
Exhibit C
Commercial Design Review
Page 3 of 10
4. 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 Findings: The proposed amenity does not include any request for variations from the
operational standards. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of
a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success
of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding
properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The
following standards shall apply:
1. A 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 Findings: The proposed trash area does not meet the requirements of Title 12. The
Applicant is providing a space that is less than the 10’ by 20’ requirement (interior wall to
interior wall). The location does not meet the minimum rear yard setback for the structure.
Staff does not find this criterion met.
5. A utility area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum
standards established by Title 25, Utilities , of the Municipal Code, the City’s Electric
Distribution Standards, and the National Electric Code, unless otherwise established
according to said Codes.
Staff Findings: The utilities department has reviewed the application and noted that there is
not enough information with regard to a transformer being located on the property. More
information is required to ensure adequate sizing and clearance needs. Additional
information will be required as part of Detailed Review. Staff does not find this criterion met.
6. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located and combined to the
greatest extent practical.
Staff Findings: The environmental health department has reviewed the application and noted
that there is not enough information to determine if utilities can be collocated. More
information is required to ensure the ability to collocate and will be required as part of
Detailed Review. Staff does not find this criterion met.
7. 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 Findings: The proposed location of the service area is along the alley. Staff finds this
criterion met.
8. 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
P35
VI.A.
Exhibit C
Commercial Design Review
Page 4 of 10
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 Findings: The proposed service area is completely enclosed. Staff finds this criterion
met.
9. 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 Findings: The proposed trash area is located and accessed off the alley. Other portions
of the building along the alley meet the minimum setback. Staff finds this criterion is not
applicable.
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 Findings: The utilities department has reviewed the application and noted that there is
not enough information with regard to a transformer being located on the property. More
information is required to ensure adequate sizing and clearance needs. Additional
information will be required as part of Detailed Review. Staff does not find this criterion met.
8. All commercial and lodging buildings shall provide a delivery area. The delivery area
shall be located along the alley if an alley adjoins the property. The delivery area shall be
accessible to all tenant spaces of the building in a manner that meets the requirements of
the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City
of Aspen. All non-ground floor commercial spaces shall have access to an elevator or
dumbwaiter for delivery access. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be utilized
as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International
Building Code. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building.
Shared facilities are highly encouraged.
Staff Findings: Lodging buildings typically are designed with loading and delivery areas to
handle typical back of house items such as food and beverage delivery. The logical area for
deliveries is along the ally; however, the building does not provide clear, direct delivery
access along the alley. Instead, a walkway along the east property line is proposed to a door
which then has stairs to access second story (junior suites level). Staff does not find this
criterion met.
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
P36
VI.A.
Exhibit C
Commercial Design Review
Page 5 of 10
the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended
by the City of Aspen, or an air curtain.
Staff Findings: There are no commercial tenant spaces proposed. Staff finds this criterion not
applicable.
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 Findings: All mechanical exhausts are vented through the roof. Staff finds this
criterion is met.
11. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within
the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed
behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a
public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for
future ventilation and ducting needs.
Staff Findings: All mechanical equipment and ducting are accommodated internally or
consolidated on the rooftop. 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 Findings: Environmental Health has not granted any variation to the trash area.
Compliance or a variation will be required at Detailed Review. Staff does not find this
criterion met.
26.412.070. Suggested design elements.
The following guidelines are building practices suggested by the City, but are not mandatory. In
many circumstances, compliance with these practices may not produce the most desired
development, and project designers should use their best judgment.
A. Signage. Signage should be integrated with the building to the extent possible.
Integrated signage areas already meeting the City's requirements for size, etc., may minimize
new tenant signage compliance issues. Common tenant listing areas also serves a public way-
finding function, especially for office uses. Signs should not block design details of the building
on which they are placed. Compliance with the City's sign code is mandatory.
Staff Findings: The project will comply with all signage requirements. Staff finds this criterion
is met.
B. Display windows. Display windows provide pedestrian interest and can contribute to the
success of the retail space. Providing windows that reveal inside activity of the store can provide
this pedestrian interest.
P37
VI.A.
Exhibit C
Commercial Design Review
Page 6 of 10
Staff Findings: No display windows are proposed. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
C. Lighting. Well-lit (meaning quality, not quantity) display windows along the first floor
create pedestrian interest after business hours. Dynamic lighting methods designed to catch
attention can cheapen the quality of the downtown retail environment. Illuminating certain
important building elements can provide an interesting effect. Significant light trespass should
be avoided. Illuminating the entire building should be avoided. Compliance with the City's
Outdoor lighting code, Section 26.575.150 of this Title, is mandatory.
Staff Findings: The project will comply with all lighting requirements. Staff finds this criterion
is met.
Commercial Design Guidelines – Conceptual Design Review Guidelines for the Small
Lodge Character Area
The Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Objectives and Guidelines assign the Small
Lodge Character Area to this parcel. Aspen’s small lodges are “dispersed throughout residential
and mixed-use neighborhoods” and the guidelines further state that “each of these buildings is
individual and the setting of every site is unique.” A lodge’s “dimensions and character should
respect their surroundings.” The main objectives for the character area are described as:
1. New development should be compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located.
2. Create a distinctive experience for lodging with a sense of being in a neighborhood.
3. Enhance the character of the street edge.
4. Minimize the visual impacts of cars.
Lodges with the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay are typically located in residential areas. The
Small Lodge Character Area Design Guidelines focus primarily on ensuring that lodge
redevelopments fit into the surrounding neighborhood: “Lodge overlay sites offer a special
opportunity to experience the community more closely, and to feel a part of a neighborhood.
Therefore, these lodges should appear related to the context in their design, while also conveying
the unique character of an exciting accommodations facility.” Building mass, scale and height
needs to address the surrounding character through height modulation, breaking up the building
into separate modules, and through roof form. As stated in the Guidelines “roof forms also
should be a central consideration, directly informed by the immediate setting. The pitched roof
form of residential type buildings provide a medium which can create a perceived reduction in
scale and an interesting and varied profile where the building is modulated.”
Conceptual Review includes the following guidelines:
Street & Alley System
Staff Findings: The proposed project will not affect the existing alley with regard to access or
circulation. Staff finds the Street & Alley System portion of the Guidelines met.
Staff finds the following Guideline is met:
P38
VI.A.
Exhibit C
Commercial Design Review
Page 7 of 10
5.1 The network of streets and alleys should be retained as public circulation space and for
maximum public access.
• They should not be enclosed or closed for public access, and should remain open to the
sky.
• This applies to a lodge property that may include lots on both sides of an alley.
Parking
Staff Findings: The project proposes two parking spaces: one is parallel to the alley while the
second parking space is within a garage. The garage is accessed by a driveway that has a curb
cut on the alley which is located ten feet from the S. Aspen Street property line. The surface
parking space, driveway, and garage door are fairly visible from the street. The parking area is
not located towards the interior or rear of the property. Staff does not find the Parking portion of
the guidelines met, specifically Guideline 5.2 which requires the visual impacts of parking to be
minimized. Staff recommends that the site plan be restudied to screen the parking entrance from
Aspen Street .
Staff finds the following Guidelines are not met:
5.2 Minimize the visual impacts of parking
• Parking shall be placed underground wherever possible.
• Where surface parking is permitted, it shall be located to the interior of the property.
• Surface parking shall be externally buffered with landscaping, and internally planted and
landscaped to soften design of parking areas and provide solar shade.
Staff finds the following Guidelines are not applicable:
5.3 Minimize the visual impacts of surface parking.
• On small lots where limited surface parking in front of the building might be considered,
it should be designed and screened to minimize visual impacts.
Public Amenity Space – Central Mixed Use Character Area
Staff Findings: The Central Mixed Use Character Area, in which the hotel is located, is used
when considering the design of public amenity space. The design objectives of this area include:
• reflect a transition in character with landscape design from the core to residential
neighborhoods
• maintain a sense of front yards with landscaping
• maintain a visually interesting street edge
• Encourage outdoor use areas
The amenity space proposed along Hopkins generally follows the topography and essentially
provides a modest side yard to the property on the north side of the property; however, the depth
of the amenity space does not relate well to the depth of the residential front yards across the
P39
VI.A.
Exhibit C
Commercial Design Review
Page 8 of 10
street. Retaining walls are present on both Hopkins Avenue and Aspen Street. The larger
amenity space, provided along Aspen Street, is predominately hardscape. Along Aspen Street,
where the western sun and southern views can be taken advantage of, the design includes some
areas for seating but it is located next to private, not common interior space, such as a
restaurant or bar area. The entry to an affordable housing unit and a large window well
interrupt the amenity space. The objective for these areas includes “the creation of well
designed public gathering space adjacent to the street edge.” A portion of the public amenity
space along Aspen Street is not level with the sidewalk, which impairs the space and its
relationship to the public realm of the street and sidewalk. Staff recommends additional study to
develop a prominent street entrance to the lodge to “appear related to the context in their
design, while also conveying the unique character of an exciting accommodations facility” and
ensure that the design of the space will allow for an activated amenity space. At this time staff
does not find the Public Amenity Space portion of the guidelines met.
Staff finds the following Guideline is met:
2.5 Public Amenity Space should take the form of:
• Public space adjacent to the street edge (met )
• Public links through the site (not applicable )
2.7 A street facing amenity space shall meet the following requirements:
• Abut the public sidewalk
• Be open to the sky
• Be directly accessible to the public
• Be paved or otherwise landscaped
Staff finds the following Guideline is not met:
2.7 A street facing amenity space shall meet the following requirements:
• Be level with the sidewalk
Staff finds the following Guideline is not applicable:
2.6 A street facing amenity space located on a corner or within the street block may be
considered.
Building Placement
Staff Findings: The immediate neighborhood includes a mix of single-family residences, some
multi-family residential buildings, a small lodge, a few office buildings and two parks. Small
lodges are required to be compatible with the neighborhood according to the design guidelines.
Two story residences with gabled roofs are the dominate form along Hopkins Avenue east of
Aspen Street. Some of these are designated landmarks. Directly across Aspen Street single family
homes on the south side of Hopkins are typical within the corridor. Diagonally, on the corner of
P40
VI.A.
Exhibit C
Commercial Design Review
Page 9 of 10
Aspen and Hyman sits the Hearthstone House which is nestled into its site. Across the alley are
the ParkWest condominiums which read along the alley as two and a half stories.
This neighborhood transitions from the commercial core of downtown that has lot line to lot line
development to a development pattern that has a more residential feel, yards with landscaping
and heights that are lower than the downtown. New development should reflect this transition
with appropriate heights, yards that frame the building, and landscaping. Within the
neighborhood the yards along Hopkins Avenue range from approximately five to eighteen feet.
The required setback along Hopkins Ave. is ten feet, rather than the five feet proposed and a
more generous depth would relate better to the residences along Hopkins Avenue.
The applicant proposes a flat roof building that cuts into the natural slope. The proposal
includes substantial areas of floor to ceiling glazing in the range of 12-15 feet in height that do
not relate to the historic resources across Hopkins and do not relate to the residential context
west of the lot. The balconies on Hopkins are continuous, some 75 feet in length, with a solid
railing that blocks interaction with street, in contrast to the open and engaging deck space on the
existing building.
The boxy design may be more appropriate in the downtown area where a flat roof building is
contextual. The location of this project in a residential neighborhood adjacent to a city park is a
challenging context that requires a sensitive design. Finding a balance of traditional forms and
modern applications is recommended for this site. One way to balance these objectives is noted
in the design guidelines: “the pitched roof form of residential type buildings provide a medium
which can create a perceived reduction in scale and an interesting and varied profile where the
building is modulated.”
There is no significant modulation of form to reflect traditional lot size widths as required in
Guidelines 5.5 and 5.7, particularly along Hopkins Avenue. Height undulation is not proposed
but is required in Guideline 5.6. Relationship and response to the existing context, much of
which is preserved through historic designation, is unclear. The site plan redefines the street
edge by cutting into the natural topography with retaining walls which does not create an
inviting pedestrian experience and does not meet the design objective that “lodge overlay sites
offer a special opportunity to experience the community more closely, and to feel a part of a
neighborhood.”
The street façade composition does little architecturally to highlight or express the main entry or
the mix of residential and lodge uses in the building. This makes the building hard to navigate,
reading more like an office building, and also misses an opportunity to break down the scale of
the building. The current design of the building does not fit into the context of the neighborhood.
Staff finds the following Guidelines are not met:
P41
VI.A.
Exhibit C
Commercial Design Review
Page 10 of 10
5.4 Front, side and rear setbacks should generally be consistent with the range of the
existing neighborhood.
• These should include landscaping.
5.5 Within an established residential context, a lodge building should reflect traditional lot
widths in more than one of the following ways:
• The variation in building height.
• The modulation of building elements
• The variation in facade heights.
• The street façade composition.
• The variation in design and materials to emphasize the building module.
5.6 Building height should generally fall within the range established by the setting of
adjacent buildings and the nearby street blocks.
• If two stories are predominant a third story portion may be permitted if located in the
center or as an accent corner.
• Higher sections of the building should be located away from lower adjacent buildings.
• A minimum of 9ft. floor to ceiling height is to be maintained in second stories and higher.
5.7 A building should respect the traditional lot width and scale of the context in form,
modulation and variation of the roofscape.
• On sites exceeding 60 feet in width, the building height and form should be modulated
and varied across the site
• The width of the building or of an individual building module should reflect traditional
façade widths in the area.
5.9 Building height adjacent to a residential zone district should fit within a bulk plane
which:
• Has a maximum wall height of 25 ft. at the required side yard setback line, and
• Continues at a 45 degree angle from this wall plate height until it reaches the
maximum permitted height.
Staff finds the following Guidelines does not apply:
5.8 Building height adjacent to a historic single story residential building should fit within a
bulk plane which:
• Has a maximum wall height of 15 ft. at the required side yard setback line, and
• Continues at a 45 degree angle from this wall plate height until it reaches the maximum
permitted building height.
P42
VI.A.
Exhibit D
Planned Development, Project Review
Page 1 of 4
Exhibit D – Planned Development, Project Review
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
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: The project site does not appear to include lands unsuitable for development as
an existing building is located on the property. 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 property is located on a sloped site and provides for a fair amount of site
retaining along the perimeter of the property The site plan redefines the street edge by
cutting into the natural topography with retaining walls. Staff does not find this criterion met.
P43
VI.A.
Exhibit D
Planned Development, Project Review
Page 2 of 4
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 number of cottonwoods are located in the right of way along Hopkins
Avenue. The Parks Department has indicated that the trees should be maintained and
protected. The applicant is currently working with the department on how to best maintain
the trees. Staff finds this criterion met.
3. Buildings are oriented to public streets and are sited to reflect the neighborhood context.
Buildings and access ways are arranged to allow effective emergency, maintenance, and
service vehicle access.
Staff Findings: The building is oriented toward the 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. 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 Findings: The applicant is proposing to establish setbacks for three property lines
through Planned Development Review. The setback variations are along the north, south and
west property lines. As the existing hotel is proposed to be demolished, the setback
requirements can be met with a new design. Although the replacement and upgrading of
lodging inventory is an important community goal, the reduction of lodge units with an
increase in overall square footage does not achieve this goal. Staff does not find this
criterion met.
2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary
uses of the project.
Staff Findings: This neighborhood transitions from the commercial core of downtown that
has lot line to lot line development to a development pattern that has a more residential feel
with yards and landscaping. A reduction in setbacks decreases the opportunity for yards that
surround the building, which is a typical development pattern in the neighborhood. Staff does
not find this criterion met.
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 Findings: The applicant proposes a flat roof building that cuts into the natural slope.
The proposal includes substantial areas of floor to ceiling glazing in the range of 12-15 feet
in height that do not relate to the historic resources across Hopkins and do not relate to the
residential context west of the lot. The balconies on Hopkins are continuous, some 75 feet in
P44
VI.A.
Exhibit D
Planned Development, Project Review
Page 3 of 4
length, with a solid railing that blocks interaction with street, in contrast to the open and
engaging deck space on the existing building.
The boxy design may be more appropriate in the downtown area where a flat roof building is
contextual. The location of this project in a residential neighborhood adjacent to a city park
is a challenging context that requires a sensitive design. Finding a balance of traditional
forms and modern applications is recommended for this site.
The street façade composition does little architecturally to highlight or express the main
entry or the mix of residential and lodge uses in the building. This makes the building hard to
navigate, reading more like an office building, and also misses an opportunity to break down
the scale of the building. The current design of the building does not fit into the context of the
neighborhood. Staff does not find this criterion met.
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 Findings: Off-street parking for the lodge component is being requested via Special
Review for this project. Please refer to Exhibit B.
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 Findings: This criterion is not applicable at this time.
E. Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is compatible with the
context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be
used:
1. The design complies with applicable design standards, including those outlined in
Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards , Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design
Standards , and Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation .
Staff Findings: Exhibit C specifically addresses the applicable design standards. Staff finds
that the review criterion is not met.
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.
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
P45
VI.A.
Exhibit D
Planned Development, Project Review
Page 4 of 4
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 Findings: The Applicant has included a number of improvements to the pedestrian
facilities on the site. Due to the proximity to Rubey Park, no new transit facilities are
anticipated. The proposed sidewalk and bump-out improvements (at the corner of Hopkins and
Aspen Streets) will enhance the pedestrian experience by providing sidewalks where none exist
today and an improved cross walk. Engineering has asked for additional information about
pedestrian and traffic flows to be clarified as part of Detailed Review. At this time, 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 Findings: The project will comply with all requirements of Title 29 and the URMP. The
applicant has agreed to meet the standards and Engineering staff has requested certain
information to be provided as part of the Detailed Review application. Staff finds this criterion
is met.
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 Findings: Public infrastructure, including water and sewer lines, will be upgraded. All
costs associated with infrastructure upgrades will be borne by the applicant. Staff finds this
criterion is met.
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 Findings: The proposed development proposes unobstructed legal access to a public way
(the alley), and the development does not propose to eliminate any legal access to a public way
on any adjacent property. Staff finds this criterion is met.
P46
VI.A.
Exhibit E
DRC Comments
Page 1 of 13
Exhibit E – Development Review Committee Comments
DRC Comments – Hotel Lenado, March 2015
Parks Department
1) The cottonwood trees along Hopkins are a priority for tree preservation and there
should be no excavation beyond the existing foundation on the north side of the
current building. More detailed plans on the exact limit of excavation will be
required once these revisions are applied.
2) The sidewalk that is to be installed on the north side of the building along Hopkins
should be located on the property line. It should be no more than 5’ wide. The
sidewalk should be elevated in a manner that will not cause the removal of any
roots greater than 2” diameter. This may involve significant air spade work.
3) Backfill in the areas around the building along Hopkins and along the park should
be limited to the least amount practical. The Parks Department and Engineering
Department will work together with the applicant to make sure that drainage issues
are resolved while at the same time trying to reduce backfill over existing root
systems.
4) No trenching may occur around the cottonwood trees on Hopkins. Any utility
installations/adjustments along Hopkins must be done with boring equipment.
5) The contractor should anticipate extensive tree protection measure for the
cottonwood trees along Hopkins.
6) No pruning should be done on the cottonwood trees along Hopkins or South Aspen
Street unless approved by the City Forester.
7) Backfill and construction activities will likely require the removal of one aspen tree
on the east side of the building. This tree is in a public park and will require
mitigation if removal is necessary. More detail is needed on the exact limit of
excavation and/or backfill in this area.
8) The ash trees along Aspen Street will require tree protection measures. At this
time, the Engineering Department will not require the sidewalk to be replaced.
This is the best option for the preservation of the semi-mature ash trees. If the
sidewalk becomes necessary to replace, then the Parks Department and
Engineering Department will work with the applicant on tree preservation along
South Aspen Street.
P47
VI.A.
Exhibit E
DRC Comments
Page 2 of 13
9) Construction of a new ramp at the corner of South Aspen Street and Hopkins will
require tree protection, but should not interfere significantly with the ash tree there.
More detail is needed to make a determination about impacts to the ash tree in this
location.
Environmental Health
1) The architecturals submitted indicate this Lodge is providing less than the 10’ x 20’
space as required by the City of Aspen’s Municipal Code (12.10.040 A, c). This
space is measured from the interior walls to ensure there is 200 square feet for
trash and recycling storage (see Floor Plans -Junior Suites level).
2) There is no indication of the clearance the waste enclosure will have on any of the
architecturals or the narrative. The Municipal Code (12.10.040 A, c) requires 10’
height as a minimum for Lodges with less than 60 rooms. The height for the trash
and recycling area is not denoted.
3) The doors shown on the plan indicate they will be opening into the Right of Way of
the alley. These doors must not interfere with the public ROW or the haulers’ ability
to access the waste area.
4) The Project Overview refers to the trash and recycling area as also containing
utilities (pg. 8, B3). However, neither the narrative nor the drawings indicate what
utility equipment will be stored in this space. Any utility equipment being stored in
this space must be approved by both the City of Aspen Utility Department and the
Environmental Health Department (Title 12, Section 10.040 E). Consideration for
approval cannot be given without information regarding what equipment is
proposed to be stored in the trash and recycling space.
Zoning
1) Floor Area Existing: section 26.575.020(D) Measuring Floor Area
• The gross number for lodge use is incorrect. Please check math.
• The trash enclosure/storage/garage(?) area is counted as non-unit and exempt.
Please clarify the approved purpose of this structure.
2) Height: section 26.575.020 (F) Measuring Building Heights
• Provide and use an interpolated grade survey to establish proposed height and for
use in calculating subgrade areas. height at perimeter of a building is from the
façade not from the façade of the decks. See section 26.575.020(F)Measuring
Building Heights.
P48
VI.A.
Exhibit E
DRC Comments
Page 3 of 13
• Height at the perimeter is established and used for 15’ after which the
measurement of height is established by of roof over topography. Use the
interpolated grade survey to establish the natural grade/topography. See section
26.575.020(F) Measuring Building Heights.
• Concerned about height at the subgrade patio (West Elevation). Note, the
measurement of height is form the most restrictive grade, finished or natural. See
section 26.575.020(F)(5) Allowed Exceptions to Height Limitations.
3) Exception to height: section 26.575.020(F)(5) Allowed Exceptions to Height
Limitations.
• Exceptions to height are singular in nature and not aggregated with other
exceptions . For example, trellis over exterior stair or mechanical equipment.
• Question height of built-in amenities meeting exception in code.
4) Setbacks: section 26.575.020(D)(E) Allowed Projections into Setbacks.
• Trash and utility enclosures are proposed for the setback. Please note, the
exception for trash enclosures in setbacks is not applicable to this use nor zone
district.
5) Public amenity: section 26.575.020(F)(5) Allowed Exceptions to Height
Limitations.26.5758.030 Public Amenity
• Is shown as including the patio of the Affordable Housing Unit, a ramp and flower
beds. This does not appear consistent with the purpose of Public Amenity space.
6) Lighting: section 26.575.150 Outdoor lighting.
• Outdoor lighting shall meet the Code. The sentence, “certain important building
elements will be illuminated to provide an interesting effect” is not consistent with
what is permitted in section 26.575.150 Outdoor Lighting.
Building
1) Revise exit discharge lobby door configuration
2) Calculate percentage of opening at east and south property lines. These may need
to be reduced.
3) The exterior exit ramp on the roof needs to be a minimum 10' from property line.
4) Revise to provide one fully accessible sleeping unit and show type B clearances
all for the dwelling units.
5) Revise to provide an accessible route to trash area within the site.
P49
VI.A.
Exhibit E
DRC Comments
Page 4 of 13
6) Trash enclosure doors shall not swing into the ROW.
7) oil and sand plus grease interceptors may be required.
Sanitation District
1) The current sanitary sewer service line is substandard and shall be replaced
with a new connection to the District’s main sewer line in the alley.
2) Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer
line according to specific ACSD requirements and prior to micropiling. Soil nails
are not allowed in ROW.
3) Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and
specifications, which are on file at the District office.
4) 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.
5) On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
6) Oil and Grease interceptors (not traps) are required for all food processing
establishments.
7) 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
8) Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. Above
grade development shall flow by gravity.
9) 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.
10) 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.
11) 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.
12) 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
P50
VI.A.
Exhibit E
DRC Comments
Page 5 of 13
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.
13) 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).
14) 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.
15) The applicant’s engineer shall furnish average and peak flows as well as sewer
service pipe size prior to final design.
16) The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements
once detailed building and utility plans are available.
Utilities
My comments (which may conflict with Parks) are that the existing service comes off
of Hopkins. There is currently no Water infrastructure in the portion of South Aspen
Street adjacent to the Subject Property. If water service is proposed from S. Aspen a
new main would most likely be required. The Developer shows a transformer (or it
may be a telephone pedestal based on size) on site (sheet 43, and 44). A on-site
transformer would most likely be required for this development with all transformer
setbacks addressed (essentially 10’x10’ for the actual transformer, 10’ clear distance
in front of the doors, and Free to sky).
Engineering
These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the
project packet submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting.
1) General
• Need to provide an Engineering Report which includes all items which are listed in
the Engineering Design Standards.
2) Grading
• Provide a detailed grading plan. Need to see existing and proposed contours.
Engineering Department reserves the right to comment on grading plan when it is
submitted.
• Provide cross sections every 10’ along the North, East, and South sides of
building. Show the existing and proposed grade. Show the cut and fill. Want to get
P51
VI.A.
Exhibit E
DRC Comments
Page 6 of 13
a better idea and view of the cut and fill around the trees. The extent of grading
within the park, and the change in the alley slope.
• Limit fill around trees on N and E sides.
3) Sidewalks
• To better accommodate the trees on the N side of property the City will permit a 5’
sidewalk. (6’ is typical of multi-family buildings).
• Part of sidewalk along Hopkins will need to be bridged over tree roots.
• To protect the tree that is south of the Hopkins and S Aspen St corner there should
be no disturbance south of the existing concrete line.
• The city will be installing a bumpout on the NE corner of the intersection of Hopkins
and S Aspen to remove the stairs that currently exist. It may be beneficial to create
a bump out on this SE corner to line up the crosswalk. The Eng Dept will have an
internal conversation to see if this needs to be done. This would require relocation
of the existing inlet. If the bump out in front of the Hotel Lenado is not part of the
project scope the project will still need to consider the bump out on other side to
line up the cross walk accordingly.
4) Alley
• Provide cross section of alley every 10’.
• Show all utilities in alley. Include cross sections which show utility depth and
separation.
• Place trench drain at the garage entrance to prevent alley runoff from entering the
garage. Trench drain must be within the property boundaries and not in the ROW.
5) ROW Drainage
• The property is required to manage offsite runoff onto their property and is required
to do so within their own property boundaries. The Parks Department has agreed
to work with the applicant to address drainage issues, but a drainage easement
has by no means been assured to the property.
• Inlets and chase drains will not be permitted in the ROW or city property. The
grading needs to be done in a way accommodate the drainage. If this cannot be
done lawn inlets and area drains should be installed on the property and tie into
the existing street inlet.
• The boulder head wall will not be permitted. Work on city property shall be limited
to grading.
• The proposed landscaping within the park makes it seem like the project is
extending their property. Park users will feel that area is part of the Hotel and not a
public park. Any work agreed upon with the city Parks Department should clearly
differentiate the park and hotel boundary. The bench, boulders, ornamental grass
and perennial garden will not be permitted.
• Provide information on the existing street inlet. Ensure there is adequate capacity
for the redevelopment.
6) Transportation Impact Analysis
MMLOS
P52
VI.A.
Exhibit E
DRC Comments
Page 7 of 13
Overall a handful of MMLOS measures are selected that are not applicable to the
proposed project. Please see individual comments on the attaches MMLOS sheet.
1. The landscape buffer is not greater than the standard minimum width throughout
the entire site and thus the project cannot take credit for this measure.
2. The project does not propose a detached sidewalk on an adjacent property.
3. The proposed landscaping does not meet the requirement to take credit for the
measure. This measure is applicable to larger scale projects.
4. The project does not propose an improved cross walk. Although there is potential
to do so and provide a bulb out which would tie in with the proposed bulb out
which will be installed by the City on the NE corner of the intersection.
5. The TIA takes credit for enhanced pedestrian or bicyclist entrance that mitigates
conflicts at driveways. This is not explained and does not seem applicable. The
new proposed garage entrance is an added conflict point.
6. Demonstrate the pedestrian directness factor on a site map.
7. No traffic calming features are proposed.
TDM
1. The narrative does not address transit access improvement selected as a TDM
measure. Staff needs a description of the proposed transit access improvement
in order to evaluate.
2. Regarding TOP participation – this program is an effective TDM measure for
medium to large employment sites. What is the expected number of employees?
This will help staff evaluate.
3. Bike share participation is defined as membership in the WE-cycle public bike
sharing program. Credit it not provided for the purchase of bikes by the
development. WE-cycle is discussed as “considered” in the narrative. Please
clarify.
Housing
ISSUE : The applicant is seeking approval for the redevelopment of the Hotel Lenado
property located at 200 South Aspen Street.
BACKGROUND : The proposed project would replace the existing lodge with a new,
mixed-use building that will include lodging, on-site affordable housing, free-market
residential and community spaces available to all residents of the building. The
proposed project is as follows:
9 lodge units (decreasing from current 17 units) approximately 570 square feet;
3 single-family residential units to be located on the walk-out level of the lodge;
2 affordable housing units to be located on the entry level of the lodge (both are
replacement units for the existing 2 on-site affordable units)
The Hotel Lenado currently contains a Category 1 one-bedroom deed-restricted unit
and a Category 4 two-bedroom unit, mitigating for a total of 4 FTE’s. The
P53
VI.A.
Exhibit E
DRC Comments
Page 8 of 13
redevelopment of the project will replace both units on-site, but in a slightly
different location. There is additional mitigation required due to the three proposed
free-market units.
DISCUSSION : APCHA’s referral will be based strictly on the required mitigation for
the redevelopment.
• The FTEs associated with the two affordable housing units are required to be
replaced on site unless not practical. The existing units mitigate at 4 FTE’s (1.75
for the 1-bedroom and 2.25 for the 2-bedroom). The 4 FTE’s are to be replaced
on-site based on the City’s multi-family replacement requirements.
• Based on the lodge density of 9 units (contains less than 1 lodge unit per 500 sq.
ft. of lot area) the applicant is required to mitigate at 30% of the residential net
livable and 60% of the employees generated by the lodge.
• Lodge Mitigation – The LP overlay is .3 per unit times 60% (9 units * 30% =
2.7; 2.7 X 60% = 1.62 FTE’s );
• FM Mitigation – All of the free-market units will count towards the mitigation
requirement and only a portion of the common areas will count. There is a
provision in the Code that shared areas start to count toward mitigation
requirements when oversized. The free-market units equal 5,507.5 sq. ft. At
this point in time, Staff does not have updated numbers on the common area
that will count toward free market; however, the number provided by the
applicant is 3,607 square feet. Utilizing the 5,507.75 and the 3,607 square
feet numbers, the calculation is as follows:
5,507.75 sq. ft. X 30% = 1,652.32 sq. ft.
1 FTE = 400 square feet
1,652.32 ÷ 400 = 4.13 FTE’s
3,607 * 30% = 1,082.12 sq. ft. ÷ 400 = 2.7 FTEs
• Total Mitigation Requirement:
1.62 + 4.13 + 2.7 = 8.45 FTEs for mitigation if the additional mitigation
requirement for lodge rooms is required; otherwise, the total
mitigation requirement would be 6.83 FTE’s
The 8.45 FTE’s is based on the current calculations. The actual mitigation
requirement will be confirmed prior to City Council review.
The applicant is proposing to satisfy this additional mitigation through the purchase of
Affordable Housing Credits or the buy-down of an existing unit or units. APCHA
Staff is recommending the use of the Affordable Housing Credits.
P54
VI.A.
Exhibit E
DRC Comments
Page 9 of 13
Part VII, Section 2, paragraph 5 of the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing
Guidelines states:
5. Buy-Down of Existing Units : If the affordable units are proposed to be provided
off-site through the deed restriction of existing units, the applicant shall be required
to document the feasibility of this off-site location by demonstrating that they have
an interest in the property or dwelling units and by specifying the size and type of
units to be provided and any physical upgrade to be accomplished. Future buy-
down requests for deed-restricted units shall be accepted only in existing
complexes at Category 3 or above, if at all, and shall be reviewed on a case-by-
case basis. In any new projects that consist of free-market and deed-restricted
units, the homeowners’ assessments shall be based on the value of the free-
market units compared to the deed-restricted units. This language shall be
required in the approval and in the Covenants associated with the project. No
changes to these requirements would be allowed without the APCHA’s approval.
The acceptance of potential buy-down units is not likely due to the paragraph stated
above.
Replacement Affordable Housing Units :
The on-site units are proposed as follows:
2-bedroom 717.75 square feet + 113 square feet of accessory storage = 830.75 square
feet
1-bedroom 600.00 square feet + 113 square feet of accessory storage = 713 square
feet
The current minimum square footages for newly deed restricted units according to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines for a Category 1 and 2 one-bedroom
is 600 square feet and 850 square feet for a two-bedroom. The additional square feet for
the accessory storage cannot be included in this number; therefore, the two-bedroom unit
does not meet the minimum square footage at Category 1 and 2. A reduction of 20% may
be allowed if the following conditions are met:
Significant Storage – additional storage outside the unit;
Above average natural light – more windows than the Code requires;
Efficient and flexible layout – limit to space used for halls and staircases;
Location within the project – above ground versus ground level or below ground;
If the applicant can achieve higher density of deed restricted units with this
variance.
APCHA recommends the approval of the use of the 20% reduction for the two-bedroom
unit. The proposed units will be located basically on the street level; however, according to
P55
VI.A.
Exhibit E
DRC Comments
Page 10 of 13
the Community Development Department, a portion of the units are considered below
grade. APCHA has no concern with the location of the two units; however, the Board is
recommending that the 1-bedroom unit remain at Category 1 and the 2-bedroom unit be
deed restricted as Category 2.
According to the applicant, the tenants of both affordable units will have access to all
amenities within the hotel, which includes, but is not limited to, the laundry facility, the
upper bar/lounge area, and a community kitchen. Each unit will also have an additional
storage area located in the lower level.
RECOMMENDATION : Based on the Land Use Code APCHA recommends approval of
the redevelopment of the Hotel Lenado property, with the additional mitigation
requirement of 8.45 FTE’s (to be verified by the Community Development
Department) to be satisfied by the purchase of Affordable Housing Credits at the
Category 2 level. Category 2 is being recommended due to the type of jobs that
would be generated by the free-market units and the lodge units. The buy-down of
units to satisfy the additional mitigation is not being recommended.
The deed restricted units shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy prior to, or in
conjunction with, the Certificate of Occupancy for the lodge rooms and the free-
market units. The deed restriction shall be recorded PRIOR to Certificate of
Occupancy.
The following conditions shall also apply:
Rental Unit :
1. The deed restriction shall require that all tenants are approved PRIOR to tenancy
through APCHA and must re-qualify every two years. If the tenants work
specifically for the Hotel Lenado, the income and assets shall be waived; however,
the rental rate charged cannot exceed Category 1 for the one-bedroom unit and
Category 2 for the two-bedroom unit rental rate stated in the Guidelines.
2. Owner and APCHA stipulate and agree that, in accordance with CRS 38-12-
301(1)(a) and (b), this Deed Restriction constitutes a voluntary agreement and
deed restriction to limit rent on the property subject hereto and to otherwise
provide affordable housing stock. Owner waives any right it may have to claim
that the Deed Restriction violates CRS 38-12-301.
3. The rental deed restriction will be recorded with the following conditions:
a. The use and occupancy of the Employee Dwelling Units shall henceforth be
limited exclusively to housing for employees and their families who are
employed in Pitkin County and who meet the definition of "qualified Category
1 employee for the one-bedroom unit and Category 2 for the 2-bedroom unit
" as that term is defined by the qualification guidelines established and
P56
VI.A.
Exhibit E
DRC Comments
Page 11 of 13
indexed by the Authority on an annual basis. The Owner shall have the right
to lease the Employee Dwelling Unit to a "qualified employee" of his own
selection.
b. The Employee Dwelling Units shall not be occupied by the Owner or
members of the immediate family ("Immediate Family" shall mean a person
related by blood or marriage who is a first cousin [or closer relative] and his
or her children), unless the family member is a qualified employee and
obtains approval by APCHA prior to occupancy. The units shall at no time
be used as lodge units.
c. Written verification of employment of employee(s) proposed to reside in the
Employee Dwelling Units shall be completed and filed with the Authority by
the Owner of the Employee Dwelling Units prior to occupancy thereof, and
such verification must be acceptable to the Authority.
d. The maximum rental rate shall not exceed the Category 1, 1-bedroom rental
rates or the Category 2, 2-bedroom rental rate as set forth in the Rental
Guidelines established by the Authority and may be adjusted annually as set
forth by the Guidelines. Rent shall be verified and approved by the Authority
upon submission and approval of the lease. Employees shall be qualified by
the Authority as to employment, maximum income and asset limitations on a
yearly basis; however, the maximum income and assets shall be waived if
the tenant is/are employed with the Hotel Lenado. The signed lease must
be provided to APCHA.
e. The Units must meet minimum occupancy; i.e., one person per bedroom.
f. Owner agrees to provide to APCHA upon request all information reasonably
necessary to determine if there is full compliance with this Agreement.
g. In the event that APCHA has reasonable cause to believe the Owner and/or
tenant is violating the provisions of this Agreement, the APCHA, by its
authorized representative, may inspect the Property or Affordable Housing
Unit between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
after providing the Owner with no less than 24 hours’ written notice.
h. The APCHA, in the event a violation of this Agreement is discovered, shall
send a notice of violation to the Owner and/or tenant, as may be applicable,
detailing the nature of the violation and allowing the Owner or tenant fifteen
(15) days to cure. Said notice shall state that the Owner or tenant may
request a quasi-judicial hearing before the APCHA Board pursuant to the
Grievance Procedures of the APCHA Guidelines within fifteen (15) days to
determine the merits of the allegations. If no hearing is requested and the
violation is not cured within the fifteen (15) day period, the Owner or tenant
P57
VI.A.
Exhibit E
DRC Comments
Page 12 of 13
shall be considered in violation of this Agreement. If a hearing is held before
the APCHA Board, the decision of the APCHA Board based on the record of
such hearing shall be final for the purpose of determining if a violation has
occurred and for the purpose of judicial review.
i. There is hereby reserved to the parties’ hereto any and all remedies
provided by law for breach of this Agreement or any of its terms. In the
event the parties resort to litigation with respect to any or all provisions of
this Agreement, the prevailing party shall recover damages and costs,
including reasonable attorney’s fees.
j. In the event one of the Employee Housing Units is leased without
compliance herewith, such lease shall be wholly null and void and shall
confer no title whatsoever upon the purported tenant. Each and every lease,
for all purposes, shall be deemed to include and incorporate by this
reference, the covenants herein contained, even without reference therein to
this Agreement.
k. In the event that the Owner or tenant fails to cure any breach, the APCHA
may resort to any and all available legal action, including, but not limited to,
specific performance of this Agreement or a mandatory injunction requiring
compliance by Owner and/or tenant.
l. Whenever possible, each provision of this Agreement and any other related
document shall be interpreted in such a manner as to be valid under
applicable law; but if any such provision shall be invalid or prohibited under
applicable law, such provision shall be ineffective to the extent of such
invalidity or prohibition without invalidating the remaining provisions of this
Agreement or other document.
m. This Agreement is to be governed and construed in accordance with the
laws of the State of Colorado.
n. No claim of waiver, consent or acquiescence with respect to any provision of
this Agreement shall be valid against any part hereto except on the basis of
a written instrument executed by the parties to this agreement. However,
the party for whose benefit a condition is inserted herein shall have the
unilateral right to waive such condition.
o. The parties to this Agreement agree that any modifications of this
Agreement shall be effective only when made in writing signed by both
parties and recorded with the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County,
Colorado.
P58
VI.A.
Exhibit E
DRC Comments
Page 13 of 13
p. The terms and provisions of this Deed Restriction shall constitute covenants
running with the title to the Employee Housing Units as a burden thereon for
the benefit of, and shall be specifically enforceable by, the Managing Agent,
the Association and/or Owner, by the Housing Authority, the City of Aspen,
Colorado, and by their respective successors and assigns, by any
appropriate legal action including, but not limited to, injunction, abatement,
or eviction of non-qualified tenants.
q. Lease agreements executed for occupancy of the Employee Dwelling Units
shall provide for a rental term of not less than six (6) consecutive months. A
signed and executed copy of the lease shall be provided to the Authority by
the Owner within ten (10) days of approval of employee(s) for the Employee
Dwelling Units. Upon vacancy of the Employee Dwelling Units, the Owner is
granted forty-five (45) days in which to locate a qualified employee. If an
employee is not placed by the Owner, the Authority may rent the Employee
Dwelling Units to a qualified employee.
r. When the option to convert any unit to a sale unit is exercised, the owner
must adopt a new deed restriction in the form adopted by APCHA that is
applicable to sale units.
If the owner requests the units to become ownership units, the following shall apply:
Sales Unit :
1. The units shall be an ownership unit and sold through Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority lottery system.
2. The units shall be classified as Category 1 for the 1-bedroom unit and Category 2
for the 2-bedroom unit.
3. The condominium documents shall reflect that any common area maintenance
shall be paid by the lodge and/or free-market owners. If any work is associated
with the deed-restricted units, the cost will be assessed based on the actual
values of the free-market homes versus the deed-restricted units. Any property
management fees or other fees associated with the lodge or free-market aspect
of the property shall not be charged to the deed-restricted owner. The
condominium documents shall be reviewed and approved by APCHA prior to
Certificate of Occupancy to include language in the event the deed-restricted
units revert to ownership units. The goal is to protect the affordable housing
units from excessive monthly and/or special assessments having to do with
luxury items and/or expensive modifications.
P59
VI.A.
P60
VI.A.
P61
VI.A.
P62
VI.A.
P63
VI.A.
P64
VI.A.
Responses to DRC Comments – Hotel Lenado, March 2, 2015
Parks Department
1) The cottonwood trees along Hopkins are a priority for tree preservation and there
should be no excavation beyond the existing foundation on the north side of the
current building. More detailed plans on the exact limit of excavation will be
required once these revisions are applied.
The foundation wall has been shifted to the South 3 feet from the previous submission,
which locates it 14 inches inside of the existing footprint, with the exception of the
lightwells. The lightwells can be shifted East/West as necessary to avoid any
Cottonwood roots that may be in the vicinity.
2) The sidewalk that is to be installed on the north side of the building along Hopkins
should be located on the property line. It should be no more than 5’ wide. The
sidewalk should be elevated in a manner that will not cause the removal of any
roots greater than 2” diameter. This may involve significant air spade work.
The sidewalk has been modified to a 5-foot width along Hopkins.
3) Backfill in the areas around the building along Hopkins and along the park should
be limited to the least amount practical. The Parks Department and Engineering
Department will work together with the applicant to make sure that drainage issues
are resolved while at the same time trying to reduce backfill over existing root
systems.
The project architect and landscape architect have met with the Parks Department and
based on their feedback will refine the grading plan in this area. Discussion with Parks
and Engineering will continue as the design develops.
4) No trenching may occur around the cottonwood trees on Hopkins. Any utility
installations/adjustments along Hopkins must be done with boring equipment.
Any utility work on Hopkins St. necessary to complete the project will be accomplished
by directional boring equipment.
5) The contractor should anticipate extensive tree protection measure for the
cottonwood trees along Hopkins.
6) No pruning should be done on the cottonwood trees along Hopkins or South Aspen
Street unless approved by the City Forester.
7) Backfill and construction activities will likely require the removal of one aspen tree
on the east side of the building. This tree is in a public park and will require
P65
VI.A.
mitigation if removal is necessary. More detail is needed on the exact limit of
excavation and/or backfill in this area.
8) The ash trees along Aspen Street will require tree protection measures. At this
time, the Engineering Department will not require the sidewalk to be
replaced. This is the best option for the preservation of the semi-mature ash
trees. If the sidewalk becomes necessary to replace, then the Parks Department
and Engineering Department will work with the applicant on tree preservation along
South Aspen Street.
9) Construction of a new ramp at the corner of South Aspen Street and Hopkins will
require tree protection, but should not interfere significantly with the ash tree
there. More detail is needed to make a determination about impacts to the ash
tree in this location.
Comments 5-7 above are understood and agreed to.
Environmental Health
1) The architecturals submitted indicate this Lodge is providing less than the 10’ x 20’
space as required by the City of Aspen’s Municipal Code (12.10.040 A, c). This
space is measured from the interior walls to ensure there is 200 square feet for
trash and recycling storage (see Floor Plans -Junior Suites level).
Waste enclosure is currently shown at 20'W x 8'D x 13'-4 1/4”H. We will work with
Environmental Health to accommodate all necessary equipment and would investigate
re-locating if necessary. The current design is the result of a site meeting with
Environmental Heath personnel in October 2014.
2) There is no indication of the clearance the waste enclosure will have on any of the
architecturals or the narrative. The Municipal Code (12.10.040 A, c) requires 10’
height as a minimum for Lodges with less than 60 rooms. The height for the trash
and recycling area is not denoted.
Waste enclosure provides 13'-4 1/4” of height, floor to ceiling.
3) The doors shown on the plan indicate they will be opening into the Right of Way of
the alley. These doors must not interfere with the public ROW or the haulers’ ability
to access the waste area.
Doors are now shown as sliding and will not interfere with the public ROW.
4) The Project Overview refers to the trash and recycling area as also containing
utilities (pg. 8, B3). However, neither the narrative nor the drawings indicate what
utility equipment will be stored in this space. Any utility equipment being stored in
P66
VI.A.
this space must be approved by both the City of Aspen Utility Department and the
Environmental Health Department (Title 12, Section 10.040 E). Consideration for
approval cannot be given without information regarding what equipment is
proposed to be stored in the trash and recycling space.
The proposal will evolve once equipment size and type has been defined and the
applicant will work with environmental health to determine best solution.
Zoning
1) Floor Area Existing: section 26.575.020(D) Measuring Floor Area
The gross number for lodge use is incorrect. Please check math.
This has been addressed. Per discussion, existing numbers are not relevant. Only
proposed numbers and drawings have been updated in response to conversations and
review with the Deputy Planning Director.
The trash enclosure/storage/garage(?) area is counted as non-unit and exempt.
Please clarify the approved purpose of this structure.
2) Height: section 26.575.020 (F) Measuring Building Heights
Provide and use an interpolated grade survey to establish proposed height and
for use in calculating subgrade areas. height at perimeter of a building is from the
façade not from the façade of the decks. See section 26.575.020(F)Measuring
Building Heights.
Height at the perimeter is established and used for 15’ after which the
measurement of height is established by of roof over topography. Use the
interpolated grade survey to establish the natural grade/topography. See section
26.575.020(F) Measuring Building Heights.
Concerned about height at the subgrade patio (West Elevation). Note, the
measurement of height is form the most restrictive grade, finished or natural. See
section 26.575.020(F)(5) Allowed Exceptions to Height Limitations.
3) Exception to height: section 26.575.020(F)(5) Allowed Exceptions to
Height Limitations.
Exceptions to height are singular in nature and not aggregated with other
exceptions . For example, trellis over exterior stair or mechanical equipment.
Question height of built-in amenities meeting exception in code.
This has been addressed. Trellis has been removed. All built-ins meet code.
4) Setbacks: section 26.575.020(D)(E) Allowed Projections into Setbacks.
Trash and utility enclosures are proposed for the setback. Please note, the
exception for trash enclosures in setbacks is not applicabl e to this use nor zone
district.
P67
VI.A.
Trash enclosure located per City of Aspen Municipal Code Title 12, Sec. 12.10.040.B.
5) Public amenity: section 26.575.020(F)(5) Allowed Exceptions to Height
Limitations.26.5758.030 Public Amenity
Is shown as including the patio of the Affordable Housing Unit, a ramp and flower
beds. This does not appear consistent with the purpose of Public Amenity space.
There is no patio designated exclusively for use by AHU occupant. All patios are
designated for all users and general public.
6) Lighting: section 26.575.150 Outdoor lighting.
Outdoor lighting shall meet the Code. The sentence, “certain important building
elements will be illuminated to provide an interesting effect” is not consistent with
what is permitted in section 26.575.150 Outdoor Lighting.
All outdoor lighting will meet lighting code.
Building
1) Revise exit discharge lobby door configuration
This has been addressed. See plans.
2) Calculate percentage of opening at east and south property lines. These may need
to be reduced.
Percentage of openings have been reduced. Exact percentage yet to be determined.
3) The exterior exit ramp on the roof needs to be a minimum 10' from property line.
This has been addressed. See plans.
4) Revise to provide one fully accessible sleeping unit and show type B
clearances all for the dwelling units.
5) Revise to provide an accessible route to trash area within the site.
This has been addressed. Additional access door was added on East side of enclosure.
6) Trash enclosure doors shall not swing into the ROW.
This has been addressed. Doors are sliding.
7) oil and sand plus grease interceptors may be required.
Sanitation District
P68
VI.A.
1) The current sanitary sewer service line is substandard and shall be replaced
with a new connection to the District’s main sewer line in the alley.
2) Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer
line according to specific ACSD requirements and prior to micropiling. Soil nails
are not allowed in ROW.
3) Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and
specifications, which are on file at the District office.
4) 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.
5) On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
6) Oil and Grease interceptors (not traps) are required for all food processing
establishments.
7) 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
8) Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. Above
grade development shall flow by gravity.
9) 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.
10) 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.
11) 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.
12) 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.
13) 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
P69
VI.A.
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).
14) 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.
15) The applicant’s engineer shall furnish average and peak flows as well as sewer
service pipe size prior to final design.
16) The district will be able to respond with more specifi c comments and requirements
once detailed building and utility plans are available.
Comments will be addressed as design develops and the applicant will work closely
with Aspen Sanitation.
Utilities
My comments (which may conflict with Parks) are that the existing service comes off
of Hopkins. There is currently no Water infrastructure in the portion of South Aspen
Street adjacent to the Subject Property. If water service is proposed from S. Aspen a
new main would most likely be required. The Developer shows a transformer (or it
may be a telephone pedestal based on size) on site (sheet 43, and 44). A on-site
transformer would most likely be required for this development with all transformer
setbacks addressed (essentially 10’x10’ for the actual transformer, 10’ clear distance
in front of the doors, and Free to sky).
Engineering
These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the
project packet submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting.
1) General
Need to provide an Engineering Report which includes all items which are listed
in the Engineering Design Standards.
2) Grading
Provide a detailed grading plan. Need to see existing and proposed contours.
Engineering Department reserves the right to comment on grading plan when it is
submitted.
Provide cross sections every 10’ along the North, East, and South sides of
building. Show the existing and proposed grade. Show the cut and fill. Want to get
a better idea and view of the cut and fill around the trees. The extent of grading
within the park, and the change in the alley slope.
These items will be addressed as the design develops with input from Staff.
P70
VI.A.
Limit fill around trees on N and E sides.
3) Sidewalks
To better accommodate the trees on the N side of property the City will permit a
5’ sidewalk. (6’ is typical of multi-family buildings).
This has been addressed. See plans.
Part of sidewalk along Hopkins will need to be bridged over tree roots.
An elevated walkway will be explored as the design develops and discussed with Parks
and Engineering.
To protect the tree that is south of the Hopkins and S Aspen St corner there
should be no disturbance south of the existing concrete line.
The city will be installing a bumpout on the NE corner of the intersection of
Hopkins and S Aspen to remove the stairs that currently exist. It may be beneficial
to create a bump out on this SE corner to line up the crosswalk. The Eng Dept will
have an internal conversation to see if this needs to be done. This would require
relocation of the existing inlet. If the bump out in front of the Hotel Lenado is not
part of the project scope the project will still need to consider the bump out on
other side to line up the cross walk accordingly.
A bulb-out has been included in the attached conceptual site plan for discussion with the
Engineering Department. Currently the elevation of the accessible ramps causes a
significant amount of water to pond there during thaw and large rain events. Re-grading
this area would be beneficial to pedestrians. The bulb-out on the conceptual plan is
shown at 8.5 feet, which would protect parallel parking and still allow for a 13.5-foot
drive lane. This condition would need to be addressed if the Engineering Department
decides to pursue a bulb-out.
4) Alley
Provide cross section of alley every 10’.
Sections will be utilized as the design develops and provided to Staff.
Show all utilities in alley. Include cross sections which show utility depth and
separation.
Place trench drain at the garage entrance to prevent alley runoff from entering
the garage. Trench drain must be within the property boundaries and not in the
ROW.
This has been addressed. Drain is shown on exterior of garage door.
5) ROW Drainage
P71
VI.A.
The property is required to manage offsite runoff onto their property and is
required to do so within their own property boundaries. The Parks Department has
agreed to work with the applicant to address drainage issues, but a drainage
easement has by no means been assured to the property.
Inlets and chase drains will not be permitted in the ROW or city property. The
grading needs to be done in a way accommodate the drainage. If this cannot be
done lawn inlets and area drains should be installed on the property and tie into
the existing street inlet.
The boulder head wall will not be permitted. Work on city property shall be limited
to grading.
The project architect and landscape architect met with the Parks Department and are
revising the site plan based on their feedback. All offsite grading and other drainage
infrastructure have been removed from the conceptual plan until a restudy can be
conducted.
The proposed landscaping within the park makes it seem like the project is
extending their property. Park users will feel that area is part of the Hotel and not a
public park. Any work agreed upon with the city Parks Department should clearly
differentiate the park and hotel boundary. The bench, boulders, ornamental grass
and perennial garden will not be permitted.
This has been addressed. See plans.
Provide information on the existing street inlet. Ensure there is adequate capacity
for the redevelopment.
This will be addressed as the design develops.
6) Transportation Impact Analysis
MMLOS
Overall a handful of MMLOS measures are selected that are not applicable to the
proposed project. Please see individual comments on the attaches MMLOS sheet.
1. The landscape buffer is not greater than the standard minimum width throughout
the entire site and thus the project cannot take credit for this measure.
2. The project does not propose a detached sidewalk on an adjacent property.
3. The proposed landscaping does not meet the requirement to take credit for the
measure. This measure is applicable to larger scale projects.
4. The project does not propose an improved cross walk. Although there is potential
to do so and provide a bulb out which would tie in wi th the proposed bulb out
which will be installed by the City on the NE corner of the intersection.
5. The TIA takes credit for enhanced pedestrian or bicyclist entrance that mitigates
conflicts at driveways. This is not explained and does not seem applicable. The
new proposed garage entrance is an added conflict point.
6. Demonstrate the pedestrian directness factor on a site map.
P72
VI.A.
7. No traffic calming features are proposed.
TDM
1. The narrative does not address transit access improvement selected as a TDM
measure. Staff needs a description of the proposed transit access improvement
in order to evaluate.
2. Regarding TOP participation – this program is an effective TDM measure for
medium to large employment sites. What is the expected number of employees?
This will help staff evaluate.
3. Bike share participation is defined as membership in the WE-cycle public bike
sharing program. Credit it not provided for the purchase of bikes by the
development. WE-cycle is discussed as “considered” in the narrative. Please
clarify.
TDM measures will be modified in accordance with these comments. However, the
proposed development represents a reduction in total trips. Any modification or
reduction in the TDM analysis will still result in a clear reduction of total trips
generated and no transportation impacts.
P73
VI.A.
P74
VI.A.
Land Use Application
Hotel Lenado
A lodge preservation project, featuring lodging, associated free-market
residential units, onsite affordable housing, and generous community amenities.
20 January 2015
Location: 200 S. Aspen Street (PID# 273707337001)
An application for Commercial Design Review, Special Review, Demolition,
Affordable Housing, Lodge Development, Transportation Impact Analysis, View
Plane, and Subdivision Major Amendment
Represented By:
P75
VI.A.
P
7
6
V
I
.
A
.
Hotel Lenado (PID# 273707337001) Page 1
Commercial Design Review, Special Review, Demolition, Affordable Housing, Lodge
Development, Transportation Impact Analysis, View Plane, and Subdivision Major Amendment
20 January 2015
PROJECT OVERVIEW
DCBD2 LLC (the “Applicant”) submits this application for Commercial Design Review, Special Review,
Demolition, Affordable Housing, Lodge Development, Transportation Impact Analysis, View Plane,
and Subdivision Major Amendment for redevelopment of the existing Hotel Lenado to include
associated residential development. The subject site is a 9,000 SF parcel located at the corner of
Hopkins Avenue and S. Aspen Street at 200 S. Aspen Street (the “Property”). The Property lies within
the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district and has a Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) impacting the entire
parcel. It is understood that the LP Overlay District will determine the permitted uses and the
allowable floor area of the free-market multi-family residential of the Property.
The proposed project will replace the existing lodge building with an entirely new, mixed-use
building that will feature lodging, onsite affordable housing, free market residential, and
exceptional community spaces available to all residents of the building. The intent of this lodge
redevelopment is to provide a “lifestyle” lodging experience for guests and residents alike, which
the Applicant feels is not currently provided in Aspen and which reflects Aspen’s unique
community orientation. All users are encouraged to interact through generously sized, shared
common areas with the goal of drawing guests out of their rooms to these common areas,
where they are likely to meet other guests and residents and become integrated, if only for a
short time, in the Aspen community.
The proposed redevelopment will replace a tired building with a new energy efficient and
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant structure (the current structure is not ADA
compliant) that will complement other lodge redevelopment projects that are being pursued in
the community. The lodging units, which will be approximately 570 SF in size, will fit nicely into the
City’s future lodging inventory and appeal to more family oriented visitors. While the Applicant
will not provide onsite commercial food or drink service, the Applicant would like to explore
providing food and beverage options to patrons through partnerships with local restaurants such
as the Main Street Bakery or Rustique Bistro. In this manner of providing food and beverage
options, instead of adding competition to an already competitive restaurant environment, the
Lodge would be promoting local businesses. The addition of a wide range of lodging options to
the inventory of lodging units for the City of Aspen is a stated goal of the Aspen Area
Community Plan, a priority of the City Council, and has received community support as
evidenced in recent clicker-sessions on lodge redevelopment. The proposed redevelopment of
the Hotel Lenado accomplishes this in this fun and exciting way, The Applicant is committed and
excited to address this gap in the lodging inventory for the City.
The proposed project includes a decrease in the number of lodge units provided from 17 units to
9 units. Three (3) single-family residential units are proposed to be contained on the walk-out
level of the lodge. While most developers would propose free market units on the uppermost
floor to take advantage of the views, the Applicant feels that this would detract from the quality
of the lodging experience. Rather, the Applicant wants the lodge units to have the best views,
with an emphasis also placed on providing exceptional views from the common spaces, to
which the free market residents will have access. The Applicant believes that, while potentially
losing resale value of the free market units by placing them partially subgrade, the free market
units will have added value by having access to lounges, kitchens, bars, game room, mud room,
ski storage, and a roof deck that has unobstructed 360 degree views of the town and its
surroundings. Moreover, the Applicant believes that the vitality of this truly mixed use
development will more than compensate for the partially subgrade location of free market units.
P77
VI.A.
Hotel Lenado (PID# 273707337001) Page 2
Commercial Design Review, Special Review, Demolition, Affordable Housing, Lodge
Development, Transportation Impact Analysis, View Plane, and Subdivision Major Amendment
20 January 2015
Two (2) affordable housing units will be located on the entry level of the lodge. These units will
be intended to house employees of the lodge. Although the existing building has two
affordable housing units, these units are both currently subgrade. The proposed design brings
these units fully above grade while increasing their net livable area. Both units will also have
accessory storage units within the building, providing generous storage that is often overlooked
for affordable units. The residents of both affordable housing units will have the opportunity to
use all lounges, kitchens, bars, roof deck, game room, mud room, and ski storage within the
building in keeping with the open, lifestyle approach of the lodge.
The replacement affordable housing represents 1,360 SF of additional affordable housing net
livable, which will be allocated to mitigation for the new free-market residential. The free-market
residential will utilize this affordable housing credit of 1,359 SF or 3.39 FTEs. The remainder of the
1,373 SF or 3.4 FTEs of required affordable housing mitigation for the new free market
development, is proposed to be met through the purchase of Affordable Housing Credits or the
buy-down of an existing unit or units. The proposed affordable housing units provided on-site will
be fully compliant with Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines.
The applicant requests only one Planned Development variance, and the project complies with
the applicable land use code for height and maximum floor area. The one variance request
includes a reduction of front yard setback for a subgrade patio that provides light for the free-
market residential units. The subgrade patio is located in the same location as an existing
subgrade element that encroaches into the setback. The new patio will reduce the amount of
the encroachment. Additionally, while the current Lodge has 6 marked parking spaces, none
of these spaces conform to Code requirements. Condition number 9 of the Statement of
Exception From Full Subdivision Process, recorded at Book 445, Page 811, requires two parking
spaces be provided for the hotel. The proposal includes one legal parallel spot along the alley
and a garage that provides one van accessible parking space which meets this requirement.
Through the redevelopment of the property, public amenity space will be increased. Currently,
1,332 SF of public open space exists. The Applicant will be creating 1,733 SF of public amenity
space within the Property which represents 19.3% of the lot area, up from 14.8% in existing
conditions. Additional improvements include the provision of a new detached sidewalk along
Aspen Street, replacing the narrow sidewalk, as well as sidewalk amenities and the installation of
appropriate deciduous street trees. Along Hopkins Avenue, a new sidewalk will access Francis
Whitaker Park, with special efforts to retain the four large cottonwood trees that currently exist.
The landscape plan for the lodge will provide for attractive and inviting spaces for guests and
area residents to enjoy. The landscape plan incorporates existing street trees, when possible,
while providing additional plant materials to soften and screen the development from
neighboring residential uses. Also proposed is the enhancement of the storm water mitigation
resulting from flow onto the Property from Francis Whitaker Park. Currently, a dilapidated
retaining wall separates the Property from the Park. Discussions with the Parks Department have
determined that the City will provided an easement on the park to be utilized to create a swale
that will divert storm water from flowing into the Property from adjacent City-owned land. The
Applicant is also open to working with adjacent business owners to make other improvements to
the park if deemed appropriate by the City Parks Department. With such a central location
within the City of Aspen, the Applicant feels that Francis Whitaker Park has a tremendous
amount of unrealized potential. The park could be much more lively and active than it is
currently. The Applicant looks forward to working with the Parks Department in developing this
improvement.
P78
VI.A.
Hotel Lenado (PID# 273707337001) Page 3
Commercial Design Review, Special Review, Demolition, Affordable Housing, Lodge
Development, Transportation Impact Analysis, View Plane, and Subdivision Major Amendment
20 January 2015
The Applicant has worked to design a project that meets City goals with respect to small lodge
development, provides a unique and exceptional experience for lodge patrons, and creates a
community feeling for the redeveloped lodge. The Applicant looks forward to working with the
City of Aspen staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council in the review of this
important lodge project.
P79
VI.A.
Hotel Lenado (PID# 273707337001) Page 4
Commercial Design Review, Special Review, Demolition, Affordable Housing, Lodge
Development, Transportation Impact Analysis, View Plane, and Subdivision Major Amendment
20 January 2015
SMALL LODGE CHARACTER AREA DESIGN OBJECTIVES AND GUIDELINES
Design Objectives
The policy intent of these districts is to protect small lodge uses on sites which have been historically utilized
for this purpose, and encourage the upgrade of these lodge facilities. Compatibility with the neighborhood is a
requirement, coupled with a respect for the ways in which the lodge has traditionally operated. However,
small lodge developments should not mimic non-lodging buildings in the neighborhood.
1. New development should be compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located.
The single family character of the neighborhood has been closely considered in the
design of the lodge and the context of the neighborhood will be respected and
enhanced. While the overall mass and scale of the lodge will be by necessity larger
than that of adjacent residences, the lodge building will be an asset to the
neighborhood.
2. Create a distinctive experience for lodging with a sense of being in a neighborhood.
One of the determining characteristics of the proposed lodge is to provide for the
opportunity for patrons to experience the community more closely, and to feel a part of
a neighborhood. Not only will the lodge relate to neighborhood context in its design, the
generous amount of community and common space will lend a unique community
character to the lodge.
3. Enhance the character of the street edge.
The proposed development will be visually interesting and inviting and the close
interaction of the building to the streetscape will foster increased pedestrian activity in
the neighborhood. Together, the landscaping, architectural details, and entrances that
face the street will support a pedestrian friendly development.
4. Minimize the visual impacts of cars.
Two parking spots, meeting prior requirements, are proposed to be provided. One spot
will be located adjacent to the garage entrance and will be minimally visible from the
street. The other spot, which will be van accessible, will be located in the subgrade
garage and not visible from the street.
5.1 The network of streets and alleys should be retained as public circulation space and for maximum public
access.
No modifications are proposed to the orientation and layout of the streets and alleys
adjacent to the lodge.
• They should not be enclosed or closed for public access, and should remain open to the sky.
No streets or alleys will be enclosed or closed from public access and all streets
and alleys will remain open to the sky.
• This applies to a lodge property that may include lots on both sides of an alley.
The lodge is only located on one side of the alley.
P80
VI.A.
Hotel Lenado (PID# 273707337001) Page 5
Commercial Design Review, Special Review, Demolition, Affordable Housing, Lodge
Development, Transportation Impact Analysis, View Plane, and Subdivision Major Amendment
20 January 2015
5.2 Minimize the visual impacts of parking.
One of the two required onsite parking will be accommodated in a subgrade garage
which will be access off of the alley. The other required spot is proposed to be located
adjacent to the garage entrance but will be minimally visible from the street.
• Parking shall be placed underground wherever possible.
One of the required onsite parking will be accommodated in a subgrade garage
which will be access off of the alley.
• Where surface parking is permitted, it shall be located to the interior of the property.
The other required spot is proposed to be located adjacent to the garage
entrance and located toward the rear of the property.
• Surface parking shall be externally buffered with landscaping, and internally planted and
landscaped to soften design of parking areas and provide solar shade.
No surface parking is proposed that will require landscaping for screening and/or
buffering.
5.3 Minimize the visual impacts of surface parking.
All onsite parking will be minimally visible with one of the two required spots provided in a
subgrade garage.
• On small lots where limited surface parking in front of the building might be considered, it should
be designed and screened to minimize the visual impacts.
No onsite parking is planned in front of the lodge.
5.4 Front, side and rear setbacks should generally be consistent with the range of the existing neighborhood.
Front, side and rear setbacks should generally be consistent with the range of the
existing neighborhood. One existing front setback variance is proposed to be
maintained through a PD variance. The amount of encroachment is reduced
from existing conditions.
• These should include landscaping.
All landscaping will adhere to areas of setback.
5.5 Within an established residential context, a lodge building should reflect traditional lot widths in more
than one of the following ways:
• The variation in building height.
The proposed lodge features an interesting variation of building heights which
respond to site conditions. The maximum height of the building will be 32 feet but
the majority of the building will be less than 32 feet.
P81
VI.A.
Hotel Lenado (PID# 273707337001) Page 6
Commercial Design Review, Special Review, Demolition, Affordable Housing, Lodge
Development, Transportation Impact Analysis, View Plane, and Subdivision Major Amendment
20 January 2015
• The modulation of the building elements.
The lodge will utilize an interesting modulation of building elements through
materiality, massing, and areas of open space and circulation.
• The variation in façade heights.
The lodge will feature a variety of façade heights which respond to building use
and existing site conditions.
• The street façade composition.
The lodge will present a unique and interesting street façade that supports the
pedestrian experience and which is sensitive to neighboring properties.
• The variation in design and materials to emphasize the building module.
The lodge will utilize modulation of building elements through materiality, massing,
and areas of open space and circulation.
5.6 Building height should generally fall within the range established by the setting of adjacent buildings and
the nearby street blocks.
The proposed height of the lodge is 32 feet, a height which is subject to Commercial
Design Review, however the majority of the building will be less than 32 feet.
This building height falls within the range of neighboring properties and which is
consistent with development in the central core of the City of Aspen and appropriate for
a lodging project.
• If two stories are predominant a third story portion may be permitted if located in the center or as
an accent on a corner.
The lodge is proposed to be a three story structure, similar to the existing structure.
• Higher sections of the building should be located away from lower adjacent buildings.
To the extent possible, higher sections of the lodge will be located away from
lower adjacent buildings however, due to specific site characteristics there exists
substantial separation from adjacent structures.
• A minimum 9 ft. floor to ceiling height is to be maintained on second stories and higher.
A ceiling height of at least 9 feet will be maintained on all stories.
5.7 A building should respect the traditional lot width and scale of the context in the form, modulation and
variation of the roofscape.
The proposed lodge will, to the extent possible, respect the traditional lot width and scale
of the neighborhood. The form, modulation, and variation of the roofscape will be
P82
VI.A.
Hotel Lenado (PID# 273707337001) Page 7
Commercial Design Review, Special Review, Demolition, Affordable Housing, Lodge
Development, Transportation Impact Analysis, View Plane, and Subdivision Major Amendment
20 January 2015
sympathetic of the neighborhood, afford exceptional gathering spaces for residents of
the lodge, and provide great interest.
• On sites exceeding 60 feet in width, the building height and form should be modulated and varied
across the site.
The streets adjacent to the lodge do not exceed 60 feet.
• The width of the building or of an individual building module should reflect traditional facade
widths in the area.
The width of the building modules will reflect the traditional façade widths, to the
maximum extent possible.
5.8 Building height adjacent to a historic single story residential building should fit within a bulk plane
which:
• Has a maximum wall height of 15 ft. at the required side yard setback line, and
• Continues at a 45 degree angle from this wall plate height until it reaches the maximum permitted
building height.
The lodge is not adjacent to historic single story residential buildings.
5.9 Building height adjacent to a residential zone district should fit within a bulk plane which:
• Has a maximum wall height of 25 ft. at the required side yard setback line, and
The lodge is not adjacent to a residential zone district.
• Continues at a 45 degree angle from this wall plate height until it reaches the maximum permitted
building height
P83
VI.A.
Hotel Lenado (PID# 273707337001) Page 8
Commercial Design Review, Special Review, Demolition, Affordable Housing, Lodge
Development, Transportation Impact Analysis, View Plane, and Subdivision Major Amendment
20 January 2015
LAND USE CODE RESPONSES
Sec. 26.412.060. Commercial design standards
The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district design objectives
and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed-use development:
A. Public amenity space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive,
exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment
atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-of-
way or private property within commercial areas.
Currently, the Property contains 1,332 of public amenity space. The proposed
redevelopment will provided 1,733 SF of public amenity space, representing 19.3% of the
parcel. The project provides public amenity space through the development of a
pedestrian amenity plaza along Aspen Street.
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.
Utility, trash, and recycle service areas will be provided off of the alley. The utility,
trash, and recycle service areas will meet the minimum standards.
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.
The proposed utility area will meet the minimum standards as 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.
3. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located and combined to the greatest extent
practical.
All utility, trash and recycle service areas will be co-located and combined to the
greatest 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.
Utility, trash, and recycle service areas will be located off of the alley. The utility,
trash, and recycle service areas will meet the minimum standards established.
P84
VI.A.
Hotel Lenado (PID# 273707337001) Page 9
Commercial Design Review, Special Review, Demolition, Affordable Housing, Lodge
Development, Transportation Impact Analysis, View Plane, and Subdivision Major Amendment
20 January 2015
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.
All utility, trash and recycle service areas will be fully enclosed. The enclosure will
be of sound construction, and will be no less than 90% opaque.
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.
As the utility, trash, and recycling is required to be located off the alley and the
proposed utility, trash, and recycle service areas will be located at grade,
portions of the building immediately adjacent to the utility, trash, and recycle
service areas will extend to the rear property line.
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.
All utility service pedestals are located within the property boundary and along
the alley. There are no proposed encroachments into the alley. Although no
encroachments are contemplated, any required encroachments will be properly
licensed.
8. All commercial and lodging buildings shall provide a delivery area. The delivery area shall be
located along the alley if an alley adjoins the property. The delivery area shall be accessible to all
tenant spaces of the building in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building
Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. All non-ground floor
commercial spaces shall have access to an elevator or dumbwaiter for delivery access. Alleyways
(vehicular rights-of-way) may not be utilized as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the
requirements of the International Building Code. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral
component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged.
A delivery area will be provided for the lodge. The delivery area will be located
along the alley. No other tenant spaces will be located in the lodge. The
alleyway will not be utilized as a pathway and a sidewalk will be provided
leading from the parking area to the lodge.
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.
Currently, no commercial tenant spaces are proposed to be located on the
ground floor.
P85
VI.A.
Hotel Lenado (PID# 273707337001) Page 10
Commercial Design Review, Special Review, Demolition, Affordable Housing, Lodge
Development, Transportation Impact Analysis, View Plane, and Subdivision Major Amendment
20 January 2015
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.
Mechanical exhaust will be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment will
be located as far away from the street as practical.
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.
Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting will 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. These features
will not be visible from the public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. The newly
constructed buildings will reserve adequate space for future ventilation and
ducting needs.
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).
No variations of the trash and recycling service area is requested at this time.
Sec. 26.412.070. Suggested design elements.
The following guidelines are building practices suggested by the City, but are not mandatory. In many
circumstances, compliance with these practices may not produce the most desired development, and project
designers should use their best judgment.
A. Signage. Signage should be integrated with the building to the extent possible. Integrated signage areas
already meeting the City's requirements for size, etc., may minimize new tenant signage compliance issues.
Common tenant listing areas also serves a public way-finding function, especially for office uses. Signs should
not block design details of the building on which they are placed. Compliance with the City's sign code is
mandatory.
Signage will be integrated with the building to the maximum extent possible. Signs will
not block design details of the building on which they are placed. The proposed
signage will be in compliance with the City sign code.
B. Display windows. Display windows provide pedestrian interest and can contribute to the success of the
retail space. Providing windows that reveal inside activity of the store can provide this pedestrian interest.
No retail is proposed for the proposed development. Windows will be provided which
reveal the inside activity of the lobby area.
C. Lighting. Well-lit (meaning quality, not quantity) display windows along the first floor create pedestrian
interest after business hours. Dynamic lighting methods designed to catch attention can cheapen the quality
of the downtown retail environment. Illuminating certain important building elements can provide an
interesting effect. Significant light trespass should be avoided. Illuminating the entire building should be
avoided. Compliance with the City's Outdoor lighting code, Section 26.575.150 of this Title, is mandatory.
P86
VI.A.
Hotel Lenado (PID# 273707337001) Page 11
Commercial Design Review, Special Review, Demolition, Affordable Housing, Lodge
Development, Transportation Impact Analysis, View Plane, and Subdivision Major Amendment
20 January 2015
The proposed development will not employ any dynamic lighting methods. Certain
important building elements will be illuminated to provide an interesting effect.
Significant light trespass will be avoided, as well as illuminating the entire building. The
proposed development will be fully compliant with the City's Outdoor lighting code.
Sec. 26.430.040.A. 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.
Special Review is requested for an increase in Floor Area Ratio for lodge to 1:1.
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.
The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and
setbacks of the proposed lodge are designed to be compatible with and enhance
the character of surrounding neighborhood. The lodge will be consistent with the
purposes of the underlying zone district and the LP overlay.
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.
The proposed lodge will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding uses. To the
extent adverse impacts do exist, the applicant will mitigate for these impacts to the
maximum extent possible, including, but not limited to, the effects of shading, excess
traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood, or blocking of a designated view
plane.
The property is located within the Main Street View Plane which was identified as the
Hotel Jerome View Plane in the pre-application conference summary. Studies
included with this application have indicated that the proposed lodge will not have
an impact on this View Plan.
Sec. 26.435.050.Mountain View Plane Review
26.435.050. Mountain view plane review.
A. Applicability. The provisions of mountain view plane review shall apply to all development located
within the following established mountain view planes, unless exempted pursuant to Subsection
26.435.050.B.
The property is located within the Main Street View Plane which was identified as the
Hotel Jerome View Plane in the pre-application conference summary.
P87
VI.A.
Hotel Lenado (PID# 273707337001) Page 12
Commercial Design Review, Special Review, Demolition, Affordable Housing, Lodge
Development, Transportation Impact Analysis, View Plane, and Subdivision Major Amendment
20 January 2015
6. Main Street view plane. There is hereby established a view plane originating from Main Street
above which plane no land use or building shall project. The reference point bears N. 78° 22' 29" W.
92.35 feet from the southeasterly property corner of Block 79 original Aspen Town site. The
reference base line bears N. 75° 09' 11" W. 51.40 feet from the reference point. Elevation of the
reference point and reference base line is 7,906.90 feet above mean sea level. The view plane is more
particularly described as follows: All that space which is within the projection of two (2) radial lines
which bear S. 29° 10' 06" E. from the reference point and S. 80° 29' 29" W. from the westerly
terminus of the reference base line and which is also above a plane which passes through the
reference base line at an angle of inclination of 6° 29' 20" above horizontal.
Studies included with this application have indicated that the proposed lodge will
not have an impact on the View Plane. A View Plan exhibit has been made a part of
this application.
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: City of Aspen
Land Use Code Part 400 – Planned Development Page 7
In connection with the LP Overlay, the applicant requests only one Planned
Development variance, and the project complies with the applicable land use code for
height and maximum floor area. The one variance request includes a reduction of front
yard setback for a subgrade patio that provides light for the free-market residential units.
The subgrade patio is located in the same location as an existing subgrade element that
encroaches into the setback. The new patio will reduce the amount of the
encroachment.
A. Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans. The proposed development complies with applicable adopted
regulatory plans.
The proposed redevelopment of the Hotel Lenado complies with adopted plans as it will
increase the range of lodging options within the City of Aspen which is a stated goal of
the community as well as the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). Moreover, in an
unusual move, the applicant proposes to put the free-market units in a subgrade
location, thereby making it possible to put affordable housing entirely above grade. The
variation requested will allow for light and air to be provided to the free-market units.
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 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,
P88
VI.A.
Hotel Lenado (PID# 273707337001) Page 13
Commercial Design Review, Special Review, Demolition, Affordable Housing, Lodge
Development, Transportation Impact Analysis, View Plane, and Subdivision Major Amendment
20 January 2015
mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and
documented within a Development Agreement.
The redevelopment of the Hotel Lenado, and the associated Planned Development
variance, will not take place on land unsuitable for development due to natural or man-
made hazards affecting the property, including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault
ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine
waste deposit, avalanche or snowslide areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other
natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare
of the community. The location of redevelopment is located within the City of Aspen in
a currently built-up area. The close proximity to the Core and parks makes this an ideal
location for a redeveloped hotel. The requested variance will be located in an area
where an existing setback encroachment exists. The requested variance will actually
decrease the amount of the existing encroachment.
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.
The site plan responds to the site’s natural characteristics and physical constraints
including vegetation and any natural or man-made hazards. The resulting development
will blend in with or enhance these features. The applicant has reached out to work with
the Parks Department to address concerns of stormwater flow from Francis Whitaker Park.
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.
The project will preserve, to the extent they exist, important geologic features and
mature vegetation. No structures or features of the site are known to have historic,
cultural, visual, or ecological importance or contribute to the identity of the town.
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.
The redeveloped hotel will be oriented to both Hopkins Avenue and Aspen Street and
will be sited to reflect the neighborhood context. Buildings and access ways are
arranged to allow effective emergency, maintenance, and service vehicle access while
also provide pleasing public amenity spaces. The redeveloped hotel will be a great
asset to the neighborhood.
D. Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, mass, and height shall be established during the Project
Review. 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.
The requested variance will provide light and air to subgrade free-market units. The
location of the free-market units will allow the affordable housing to be located entirely
above-grade thereby allowing for a higher level of livability for the affordable housing
units. Moreover, the inclusion of free-market residential is an important incentive
currently contained in the code to provide for the redevelopment of the City of Aspen’s
lodging base, a state goal of the City Council and the AACP, and this variance will
increase the livability of the free-market units.
P89
VI.A.
Hotel Lenado (PID# 273707337001) Page 14
Commercial Design Review, Special Review, Demolition, Affordable Housing, Lodge
Development, Transportation Impact Analysis, View Plane, and Subdivision Major Amendment
20 January 2015
2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary uses of the
project.
The requested variance will decrease an existing encroachment. The existing
encroachment has not caused any disruption to the character of or a detraction from
the primary use which is and will remain as lodging and this compatibility is believed to
continue.
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.
The redeveloped hotel will be compatible as far as scale and massing and enhance the
identity of the neighborhood. The replacement of a tired building with a contextually
sensitive and beautiful building will enhance the cohesiveness of the neighborhood and
compliment the varied identity of the neighborhood.
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 City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400 – Planned Development Page 8
disincentive techniques in the proposed development, and the potential for joint use of common parking may
be considered when establishing a parking requirement.
The current Lodge has 6 marked parking spaces, none of these spaces conform to Code
requirements. Condition number 9 of the Statement of Exception From Full Subdivision
Process, recorded at Book 445, Page 811, requires two parking spaces be provided for
the hotel. The proposal includes one legal parallel spot along the alley and a garage
that provides one van accessible parking space which meets this requirement. Given
the proximity to the Core and public transportation, the proposed accessibility to and
enhancement of the existing pedestrian network, and the fact that the hotel will provide
guests and residence with bicycles facilities, the proposed parking, while meeting
previous requirements, will also be appropriate for the proposed use.
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.
Specific allowances for dimensional flexibility between Project Review and Detailed
Review will be considered if and when presented.
E. Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is compatible with the context and visual
character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used:
1. The design complies with applicable design standards, including those outlined in Chapter 26.410,
Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Standards, and Chapter 26.415, Historic
Preservation.
The proposed hotel will comply with all applicable design standards, including the
provision of required public amenity space and required utility, delivery, and trash service
areas. The hotel will employ appropriate signage and lighting as required by applicable
code.
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
P90
VI.A.
Hotel Lenado (PID# 273707337001) Page 15
Commercial Design Review, Special Review, Demolition, Affordable Housing, Lodge
Development, Transportation Impact Analysis, View Plane, and Subdivision Major Amendment
20 January 2015
review boards may set forth certain expectations or conditions related to architectural character and exterior
materials during Project Review.
The proposed materials will be compatible with those called for in any applicable design
standards, as well as those typically seen in the immediate vicinity. Preliminary samples
of proposed materials have been provided with this application.
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.
The proposed hotel will improves the sidewalks in the immediate vicinity of the hotel.
Additionally, bicycle facilities will be provided onsite to encourage alternative modes of
transportation. Additionally, the proximity of the hotel to transit and the Core will enable
residents and guests the opportunity to walk. Any vehicular access points, or curb cuts,
will minimize impacts on existing or proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities.
Specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines will be provided if
requested be at Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement.
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.
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) will be provided as requested and as necessary. The
Applicant will respond to the City Engineer with any specific designs, mitigation
techniques, and implementation timelines as defined as part of the Detailed Review and
documented within a Development Agreement.
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.
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.
Sec. 26.470.070.4 Affordable Housing
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
P91
VI.A.
Hotel Lenado (PID# 273707337001) Page 16
Commercial Design Review, Special Review, Demolition, Affordable Housing, Lodge
Development, Transportation Impact Analysis, View Plane, and Subdivision Major Amendment
20 January 2015
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.
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.
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.
d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers
according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the
first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the
City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines
established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended.
The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or
nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent
affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be
rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge.
Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County or other
similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision.
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.
6. Remodeling or replacement of existing commercial or lodge development. Remodeling or replacement after
demolition of existing commercial or hotel/lodge buildings and portions thereof shall be exempt from the
provisions of growth management, provided that no additional net leasable square footage or lodge units are
created and there is no change in use. If redevelopment involves an expansion of net leasable square footage
or lodge units, only the replacement of existing development shall be exempt. Existing, prior to demolition,
net leasable square footage and lodge units shall be documented by the City Zoning Officer prior to
demolition. Also see definition of net leasable commercial and office space, Section 26.104.100.
The existing lodge use contains 11,231 SF in 17 units. The proposed development will
consist of 9,951 SF in 9 units. Therefore, an expansion of net leasable square footage
does not occur and the redevelopment is exempt from the provisions of growth
management.
Sec. 26.470.5 Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing.
P92
VI.A.
Hotel Lenado (PID# 273707337001) Page 17
Commercial Design Review, Special Review, Demolition, Affordable Housing, Lodge
Development, Transportation Impact Analysis, View Plane, and Subdivision Major Amendment
20 January 2015
2. Requirements for demolishing affordable multi-family housing units: In the event a project proposes to
demolish or replace existing deed-restricted affordable housing units, the redevelopment may increase or
decrease the number of units, bedrooms or net livable area such that there is no decrease in the total number
of employees housed by the existing units. The overall number of replacement units, unit sizes, bedrooms and
category of the units shall be reviewed by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and a recommendation
forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The two (2) existing affordable housing units will be replaced with two (2) new affordable
housing units. The replacement units will be located above grade, in contrast to existing
conditions where the existing units are located in a subgrade location. Net livable area
of these units will also be increased over existing conditions. Generous storage will be
provided as well as access to all amenities located within the hotel.
3. Fractional unit requirement. When the affordable housing replacement requirement of this Section
involves a fraction of a unit, cash-in-lieu may be provided only upon the review and approval of the City
Council, to meet the fractional requirement only, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3, Provision of required
affordable housing via a cash-in-lieu payment.
Existing affordable housing will be replaced onsite. No fraction unit requirement is
required or requested.
4. Location requirement. Multi-family replacement units, both free-market and affordable, shall be
developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner shall demonstrate and the
Planning and Zoning Commission determines that replacement of the units on site would be in conflict with
the parcel's zoning or would be an inappropriate solution due to the site's physical constraints.
When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of units on site
which the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the site can accommodate and may replace the
remaining units off site, at a location determined acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission. A
recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard.
Existing affordable housing will be replaced onsite.
5. Timing requirement. Any replacement units required to be deed-restricted as affordable housing shall be
issued a certificate of occupancy, according to the Building Department, and be available for occupancy at
the same time as, or prior to, any redeveloped free-market units, regardless of whether the replacement units
are built on site or off site.
The replacement affordable housing units will be available for occupancy no later than
the redeveloped free-market units.
6. Redevelopment agreement. The applicant and the City shall enter into a redevelopment agreement that
specifies the manner in which the applicant shall adhere to the approvals granted pursuant to this Section
and penalties for noncompliance. The agreement shall be recorded before an application for a demolition
permit may be accepted by the City.
The applicant will enter into a redevelopment agreement with the City which specifies
that the applicant will adhere to the approvals granted, including penalties for
noncompliance.
7. Growth management allotments. The existing number of free-market residential units, prior to demolition,
may be replaced exempt from growth management, provided that the units conform to the provisions of this
Section. The redevelopment credits shall not be transferable separate from the property unless permitted as
described above in Subparagraph d, Location requirement.
P93
VI.A.
Hotel Lenado (PID# 273707337001) Page 18
Commercial Design Review, Special Review, Demolition, Affordable Housing, Lodge
Development, Transportation Impact Analysis, View Plane, and Subdivision Major Amendment
20 January 2015
No existing free-market residential units exist within the hotel at this time. Three new
residential units are proposed as a part of this application.
Sec. 26.470.070.8b 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:
b. If the project contains less than 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 thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market
residential net livable area shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing.
The project contains one (1) lodging unit per 1,000 SF of lot area. Therefore,
affordable housing mitigation equal to 30% of the free-market net livable area will be
provided by the purchase of affordable housing credits or the buy-down of an
existing unit. This equates to 2,988 SF or 7.46 FTEs.
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%
26.480.090. Subdivision amendments.
No modifications are anticipated at this time to the conditions of the Statement of
Exception from Full Subdivision Process for the Purpose of Condominiumization of the
Hotel Lenado Condominium.
Sec. 26.515.030. Required number of off-street parking spaces
Off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each use according to the schedule, below. Whenever the off-
street parking is subject to establishment by adoption of a Planned Development final development plan, that
review shall be pursuant to Chapter 26.445, Planned Development. Whenever the parking requirement shall
be established through a special review, the standards and procedures set forth at Section 26.515.040, Special
review standards, below, shall apply. Whenever the parking requirement may be provided via a payment-in-
lieu the standards and procedures set forth at Section 26.515.050, Cash-in-lieu for mobility enhancements,
below, shall apply. An existing deficit of parking may be maintained when a property is redeveloped.
P94
VI.A.
Hotel Lenado (PID# 273707337001) Page 19
Commercial Design Review, Special Review, Demolition, Affordable Housing, Lodge
Development, Transportation Impact Analysis, View Plane, and Subdivision Major Amendment
20 January 2015
The existing seventeen (17) lodge units and two (2) affordable housing units are required to
contain two (2) onsite parking spaces. The proposed plan meets this requirement by
providing two (2) parking spots, fully meeting the parking requirement.
26.710.180. Mixed-Use (MU).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Mixed-Use (MU) Zone District is to provide for a variety of lodging, multi-
family, single-family and mixed-use buildings with commercial uses serving the daily or frequent needs of the
surrounding neighborhood, to provide a transition between the commercial core and surrounding residential
neighborhoods and to provide a variety of building sizes compatible with the character of the Main Street
Historic District.
The Property is located within the Mixed Use (MU) zone district a with a Lodge Preservation
Overlay (LP) impacting the entire parcel. The LP Overlay Zoning District dictates the
permitted uses of the Property which refers to the MU as the underlying zone district.
The proposed small lodge and residential development will be consistent with the
purpose of the LP overlay zone district. It is also consistent with the MU zone district,
which is to provide for a variety of lodging, multi-family, single-family, and mixed use
buildings with commercial uses serving the daily or frequent needs of the surrounding
neighborhood, to provide a transition between the commercial core and surrounding
residential neighborhoods. Both lodge and free-market multi-family housing are
identified as permitted uses in the LP zone district.
Cumulative floor area is proposed to be 14,817 SF, which is 3,124 SF less than the
maximum floor area in the MU zone district. Maximum cumulative floor area in the MU
zone district is 18,000 SF.
Maximum height of the proposed building is 32 feet, which can be approved by
Commercial Design Review in the MU zone district.
26.710.320. Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) Zone District
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District is to provide for and
protect small lodge uses on properties historically used for lodge accommodations, to permit
redevelopment of these properties to accommodate lodge and affordable housing uses, to provide uses
accessory and normally associated with lodge and affordable housing development, to encourage
development which is compatible with the neighborhood and respective of the manner in which the
property has historically operated and to provide an incentive for upgrading existing lodges on site or
onto adjacent properties.
The Property is located in the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district with a Lodge Preservation
Overlay (LP) impacting the entire parcel. The LP Overlay Zoning District dictates the
permitted uses of the Property. The Applicant has proposed a development which
generally complies with the MU zone district. The proposed small lodge and multi-family
residential development are identified as permitted uses in the LP zone district.
P95
VI.A.
P
9
6
V
I
.
A
.
P
9
7
V
I
.
A
.
P
9
8
V
I
.
A
.
P99
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
0
0
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
0
1
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
0
2
V
I
.
A
.
P103
V
I
.
A
.
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
Hotel Lenado
A Level One Transportation Impact Analysis in conjunction with an application
for a lodge preservation project, featuring lodging, affordable housing,
associated free-market residential units.
20 January 2015
Location: 200 S. Aspen Street, Aspen, CO (PID# 273707337001)
Represented By:
Attachment 8
P104
VI.A.
Hotel Lenado (PID# 273707337001) Page 1
Transportation Impact Analysis in connection with an application for Commercial Design Review,
Special Review, Demolition, Affordable Housing, Lodge Development, View Plane, and
Subdivision Major Amendment
20 January 2015
Table of Contents
1.Project Description
2.Project Applicant/Contact information
3.Site Plan
4.Location Map
5.Project Trip Generation
6.Proposed TDM and MMLOS Mitigation Program
7.MMLOS Measure Details
8.TDM Measure Details
9.Enforcement and Financing
10. Scheduling and Implementation
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DCBD2 LLC (the “Applicant”) has submitted an application for Commercial Design Review, Special
Review, Demolition, Affordable Housing, Lodge Development, Transportation Impact Analysis, View
Plane, and Subdivision Major Amendment for redevelopment of the existing Hotel Lenado to include
associated residential development. The subject site is a 9,000 SF parcel located at the corner of
Hopkins Avenue and S. Aspen Street at 200 S. Aspen Street (the “Property”). The Property lies within
the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district and has a Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) impacting the entire
parcel. It is understood that the LP Overlay District will determine the permitted uses and the
allowable floor area of the free-market multi-family residential of the Property.
The proposed project will replace the existing lodge building with an entirely new, mixed-use
building that will feature lodging, onsite affordable housing, free market residential, and
exceptional community spaces available to all residents of the building. The intent of this lodge
redevelopment is to provide a “lifestyle” lodging experience for guests and residents alike, which
the Applicant feels is not currently provided in Aspen and which reflects Aspen’s unique
community orientation. The lodge is located within easy walking distance to the commercial
core of the City of Aspen and guests and residents will be encourage to walk, bike, and utilize
public transit whenever possible.
The proposed redevelopment will replace a tired building with a new energy efficient and
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant structure (the current structure is not ADA
compliant) that will complement other lodge redevelopment projects that are being pursued in
the community. While the Applicant will not provide onsite commercial food or drink service, the
Applicant would like to explore providing food and beverage options to patrons through
partnerships with local restaurants such as the Main Street Bakery or Rustique Bistro.
The proposed project includes a decrease in the number of lodge units provided from 17 units to
9 units. Three (3) single-family residential units are proposed to be contained on the walk-out
level of the lodge. Two (2) affordable housing units will be located on the entry level of the
P105
VI.A.
Hotel Lenado (PID# 273707337001) Page 2
Transportation Impact Analysis in connection with an application for Commercial Design Review,
Special Review, Demolition, Affordable Housing, Lodge Development, View Plane, and
Subdivision Major Amendment
20 January 2015
lodge. These units will be intended to house employees of the lodge. Both affordable housing
units will also have accessory storage units within the building, providing generous storage that is
often overlooked for affordable units.
The replacement affordable housing represents 1,360 SF of additional affordable housing net
livable, which will be allocated to mitigation for the new free-market residential. The free-market
residential will utilize this affordable housing credit of 1,359 SF or 3.39 FTEs. The remainder of the
1,373 SF or 3.4 FTEs of required affordable housing mitigation for the new free market
development, is proposed to be met through the purchase of Affordable Housing Credits or the
buy-down of an existing unit or units. The proposed affordable housing units provided on-site will
be fully compliant with Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines.
While the current Lodge has 6 marked parking spaces, none of these spaces conform to Code
requirements. Condition number 9 of the Statement of Exception From Full Subdivision Process,
recorded at Book 445, Page 811, requires two parking spaces be provided for the hotel. The
proposal includes one legal parallel spot along the alley and a garage that provides one van
accessible parking space which meets this requirement.
Through the redevelopment of the property, public amenity space will be increased. Currently,
1,332 SF of public open space exists. The Applicant will be creating 1,733 SF of public amenity
space within the Property which represents 19.3% of the lot area, up from 14.8% in existing
conditions. Additional improvements include the provision of a new detached sidewalk along
Aspen Street, replacing the narrow sidewalk, as well as sidewalk amenities and the installation of
appropriate deciduous street trees. Along Hopkins Avenue, a new sidewalk will access Francis
Whitaker Park, with special efforts to retain the four large cottonwood trees that currently exist.
The landscape plan for the lodge will provide for attractive and inviting spaces for guests and
area residents to enjoy. The landscape plan incorporates existing street trees, when possible,
while providing additional plant materials to soften and screen the development from
neighboring residential uses. Also proposed is the enhancement of the storm water mitigation
resulting from flow onto the Property from Francis Whitaker Park. Currently, a dilapidated
retaining wall separates the Property from the Park. Discussions with the Parks Department have
determined that the City will provided an easement on the park to be utilized to create a swale
that will divert storm water from flowing into the Property from adjacent City-owned land. The
Applicant is also open to working with adjacent business owners to make other improvements to
the park if deemed appropriate by the City Parks Department. With such a central location
within the City of Aspen, the Applicant feels that Francis Whitaker Park has a tremendous
amount of unrealized potential. The park could be much more lively and active than it is
currently. The Applicant looks forward to working with the Parks Department in developing this
improvement.
The Applicant has worked to design a project that meets City goals with respect to small lodge
development, provides a unique and exceptional experience for lodge patrons, and creates a
community feeling for the redeveloped lodge. The Applicant looks forward to working with the
City of Aspen staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council in the review of this
important lodge project.
P106
VI.A.
Hotel Lenado (PID# 273707337001) Page 3
Transportation Impact Analysis in connection with an application for Commercial Design Review,
Special Review, Demolition, Affordable Housing, Lodge Development, View Plane, and
Subdivision Major Amendment
20 January 2015
MMLOS Measure Details
Trip peak-hour generation for this project is calculated to be 2-2.5 trips. The reduction of lodging
rooms from 17 to 9 is the primary cause for the reduction of generated trips. Mitigation measures
include physical improvements to replace attached sidewalks with detached sidewalks,
enhancement of the parkway between the curb and sidewalk for ease of pedestrian use,
provision of a van accessible spot in the subgrade garage, and an enhanced entry condition
for the hotel. Loaner bicycles and bicycle parking will be provided to guests and employees.
The Gibson Street Pedestrian Bikeway is accessible from the hotel without any street crossings.
The lodge is adjacent is located a short distance from the Paepcke Park bus stop providing easy
transit access for guests and employees. As previously provided, the hotel enjoys a location that
makes for convenient walking trips for in-town amenities, restaurants, shopping, etc. The Hotel
Lenado is committed to working with the City Transportation Options Program. It will provide
prospective guests with information indicating that arrival by private vehicle is not essential to
the enjoyment of Aspen amenities. The area where the lodge is located is a two-hour parking
zone. Parking hang-tags would be provided for guests as well as several dedicated short-term
parking spaces. While employee parking is limited, the two affordable housing units onsite will
house employees of the hotel therefore reducing the number of trips made by for employees.
TDM Measure Details
TOPS program participation will be reviewed with the City of Aspen. The hotel will provide public
transportation information through bus schedule kiosks located near the front desk, which will
provide schedules and other information. While some of the employees of the hotel will likely
live within the hotel, bus passes will be offered to other employees that may travel outside of
Aspen for work. Bicycle facilities will be integrated into the hotel and, in addition to the loaner
bike program run by the hotel, a membership in WeCycle strongly considered for both
employees and guests. In conjunction with the hotel bikeshare program, end of trip facilities
such as secured bike parking and showers will be available. Finally, trip reduction marketing
programs will be supported, along with involvement in educational opportunities, special event
promotions, and publications.
Enforcement and Financing
The MMLOS measures (sidewalk enhancements, bike rack, and end of trip facilities) will be
completed during the construction phase of the project. They will be part of the plan set
submitted to the City of Aspen Building Department for Engineering review. Proof of installation
will be an issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the City of Aspen. These items will be paid
for by the Applicant.
The TDM measures will be closely reviewed with the City, and reviewed with the employees,
residents, and guests of the hotel. The bike sharing program will be provided as an amenity of
the hotel and the program will be reviewed with guests, employees, and free market residents to
ensure involvement in the program. Documents pertaining to the use of these programs will be
available upon request by the HOA or property management company. To ensure these items
are understood, they will be mentioned in the annual HOA/tenant meeting. Costs for all of these
activities will the responsibility of the applicant.
P107
VI.A.
Hotel Lenado (PID# 273707337001) Page 4
Transportation Impact Analysis in connection with an application for Commercial Design Review,
Special Review, Demolition, Affordable Housing, Lodge Development, View Plane, and
Subdivision Major Amendment
20 January 2015
Scheduling and Implementation
All MMLOS items will be installed prior to CO. TDM measures will be implemented in conjunction
with the operations of the hotel, when employee units are occupied, and ownership of free-
market units is completed.
Monitoring and Reporting
A survey on the TDM measures, use of TOPS and bus passes, will be issued by representative of
owner on an annual basis to assess the impact these measures have on reducing trips.
An annual report will be submitted to Transportation Department after survey data are collected
and analyzed. We are not able to assess impact of sidewalk and bike rack on trip reductions as
they are infrastructure items.
Overall, the proposed redevelopment of the Hotel Lenado will reduce traffic impact. Any
transportation impacts created by the redevelopment will be well-covered by the physical
improvements and policies of the hotel.
Project Applicant/Contact Information
This Transportation Impact Analysis was prepared for DCBD2 LLC by:
Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA
Stan Clauson Associates, Inc.
412 North Mill Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Tel: 970 925-2323
E-mail: stan@scaplanning.com
Stan Clauson is a member of the Transportation Planning division of the Institute of Transportation
Engineers.
P108
VI.A.
= input
= calculation
DATE:Today
PROJECT NAME:Some Hotel
PROJECT ADDRESS:Some Where
Minor
Proposed Land Use Size Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Total
Commercial (sf)0.0 sf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Free-Market Housing (Units)3.0 Units 0.58 1.43 2.01 1.38 1.08 2.46
Affordable Housing (Units)0.0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lodging (Units)0.0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Essential Public Facility (sf)0.0 sf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.58 1.43 2.01 1.38 1.08 2.46
Land Use Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting
Commercial 2.27 0.69 0.31 4.14 0.4 0.6
Free-Market Housing 0.67 0.29 0.71 0.82 0.56 0.44
Affordable Housing 0.75 0.48 0.52 0.89 0.55 0.45
Lodging 0.25 0.57 0.43 0.31 0.52 0.48
Essential Public Facility 0.86 0.62 0.38 1.66 0.4 0.6
AM Peak Average PM Peak Average
Trips Generated
AM Peak-Hour PM Peak-Hour
TOTAL NEW TRIPS
ASSUMPTIONS
ASPEN TRIP GENERATION
Is this a major or minor project?
*For mixed-use (at least two of the established land uses) sites, a 4% reduction for AM Peak-Hour and a 14% reduction for PM Peak-
Hour can be applied to the trip generation.
Instructions:
1. Trip Generations: Enter the project's new square footage and or unit counts under the "Size" column.
2. MMLOS: Answer "yes" or "no" under each of the pedestrian, bike and transit sections
3. TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project.
21 January 2015
Hotel Lenado Redevelopment
200 S. Aspen St. Aspen, CO 81611
P109
VI.A.
= input
= calculation
Category Sub. Question Answer Points
Is the proposed sidewalk detached? Yes 5
Is the proposed effective sidewalk width greater than the standard
minimum width?No 0 TOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS MITIGATED: 65
Is proposed landscape buffer greater than the standard minimum
width?Yes 5
10
Is the proposed sidewalk detached? Yes 5
Is the proposed effective sidewalk width greater than the standard
minimum width?No 0
Is proposed landscape buffer greater than the standard minimum
width?No 0
5
Slopes between back of curb and sidewalk equal to or less than 5%?Yes 0
Are curbs equal to (or less than) 6 inches?Yes 0
New pedestrain access points that allow access without crossing a
street?Yes 5
Is new landscaping that improves the pedestrian experience,
proposed at the access point?Yes 5
Implementation of an improved crosswalk that improves access to
proposed access point?*Yes 5
Do changes to pedestrian access points preserve or enhance
pedestrian experience?Yes 5
Is pedestrian access enhanced to address existing deficiencies?Yes 5
25
Are existing driveways removed from the street?No 0
Pedestrian and/or vehicle visibility unchanged by new structure or
column?Yes 0
Grade (where pedestrians cross) on cross-slope of driveway 2% or
less?Yes 0
Signage, striping, mirrors, and other approved devices to address
pedestrian-vehicle conflicts at driveways?*No 0
Enhanced pedestrian or bicyclist entrance that mitigates conflicts at
driveway(s)?Yes 5
5
Is the project's pedestrian directness factor less than 1.5?Yes 0
Is the project's pedestrian directness factor between 1 and 1.2?Yes 5
Are planned traffic calming features implemented in the study
area?*Yes 5
Are basic traffic calming proposed that are part of an approved plan
(speed humps, curb extensions, and signage)?*Yes 5
Are extensive traffic calming features proposed that are part of an
approved plan (raised crosswalks)?* No 0
Is the project proposing an off site improvement that results in a
pedestrian directness factor below 1.2?* No 0
15
60
Category Sub. Question Answer Points
Is a new access point being implemented with City approved
design?No 0
New access points allow access without crossing a street?No 0
Landscaping, striping, or signage improvements to the path at
access point?*No 0
Implementation of crosswalk or other treatment that improves
access to proposed access point?*No 0
Additional improvements agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0
0
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Is the project providing bicycle parking?
Yes 5
5
5
Category Sub. Question Answer Points
Is seating/bench proposed?No 0
Is a trash receptacle proposed?No 0
Is transit system information (signage) proposed?No 0
Is shelter/shade proposed?No 0
Is enhanced pedestrian-scale lighting proposed?No 0
Is real-time transit information proposed?No 0
Is bicycle parking/storage proposed?No 0
Are ADA improvements proposed?No 0
0
Is a bus pull-out at proposed at existing stop?No 0
Is relocation of bus stop to improve transit accessibility or roadway
operations proposed?No 0
Is a new bus stop proposed (with minimum of two basic amenities)?No 0
0
0
*All proposed measures must be approved by the City of Aspen (included in Conditions of Approval or plan approved by staff).
MMLOS Input Page
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Ba
s
i
c
A
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
Subtotal
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
R
o
u
t
e
s
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
C
a
l
m
i
n
g
a
n
d
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Ne
t
w
o
r
k
Subtotal
Pedestrian Total*
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
n
Ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
Bl
o
c
k
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
n
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
Subtotal
Instructions MMLOS: Answer "yes" or "no" under each of the pedestrian, bike and transit sections
Transit Total*
Subtotal
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
s
,
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
Ac
c
e
s
s
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
Subtotal
Subtotal
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
s
Mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
P
a
t
h
s
Subtotal
Subtotal
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
Am
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
Bicycles Total*
Subtotal
P110
VI.A.
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
S
u
b
.
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
A
n
s
w
e
r
Strategy VMT Reductions
Wi
l
l
an
on
s
i
t
e
am
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
st
r
a
t
e
g
y
be
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
?
N
o
Wh
i
c
h
on
s
i
t
e
am
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
wi
l
l
be
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
?
Wi
l
l
a sh
a
r
e
d
sh
u
t
t
l
e
se
r
v
i
c
e
st
r
a
t
e
g
y
be
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
?
N
o
Wh
a
t
is
th
e
de
g
r
e
e
of
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
?
L
o
w
Wh
a
t
is
th
e
co
m
p
a
n
y
si
z
e
?
S
m
a
l
l
Wh
a
t
pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
of
cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
ar
e
el
i
g
i
b
l
e
?
1
0
0
%
No
n
m
o
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
Zo
n
e
s
W
i
l
l
a no
n
m
o
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
zo
n
e
s
st
r
a
t
e
g
y
be
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
?
N
o
0.00%0.00%
TD
M
In
p
u
t
Pa
g
e
On
s
i
t
e
Se
r
v
i
c
i
n
g
Sh
a
r
e
d
Sh
u
t
t
l
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
/
S
i
t
e
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
0.00%0.00%
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Al
l
o
w
e
d
in
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
In
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
:
1.
Tr
i
p
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
En
t
e
r
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
'
s
ne
w
sq
u
a
r
e
fo
o
t
a
g
e
an
d
or
un
i
t
co
u
n
t
s
un
d
e
r
th
e
"S
i
z
e
"
co
l
u
m
n
.
2.
MM
L
O
S
:
An
s
w
e
r
"y
e
s
"
or
"n
o
"
un
d
e
r
ea
c
h
of
th
e
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
,
bi
k
e
an
d
tr
a
n
s
i
t
se
c
t
i
o
n
s
3.
TD
M
:
Ch
o
o
s
e
th
e
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
th
a
t
ar
e
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
fo
r
yo
u
r
pr
o
j
e
c
t
.
4.
Su
m
m
a
r
y
:
A su
m
m
a
r
y
of
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
'
s
mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
tr
i
p
s
.
P111
VI.A.
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
S
u
b
.
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
A
n
s
w
e
r
Strategy VMT Reductions
Wi
l
l
a ne
t
w
o
r
k
ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
st
r
a
g
t
e
g
y
be
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
?
N
o
Wh
a
t
is
th
e
pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
of
tr
a
n
s
i
t
ne
t
w
o
r
k
co
v
e
r
a
g
e
?
0
%
Wh
a
t
is
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
tr
a
n
s
i
t
mo
d
e
sh
a
r
e
as
a % of
to
t
a
l
da
i
l
y
tr
i
p
s
?
5
0
%
Wi
l
l
a se
r
v
i
c
e
fr
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
/
s
p
e
e
d
st
r
a
t
e
g
y
be
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
?
N
o
Wh
a
t
is
th
e
pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
in
he
a
d
w
a
y
s
(i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
fr
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
)
?
0%
Wh
a
t
is
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
tr
a
n
s
i
t
mo
d
e
sh
a
r
e
as
a % of
to
t
a
l
da
i
l
y
tr
i
p
s
?
5
0
%
Wh
a
t
is
th
e
le
v
e
l
of
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
?
<
5
0
%
of
li
n
e
s
(w
i
t
h
i
n
pr
o
j
e
c
t
)
im
p
r
o
v
e
d
Wi
l
l
a tr
a
n
s
i
t
ac
c
e
s
s
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
st
r
a
t
e
g
y
be
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
?
Y
e
s
Wh
a
t
is
th
e
ex
t
e
n
t
of
ac
c
e
s
s
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
?
Wi
t
h
i
n
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
On
l
y
In
t
e
r
c
e
p
t
Lo
t
Wi
l
l
an
in
t
e
r
c
e
p
t
lo
t
st
r
a
t
e
g
y
be
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
?
N
o
0.00%1.00%
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
S
u
b
.
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
A
n
s
w
e
r
Strategy VMT Reductions
Wi
l
l
th
e
r
e
be
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
in
TO
P
?
Y
e
s
Wh
a
t
pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
of
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
ar
e
el
i
g
i
b
l
e
?
1
0
0
%
Is
a tr
a
n
s
i
t
fa
r
e
su
b
s
i
d
y
st
r
a
t
e
g
y
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
?
Y
e
s
Wh
a
t
pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
of
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
ar
e
el
i
g
i
b
l
e
?
1
0
0
%
Wh
a
t
is
th
e
am
o
u
n
t
of
tr
a
n
s
i
t
su
b
s
i
d
y
pe
r
pa
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
(d
a
i
l
y
eq
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
)
?
1
0
0
%
Is
an
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
pa
r
k
i
n
g
ca
s
h
‐ou
t
st
r
a
t
e
g
y
be
i
n
g
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
?
N
o
Wh
a
t
pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
of
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
ar
e
el
i
g
i
b
l
e
?
Is
a wo
r
k
p
l
a
c
e
pa
r
k
i
n
g
pr
i
c
i
n
g
st
r
a
t
e
g
y
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
?
N
o
Wh
a
t
is
th
e
da
i
l
y
pa
r
k
i
n
g
ch
a
r
g
e
?
Wh
a
t
pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
of
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
ar
e
su
b
j
e
c
t
to
pr
i
c
e
d
pa
r
k
i
n
g
?
Is
a co
m
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
wo
r
k
we
e
k
s
st
r
a
t
e
g
y
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
?
No
Wh
a
t
pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
of
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
ar
e
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
n
g
?
Wh
a
t
is
th
e
wo
r
k
w
e
e
k
sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
?
Is
an
em
p
l
o
y
e
r
sp
o
n
s
e
r
e
d
sh
u
t
t
l
e
pr
o
g
r
a
m
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
?
N
o
Wh
a
t
is
th
e
em
p
l
o
y
e
r
si
z
e
?
Wh
a
t
pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
of
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
ar
e
el
i
g
i
b
l
e
?
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
in
TO
P
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Fa
r
e
Su
b
s
i
d
y
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Ca
s
h
‐Ou
t
Wo
r
k
p
l
a
c
e
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Pr
i
c
i
n
g
Co
m
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
Wo
r
k
We
e
k
s
Em
p
l
o
y
e
r
Sp
o
n
s
o
r
e
d
Va
n
p
o
o
l
m
s
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
Ne
t
w
o
r
k
Ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Fr
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
/
S
p
e
e
d
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Ac
c
e
s
s
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
13.80%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%1.00%4.00%
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Al
l
o
w
e
d
in
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
S
y
s
t
e
m
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
P112
VI.A.
Is
a ca
r
p
o
o
l
ma
t
c
h
i
n
g
st
r
a
t
e
g
y
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
?
N
o
Wh
a
t
pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
of
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
ar
e
el
i
g
b
l
e
?
10
0
%
Is
ca
r
s
h
a
r
e
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
be
i
n
g
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
?
N
o
Ho
w
ma
n
y
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
me
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
ha
v
e
be
e
n
pu
r
c
h
a
s
e
d
?
<1
0
0
Wh
a
t
pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
of
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
ar
e
el
i
g
b
l
e
?
10
0
%
Is
a bi
k
e
s
h
a
r
e
pr
o
g
r
a
m
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
be
i
n
g
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
?
Y
e
s
Ho
w
ma
n
y
me
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
ha
v
e
be
e
n
pu
r
c
h
a
s
e
d
?
<1
0
0
Wh
a
t
pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
of
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
/
g
u
e
s
t
s
ar
e
el
i
g
b
l
e
?
10
0
%
Is
an
en
d
of
tr
i
p
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
st
r
a
t
e
g
y
be
i
n
g
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
?
Y
e
s
Wh
a
t
is
th
e
de
g
r
e
e
of
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
?
Hi
g
h
Wh
a
t
is
th
e
em
p
l
o
y
e
r
si
z
e
?
Sm
a
l
l
Is
a se
l
f
‐fu
n
d
e
d
em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
ri
d
e
ho
m
e
st
r
a
t
e
g
y
be
i
n
g
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
?
No
Wh
a
t
pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
of
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
ar
e
el
i
g
i
b
l
e
?
Is
a ca
r
p
o
o
l
/
v
a
n
p
o
o
l
pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
pa
r
k
i
n
g
st
r
a
t
e
g
y
be
i
n
g
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
?
N
o
Wh
a
t
is
th
e
em
p
l
o
y
e
r
si
z
e
?
Wh
a
t
nu
m
b
e
r
of
pa
r
k
i
n
g
sp
o
t
s
ar
e
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
fo
r
th
e
pr
o
g
r
a
m
?
Is
a pr
i
v
a
t
e
em
p
l
o
y
e
r
sh
u
t
t
l
e
st
r
a
t
e
g
y
be
i
n
g
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
?
N
o
Wh
a
t
is
th
e
em
p
l
o
y
e
r
si
z
e
?
Wh
a
t
pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
of
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
ar
e
el
i
g
i
b
l
e
?
Is
a tr
i
p
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
ma
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
/
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
pr
o
g
r
a
m
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
?
Y
e
s
Wh
a
t
pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
of
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
/
g
u
e
s
t
s
ar
e
el
i
g
i
b
l
e
?
1
0
0
%
5.34%1.00%6.29%
1.
2
2
%
w
o
r
k
t
r
i
p
s
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
a
m
i
x
e
d
-
u
s
e
d
s
i
t
e
(
S
F
B
a
y
A
r
e
a
T
r
a
v
e
l
S
u
r
v
e
y
)
.
S
e
e
A
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
T
a
b
f
o
r
m
o
r
e
d
e
t
a
i
l
.
Ca
r
p
o
o
l
Ma
t
c
h
i
n
g
Ca
r
s
h
a
r
e
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Se
l
f
‐fu
n
d
e
d
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
Ri
d
e
Ho
m
e
Ca
r
p
o
o
l
/
V
a
n
p
o
o
l
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
Em
p
l
o
y
e
r
Sh
u
t
t
l
e
Tr
i
p
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ma
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
/
I
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
En
d
of
Tr
i
p
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Cr
o
s
s
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
an
d
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Gl
o
b
a
l
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
VM
T
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
1.50%3.50%0.00%
C
o
m
m
u
t
e
T
r
i
p
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Al
l
o
w
e
d
in
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
0.00%0.00%
Bi
k
e
s
h
a
r
e
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
0.00%4.00%0.00%
P113
VI.A.
DATE:Today
PROJECT NAME:Some Hotel
PROJECT ADDRESS:Some Where
Peak Hour Max Trips Generated MMLOS TDM Total Trips Mitigated
PM 2.46 65 0.15 65.15 -62.69
Trip Generation
SUMMARY
Trip Mitigation NET TRIPS TO BE
MITIGATED
21 January 2015
Hotel Lenado Redevelopment
200 S. Aspen St. Aspen, CO 81611
P114
VI.A.
=
i
n
p
u
t
=
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Tr
i
p
T
y
p
e
We
e
k
d
a
y
%
HB
W
21
.
8
%
HB
S
h
o
p
25
.
6
%
HB
S
o
c
i
a
l
17
.
3
%
HB
S
12
.
1
%
NH
B
23
.
2
%
To
t
a
l
10
0
.
0
%
So
u
r
c
e
:
S
F
B
a
y
A
r
e
a
T
r
a
v
e
l
S
u
r
v
e
y
2
0
0
0
,
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
T
r
a
v
e
l
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
,
T
a
b
l
e
2
.
1
.
2
0.
6
9
a
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
f
r
o
m
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
r
i
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
o
V
M
T
[
s
e
e
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
]
0.
6
9
a
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
f
r
o
m
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
r
i
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
o
V
M
T
[
s
e
e
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
]
0.
6
9
a
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
f
r
o
m
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
r
i
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
o
V
M
T
[
s
e
e
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
]
As
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
P
a
g
e
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
/
S
p
e
e
d
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
W
o
r
k
R
e
l
a
t
e
d
V
M
T
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
I
n
p
u
t
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
/
S
i
t
e
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
Ne
t
w
o
r
k
E
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
Sh
a
r
e
d
S
h
u
t
t
l
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
P115
VI.A.
1.
0
A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
f
r
o
m
c
o
m
m
u
t
e
V
T
t
o
c
o
m
m
u
t
e
V
M
T
Se
e
a
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
f
o
r
d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
0.
6
9
A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
f
r
o
m
v
a
n
p
o
o
l
m
o
d
e
s
h
a
r
e
t
o
c
o
m
m
u
t
e
V
M
T
[
s
e
e
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
]
Se
e
a
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
f
o
r
d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
1.
0
A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
f
r
o
m
c
o
m
m
u
t
e
V
T
t
o
c
o
m
m
u
t
e
V
M
T
Se
e
a
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
f
o
r
d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
X%
=
G
l
o
b
a
l
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
f
o
r
:
75
%
Ma
j
o
r
40
%
Mi
n
o
r
Se
e
I
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
X%
=
C
r
o
s
s
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
f
o
r
:
70
%
M
a
j
o
r
35
%
Mi
n
o
r
Se
e
I
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
CT
R
M
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
Em
p
l
o
y
e
r
S
p
o
n
s
o
r
e
d
V
a
n
p
o
o
l
/
S
h
u
t
t
l
e
Gl
o
b
a
l
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
Cr
o
s
s
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
Tr
i
p
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Co
m
m
u
t
e
T
r
i
p
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
(
C
T
R
)
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
P116
VI.A.
X%
=
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
/ Si
t
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
fo
r
:
5%
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
NE
V
X%
=
10
%
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
S
y
s
t
e
m
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
X%
=
15
%
To
t
a
l
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
40
%
Wo
r
k
T
r
i
p
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
21
.
8
%
pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
t
r
i
p
s
w
h
i
c
h
a
r
e
w
o
r
k
t
r
i
p
s 1
1.
C
A
P
C
O
A
d
a
t
a
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
.
M
T
C
(
i
n
s
t
e
a
d
o
f
s
t
a
t
e
w
i
d
e
#
s
)
u
s
e
d
.
Tr
i
p
T
y
p
e
We
e
k
d
a
y
%
HB
W
21
.
8
%
HB
S
h
o
p
25
.
6
%
HB
S
o
c
i
a
l
17
.
3
%
HB
S
12
.
1
%
NH
B
23
.
2
%
To
t
a
l
10
0
.
0
%
So
u
r
c
e
:
S
F
B
a
y
A
r
e
a
T
r
a
v
e
l
S
u
r
v
e
y
2
0
0
0
,
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
T
r
a
v
e
l
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
,
T
a
b
l
e
2
.
1
.
2
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
Co
m
m
u
t
e
T
r
i
p
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
(
C
T
R
)
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
s
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
/
S
i
t
e
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
S
y
s
t
e
m
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
P117
VI.A.
In
d
e
x
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
In
p
u
t
In
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
So
u
r
c
e
s
/
N
o
t
e
s
Percent Applicable
On
‐Si
t
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Pr
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
cr
e
a
t
i
v
e
on
s
i
t
e
am
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
re
d
u
c
e
s
th
e
ne
e
d
fo
r
SO
V
tr
i
p
s
th
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
th
e
da
y
.
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
wi
t
h
i
n
th
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
th
a
t
wi
l
l
re
d
u
c
e
th
e
ne
e
d
fo
r
au
t
o
tr
i
p
s
in
c
l
u
d
e
he
a
l
t
h
y
ve
n
d
i
n
g
,
gr
o
c
e
r
y
,
re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
,
re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
re
n
t
a
l
,
dr
y
cl
e
a
n
i
n
g
,
ch
i
l
d
ca
r
e
,
bi
c
y
c
l
e
re
p
a
i
r
st
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
et
c
.
Se
g
g
e
r
m
a
n
,
K.
,
& He
n
d
r
i
c
k
s
,
S.
(2
0
0
5
)
.
In
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
n
g
TD
M
In
t
o
th
e
La
n
d
Development Process.
Na
t
i
o
n
a
l
Ce
n
t
e
r
fo
r
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Re
s
e
a
r
c
h
,
Ce
n
t
e
r
fo
r
Ur
b
a
n
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Research.
Sh
a
r
e
d
Sh
u
t
t
l
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
T
h
e
us
e
of
ho
t
e
l
or
ot
h
e
r
cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
se
r
v
i
c
e
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
to
sh
u
t
t
l
e
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
ca
n
ma
x
i
m
i
z
e
th
e
us
e
of
on
‐si
t
e
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
wh
i
l
e
re
d
u
c
i
n
g
SO
V
tr
i
p
s
.
Th
e
su
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
pr
o
j
e
c
t
wi
l
l
cr
e
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
th
e
us
e
of
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
fo
r
sh
u
t
t
l
e
pu
r
p
o
s
e
s
.
Fo
r
ex
a
m
p
l
e
,
a he
a
l
t
h
cl
u
b
wi
t
h
a gu
e
s
t
sh
u
t
t
l
e
co
u
l
d
pr
o
v
i
d
e
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
to
a tr
a
n
s
i
t
ce
n
t
e
r
or
pa
r
k
an
d
ri
d
e
.
De
g
r
e
e
of
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
:
lo
w
(<
10
va
n
s
)
,
me
d
i
u
m
(<
3
0
va
n
s
)
,
la
r
g
e
(>
3
0
va
n
s
)
Co
m
p
a
n
y
si
z
e
:
sm
a
l
l
(<
10
0
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
)
,
me
d
i
u
m
(<
50
0
)
,
la
r
g
e
(>
5
0
0
)
No
n
‐Mo
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
Zo
n
e
s
L
a
r
g
e
r
ar
e
a
s
of
no
n
‐mo
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
tr
a
v
e
l
zo
n
e
s
pr
o
v
i
d
e
sa
f
e
an
d
co
m
f
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
sp
a
c
e
th
a
t
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
s
wa
l
k
i
n
g
an
d
bi
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
,
th
u
s
re
d
u
c
i
n
g
SO
V
tr
i
p
s
.
No
n
‐mo
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
zo
n
e
s
ar
e
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
fo
r
la
r
g
e
r
re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
or
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
ar
e
a
s
on
l
y
.
Pu
b
l
i
c
am
e
n
i
t
y
sp
a
c
e
al
r
e
a
d
y
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
by
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
As
p
e
n
do
e
s
no
t
qu
a
l
i
f
y
fo
r
th
i
s
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
On
l
y
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
to
Ma
j
o
r
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
(1
9
9
8
)
.
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
Gl
o
b
a
l
Cl
i
m
a
t
e
Change: A Review
an
d
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
of
th
e
Li
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
.
US
D
O
T
.
Ne
t
w
o
r
k
Ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
T
h
e
su
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
pr
o
j
e
c
t
wi
l
l
ex
p
a
n
d
th
e
lo
c
a
l
tr
a
n
s
i
t
ne
t
w
o
r
k
by
ad
d
i
n
g
or
mo
d
i
f
y
i
n
g
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
tr
a
n
s
i
t
se
r
v
i
c
e
to
en
h
a
n
c
e
th
e
se
r
v
i
c
e
ne
a
r
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
si
t
e
.
Th
i
s
wi
l
l
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
th
e
us
e
of
tr
a
n
s
i
t
an
d
th
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
re
d
u
c
e
SO
V
tr
i
p
s
.
On
l
y
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
to
Ma
j
o
r
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Fr
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
R
e
d
u
c
i
n
g
tr
a
n
s
i
t
‐pa
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
tr
a
v
e
l
ti
m
e
th
r
o
u
g
h
re
d
u
c
e
d
he
a
d
w
a
y
s
an
d
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
sp
e
e
d
an
d
re
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
ma
k
e
s
tr
a
n
s
i
t
se
r
v
i
c
e
mo
r
e
at
t
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
,
re
d
u
c
i
n
g
SO
V
tr
i
p
s
.
Th
e
su
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
pr
o
j
e
c
t
wi
l
l
wo
r
k
wi
t
h
Ci
t
y
of
As
p
e
n
st
a
f
f
to
de
v
e
l
o
p
a pl
a
n
fo
r
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
se
r
v
i
c
e
fr
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
th
a
t
of
f
e
r
s
th
e
be
s
t
tr
i
p
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
.
On
l
y
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
to
Ma
j
o
r
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Ac
c
e
s
s
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
of
sa
f
e
an
d
co
m
f
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
ac
c
e
s
s
to
tr
a
n
s
i
t
se
r
v
i
c
e
is
im
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
fo
r
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
an
d
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
tr
a
n
s
i
t
ri
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
,
th
u
s
re
d
u
c
i
n
g
SO
V
tr
i
p
s
.
Th
e
su
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
pr
o
j
e
c
t
wi
l
l
im
p
r
o
v
e
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
ac
c
e
s
s
to
a tr
a
n
s
i
t
st
o
p
vi
a
fo
r
m
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
of
tr
a
i
l
s
,
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
an
d
/
o
r
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
of
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
,
in
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
of
li
g
h
t
i
n
g
an
d
/
o
r
wa
y
fi
n
d
i
n
g
or
ot
h
e
r
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
.
In
t
e
r
c
e
p
t
Lo
t
T
h
e
pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
of
a co
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
t
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
at
wh
i
c
h
to
pa
r
k
a ve
h
i
c
l
e
an
d
tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
on
t
o
an
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
mo
d
e
ca
n
re
d
u
c
e
SO
V
tr
i
p
s
.
Th
e
su
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
pr
o
j
e
c
t
wi
l
l
pr
o
v
i
d
e
fo
r
a sa
f
e
,
co
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
t
in
t
e
r
c
e
p
t
lo
t
at
an
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
,
a pr
o
j
e
c
t
ca
n
pr
o
p
o
s
e
me
t
h
o
d
s
by
wh
i
c
h
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
in
t
e
r
c
e
p
t
lo
t
us
e
ca
n
be
ex
p
a
n
d
e
d
.
Ex
a
m
p
l
e
s
in
c
l
u
d
e
sh
u
t
t
l
e
s
to
/
f
r
o
m
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
lo
t
s
,
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
to
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
lo
t
s
,
et
c
.
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
(1
9
9
8
)
.
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
Gl
o
b
a
l
Cl
i
m
a
t
e
Change: A Review
an
d
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
of
th
e
Li
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
.
US
D
O
T
.
Bu
s
St
o
p
s
wi
t
h
Re
a
l
Ti
m
e
Ar
r
i
v
a
l
Th
e
su
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
pr
o
j
e
c
t
wi
l
l
pr
o
v
i
d
e
re
a
l
ti
m
e
ar
r
i
v
a
l
si
g
n
a
g
e
to
ac
c
u
r
a
t
e
l
y
in
f
o
r
m
us
e
r
s
of
th
e
bu
s
sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
.
St
u
d
y
of
Ch
i
c
a
g
o
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Au
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
re
a
l
‐ti
m
e
tr
a
c
k
i
n
g
on 141 of 144 system
bu
s
e
s
ov
e
r
a on
e
‐ye
a
r
pe
r
i
o
r
d
fr
o
m
20
0
8
‐
20
0
9
fo
u
n
d
a 1.
8
‐
2.
2
%
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in ridership.Tang, L.,
& Th
a
k
u
r
i
a
h
,
P.
(2
0
1
2
,
Ju
n
e
)
.
Ri
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
ef
f
e
c
t
s
of
re
a
l
‐ti
m
e
bu
s
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
system: A case study
in
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
Ch
i
c
a
g
o
.
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
e
a
r
c
h
Pa
r
t
C:
Em
e
r
g
i
n
g
Te
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
,
22, 146 ‐161.
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
in
TO
P
T
h
e
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Op
t
i
o
n
s
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
(T
O
P
)
is
a Ci
t
y
of
As
p
e
n
op
e
r
a
t
e
d
em
p
l
o
y
e
r
tr
i
p
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
se
r
v
i
c
e
.
Al
l
TO
P
em
p
l
o
y
e
r
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
ar
e
fr
e
e
an
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
gr
a
n
t
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
,
em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
ri
d
e
ho
m
e
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
,
an
d
bu
s
sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
ki
o
s
k
s
an
d
di
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
.
Th
e
su
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
pr
o
j
e
c
t
wi
l
l
wo
r
k
wi
t
h
Ci
t
y
of
As
p
e
n
st
a
f
f
to
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
wh
e
t
h
e
r
TO
P
me
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
is
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
an
d
,
if
so
,
to
jo
i
n
th
e
pr
o
g
r
a
m
.
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Fa
r
e
Su
b
s
i
d
y
T
h
e
su
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
pr
o
j
e
c
t
wi
l
l
pr
o
v
i
d
e
su
b
s
i
d
i
z
e
d
/
d
i
s
c
o
u
n
t
e
d
da
i
l
y
or
mo
n
t
h
l
y
pu
b
l
i
c
tr
a
n
s
i
t
pa
s
s
e
s
fo
r
th
e
RF
T
A
va
l
l
e
y
sy
s
t
e
m
.
Th
e
s
e
pa
s
s
e
s
ca
n
be
pa
r
t
i
a
l
l
y
or
wh
o
l
l
y
su
b
s
i
d
i
z
e
d
by
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
wi
t
h
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
po
i
n
t
s
be
i
n
g
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
fo
r
la
r
g
e
r
su
b
s
i
d
i
e
s
.
Ma
n
y
en
t
i
t
i
e
s
us
e
re
v
e
n
u
e
fr
o
m
pa
r
k
i
n
g
to
of
f
s
e
t
th
e
co
s
t
of
su
c
h
a pr
o
j
e
c
t
.
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Ca
s
h
‐ou
t
Th
e
su
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
pr
o
j
e
c
t
wi
l
l
re
q
u
i
r
e
em
p
l
o
y
e
r
s
to
of
f
e
r
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
/
g
u
e
s
t
pa
r
k
i
n
g
ca
s
h
‐ou
t
s
.
Th
e
te
r
m
ca
s
h
o
u
t
is
us
e
d
to
de
s
c
r
i
b
e
th
e
pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
of
a ch
o
i
c
e
of
fo
r
g
o
i
n
g
th
e
i
r
cu
r
r
e
n
t
su
b
s
i
d
i
z
e
d
/
f
r
e
e
pa
r
k
i
n
g
fo
r
a ca
s
h
pa
y
m
e
n
t
eq
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
to
th
e
co
s
t
of
th
e
pa
r
k
i
n
g
sp
a
c
e
.
Wo
r
k
p
l
a
c
e
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Po
l
i
c
y
Th
e
su
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
pr
o
j
e
c
t
wi
l
l
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
wo
r
k
p
l
a
c
e
pa
r
k
i
n
g
pr
i
c
i
n
g
at
it
s
em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
ce
n
t
e
r
s
.
Th
i
s
ma
y
in
c
l
u
d
e
:
ex
p
l
i
c
i
t
l
y
ch
a
r
g
i
n
g
fo
r
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
pa
r
k
i
n
g
,
or
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
g
ab
o
v
e
ma
r
k
e
t
‐ra
t
e
pr
i
c
i
n
g
.
Co
m
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
Wo
r
k
We
e
k
s
Co
m
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
wo
r
k
we
e
k
sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
s
al
l
o
w
an
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
to
wo
r
k
th
e
ty
p
i
c
a
l
40
‐ho
u
r
wo
r
k
w
e
e
k
in
an
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
ma
n
n
e
r
su
c
h
as
4/
1
0
s
or
9/
8
0
s
.
Th
i
s
el
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
s
th
e
ne
e
d
fo
r
wo
r
k
‐re
l
a
t
e
d
tr
a
v
e
l
on
th
e
da
y
s
no
t
wo
r
k
e
d
,
th
u
s
re
d
u
c
i
n
g
SO
V
tr
i
p
s
.
Th
e
su
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
pr
o
j
e
c
t
wi
l
l
de
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
th
a
t
it
wi
l
l
of
f
e
r
co
m
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
wo
r
k
we
e
k
sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
s
to
25
%
of
it
s
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
.
Em
p
l
o
y
e
r
Sp
o
n
s
o
r
e
d
Va
n
p
o
o
l
T
h
e
su
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
pr
o
j
e
c
t
wi
l
l
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
an
em
p
l
o
y
e
r
‐sp
o
n
s
o
r
e
d
va
n
p
o
o
l
,
th
u
s
re
d
u
c
i
n
g
th
e
ne
e
d
fo
r
SO
V
tr
i
p
s
to
an
d
fr
o
m
th
e
wo
r
k
p
l
a
c
e
.
Em
p
l
o
y
e
r
‐sp
o
n
s
o
r
e
d
va
n
p
o
o
l
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
en
t
a
i
l
an
em
p
l
o
y
e
r
pu
r
c
h
a
s
i
n
g
or
le
a
s
i
n
g
va
n
s
fo
r
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
us
e
,
an
d
of
t
e
n
su
b
s
i
d
i
z
i
n
g
th
e
co
s
t
of
at
le
a
s
t
pr
o
g
r
a
m
ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
Th
e
dr
i
v
e
r
us
u
a
l
l
y
re
c
e
i
v
e
s
pe
r
s
o
n
a
l
us
e
of
th
e
va
n
,
of
t
e
n
fo
r
a mi
l
e
a
g
e
fe
e
.
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
i
n
g
is
wi
t
h
i
n
th
e
em
p
l
o
y
e
r
’
s
pu
r
v
i
e
w
,
an
d
ri
d
e
r
ch
a
r
g
e
s
ar
e
no
r
m
a
l
l
y
se
t
on
th
e
ba
s
i
s
of
ve
h
i
c
l
e
an
d
op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
co
s
t
.
Em
p
l
o
y
e
r
si
z
e
:
sm
a
l
l
(<
10
0
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
)
,
me
d
i
u
m
(<
50
0
)
,
la
r
g
e
(>
5
0
0
)
Ca
r
p
o
o
l
Ma
t
c
h
i
n
g
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
n
g
th
e
fo
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
of
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
ca
r
p
o
o
l
gr
o
u
p
s
is
a me
t
h
o
d
of
re
d
u
c
i
n
g
SO
V
tr
i
p
s
.
Th
e
su
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
pr
o
j
e
c
t
wi
l
l
in
c
l
u
d
e
us
e
th
e
ci
t
y
of
As
p
e
n
Co
m
m
u
t
e
r
Co
n
n
e
c
t
se
r
v
i
c
e
to
al
l
o
w
fo
r
th
e
fo
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
of
ca
r
p
o
o
l
s
as
we
l
l
as
th
e
sh
a
r
i
n
g
of
ot
h
e
r
im
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
vi
a
a
cu
s
t
o
m
em
p
l
o
y
e
r
we
b
pa
g
e
.
Ca
r
s
h
a
r
e
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
C
a
r
s
h
a
r
e
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
ha
v
e
be
e
n
li
n
k
e
d
to
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
us
e
of
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
mo
d
e
s
an
d
re
d
u
c
e
d
SO
V
tr
i
p
s
.
Th
e
su
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
pr
o
j
e
c
t
wi
l
l
pr
o
v
i
d
e
ac
c
e
s
s
to
As
p
e
n
’
s
CA
R
TO
GO
ca
r
s
h
a
r
e
pr
o
g
r
a
m
.
Tr
i
p
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
wi
l
l
de
p
e
n
d
on
th
e
le
v
e
l
to
wh
i
c
h
th
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
s
.
Ca
r
sh
a
r
e
me
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
ca
n
be
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
to
al
l
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
or
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
of
ne
w
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
.
Bi
k
e
s
h
a
r
e
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
B
i
k
e
s
h
a
r
i
n
g
pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
ac
c
e
s
s
to
a fl
e
e
t
of
bi
c
y
c
l
e
s
fo
r
sh
o
r
t
tr
i
p
s
,
th
u
s
re
d
u
c
i
n
g
SO
V
tr
a
v
e
l
.
Th
e
su
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
pr
o
j
e
c
t
wi
l
l
pr
o
v
i
d
e
me
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
to
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
WE
‐cy
c
l
e
pr
o
g
r
a
m
.
101%
En
d
of
Tr
i
p
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Th
e
pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
of
co
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
t
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
fo
r
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
an
d
cy
c
l
i
s
t
s
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
th
e
s
e
ty
p
e
s
of
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
mo
d
e
s
,
th
u
s
re
d
u
c
i
n
g
SO
V
tr
i
p
s
.
No
n
‐re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
ma
y
pr
o
v
i
d
e
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
su
c
h
as
sh
o
w
e
r
s
,
se
c
u
r
e
bi
c
y
c
l
e
lo
c
k
e
r
s
,
pe
r
s
o
n
a
l
lo
c
k
e
r
s
,
ch
a
n
g
i
n
g
sp
a
c
e
s
,
et
c
Le
v
e
l
of
Im
p
l
e
m
n
a
t
i
o
n
:
lo
w
= se
c
u
r
e
bi
c
y
c
l
e
lo
c
k
e
r
s
or
pe
r
s
o
n
a
l
lo
c
k
e
r
s
;
hi
g
h
= sh
o
w
e
r
an
d
ch
a
n
g
i
n
g
ar
e
a
,
AN
D
se
c
u
r
e
bi
c
y
c
l
e
lo
c
k
e
r
s
or
pe
r
s
o
n
a
l
lo
c
k
e
r
s
.
Em
p
l
o
y
e
r
si
z
e
:
sm
a
l
l
(<
10
0
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
)
,
me
d
i
u
m
(<
50
0
)
,
la
r
g
e
(>
5
0
0
)
Vi
c
t
o
r
i
a
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
Po
l
i
c
y
In
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
.
(2
0
1
3
,
Ma
r
c
h
12
)
.
TD
M
En
c
y
c
l
o
p
e
d
i
a
.
Retrieved October 24,
20
1
3
,
fr
o
m
Co
m
m
u
t
e
Tr
i
p
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
(C
T
R
)
:
ht
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
v
t
p
i
.
o
r
g
/
t
d
m
/
t
d
m
9
.
h
t
m
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
Ri
d
e
Ho
m
e
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
Ri
d
e
Ho
m
e
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
re
d
u
c
e
ba
r
r
i
e
r
s
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
wi
t
h
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
co
m
m
u
t
e
mo
d
e
s
,
th
u
s
re
d
u
c
i
n
g
SO
V
tr
i
p
s
.
Th
e
su
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
pr
o
j
e
c
t
wi
l
l
pr
o
v
i
d
e
co
m
m
u
t
e
r
s
wh
o
ca
r
p
o
o
l
,
va
n
p
o
o
l
,
bi
k
e
,
wa
l
k
or
ta
k
e
tr
a
n
s
i
t
to
wo
r
k
wi
t
h
a re
l
i
a
b
l
e
an
d
fr
e
e
ri
d
e
ho
m
e
‐
us
u
a
l
l
y
in
a ta
x
i
or
re
n
t
a
l
ca
r
wh
e
n
un
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
em
e
r
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
ar
i
s
e
.
Neighborhood Transit System Commute Trip Reduction
15
/
1
7
P118
VI.A.
Ca
r
p
o
o
l
/
V
a
n
p
o
o
l
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
pa
r
k
i
n
g
fo
r
ca
r
p
o
o
l
s
an
d
va
n
p
o
o
l
s
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
s
an
d
in
c
e
n
t
i
v
i
z
e
s
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
to
ri
d
e
‐sh
a
r
e
to
wo
r
k
,
th
u
s
re
d
u
c
i
n
g
SO
V
tr
i
p
s
.
Th
e
ca
r
p
o
o
l
an
d
va
n
p
o
o
l
sp
a
c
e
s
ar
e
lo
c
a
t
e
d
at
th
e
fr
o
n
t
en
t
r
a
n
c
e
s
of
th
e
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
.
Us
e
of
pa
r
k
i
n
g
sp
a
c
e
s
is
mo
n
i
t
o
r
e
d
to
en
s
u
r
e
co
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
.
Em
p
l
o
y
e
r
si
z
e
:
sm
a
l
l
(<
10
0
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
)
,
me
d
i
u
m
(<
50
0
)
,
la
r
g
e
(>
5
0
0
)
Tr
i
p
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ma
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
wi
l
l
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
ma
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
st
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
to
re
d
u
c
e
co
m
m
u
t
e
tr
i
p
s
.
In
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
sh
a
r
i
n
g
an
d
ma
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
ar
e
im
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
to
su
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
co
m
m
u
t
e
tr
i
p
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
st
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
.
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
g
co
m
m
u
t
e
tr
i
p
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
st
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
wi
t
h
o
u
t
a co
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
an
d
ma
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
st
r
a
t
e
g
y
wi
l
l
re
s
u
l
t
in
lo
w
e
r
VM
T
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
A tr
i
p
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
ma
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
pr
o
g
r
a
m
ma
y
in
c
l
u
d
e
th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
st
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
:
or
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
tr
i
p
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
an
d
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
mo
d
e
op
t
i
o
n
s
,
ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
su
c
h
as
bi
c
y
c
l
e
co
m
m
u
t
e
or
re
p
a
i
r
cl
a
s
s
e
s
,
ev
e
n
t
pr
o
m
o
t
i
o
n
s
,
an
d
pu
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
Em
p
l
o
y
e
r
Sh
u
t
t
l
e
O
f
f
e
r
i
n
g
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
a cu
s
t
o
m
i
z
e
d
tr
i
p
to
wo
r
k
vi
a
pr
i
v
a
t
e
sh
u
t
t
l
e
re
d
u
c
e
s
th
e
ne
e
d
fo
r
SO
V
tr
i
p
s
.
Th
e
su
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
pr
o
j
e
c
t
wi
l
l
pr
o
v
i
d
e
an
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
sh
u
t
t
l
e
fr
o
m
ne
a
r
b
y
tr
a
n
s
i
t
st
a
t
i
o
n
s
or
ot
h
e
r
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
pi
c
k
up
po
i
n
t
s
to
th
e
pl
a
c
e
of
em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
.
Em
p
l
o
y
e
r
si
z
e
:
sm
a
l
l
(<
10
0
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
)
,
me
d
i
u
m
(<
50
0
)
,
la
r
g
e
(>
5
0
0
)
16
/
1
7
P119
VI.A.
P120
V
I
.
A
.
P121
V
I
.
A
.
P122
V
I
.
A
.
P123
V
I
.
A
.
P124
V
I
.
A
.
P125
V
I
.
A
.
P126
V
I
.
A
.
P127
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
2
8
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
2
9
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
3
0
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
3
1
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
3
2
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
3
3
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
3
4
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
3
5
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
3
6
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
3
7
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
3
8
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
3
9
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
4
0
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
4
1
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
4
2
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
4
3
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
4
4
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
4
5
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
4
6
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
4
7
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
4
8
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
4
9
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
5
0
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
5
1
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
5
2
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
5
3
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
5
4
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
5
5
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
5
6
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
5
7
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
5
8
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
5
9
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
6
0
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
6
1
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
6
2
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
6
3
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
6
4
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
6
5
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
6
6
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
6
7
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
6
8
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
6
9
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
7
0
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
7
1
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
7
2
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
7
3
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
7
4
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
7
5
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
7
6
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
7
7
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
7
8
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
7
9
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
8
0
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
8
1
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
8
2
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
8
3
V
I
.
A
.
2
0
0
S
o
u
t
h
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
LUA-003
PROPOSED FLOOR
AREA CALCULATIONS
U
P
U
P
UP UP
UPUP
2,000.00 sq ft
1,021.00 sq ft
1,234.75 sq ft
1,175.75 sq ft
113.00 sq ft
326.50 sq ft
113.00 sq ft
1
2
3
4
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
FAR (Proposed)
200 S. Aspen Street
LOWER LEVEL
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Lower Level unit area totals by use 326.50 226.00 4,255.75 1,175.75
Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed -299.88 -207.57 -3,908.78 -1,079.89
Lower Level FAR totals by use 26.62 18.43 346.97 95.86
ENTRY LEVEL
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Entry Level unit area totals by use 354.25 1369.00 1564.50 1,857.25
Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed -117.46 -453.92 -518.74 -615.80
Open to below ------ ------ ------ -8.00
Open to below ------ ------ ------ -8.00
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.D.2.a) ------ ------ -53.25 ------
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.D.2.a) ------ ------ -53.25 ------
Garage exemption 0-250 @100% (Table 26.575.20-2) ------ ------ ------ -663.25
Main Level FAR totals by use 236.79 915.08 939.26 562.20
JUNIOR SUITES LEVEL
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Junior Suites Level unit area totals by use 2,945.25 0.00 0.00 3112.75
Open to below ------ ------ ------ -8.00
Open to below ------ ------ ------ -8.00
Upper Level FAR totals by use 2945.25 0.00 0.00 3096.75
PRESIDENTIAL SUITES LEVEL
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Presidential Suites Level unit area totals by use 2,351.50 0.00 0.00 3,130.00
Open to below ------ ------ ------ -8.00
Open to below ------ ------ ------ -8.00
Roof Level FAR totals by use 2351.50 0.00 0.00 3114.00
ROOF DECK LEVEL
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Roof Deck Level unit area totals by use 0.00 0.00 0.00 330.00
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.D.2.a) ------ ------ ------ -60.75
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.D.2.a) ------ ------ ------ -153.50
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.D.2.a) ------ ------ ------ -101.00
Roof Level FAR totals by use 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.75
Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category (referenced from “Gross Unit Area” chart)
Square Feet (Sq Ft) Percentage (%)
5,977.50 44.63%
Gross AHU (Sq Ft) 1,595.00 11.91%
Free Market Unit Area (Sq Ft) 5,820.25 43.46%
13,392.75 100.00%
Application of Use Category Percentages to Non-Unit Floor Area
Lodge FAR
Lodge Floor Area Non-Unit @ 44.63% Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft) 26.62 42.78 69.40
Main Level (Sq Ft) 236.79 250.92 487.71
Second Level (Sq Ft) 2,945.25 1,382.15 4,327.40
Third Level (Sq Ft) 2,351.50 1,389.85 3,741.35
Roof Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 6.58 6.58
Total Lodge FAR (Sq Ft)8,632.45
AHU FAR
AHU Floor Area Non-Unit @ 11.91% Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft) 18.43 11.42 29.84
Main Level (Sq Ft) 915.08 66.95 982.04
Second Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 368.81 368.81
Third Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 370.86 370.86
Roof Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 1.76 1.76
Total AHU FAR (Sq Ft)1,753.30
FREE MARKET FAR
Free Market Floor Area Non-Unit @ 43.46% Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft) 346.97 41.66 388.63
Main Level (Sq Ft) 939.26 244.32 1,183.58
Second Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 1,345.79 1,345.79
Third Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 1,353.29 1,353.29
Roof Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 6.41 6.41
Total Free Market FAR (Sq Ft)4,277.70
Total FAR (Sq Ft)14,663.46
Total Lodge FAR Summary
Allowable Limit (Sq Ft) Existing (Sq Ft) Proposed (Sq Ft)
Lodge (1:1) 8,970 9,081.60 8,632.45
AHU (2:1) 17,940 342.86 1,753.30
Free Market (.50:1) 4,485 ------4,277.70
Cumulative (2:1) 17,940 9,424.46 14,663.46
Gross Lodge (Sq Ft)
Total Unit Floor Area (Sq Ft) excludes non-unit area
Subgrade Wall Area (Proposed)
200 S. Aspen Street
Proposed Lower Level Wall Calculations
Lower Level Wall Label Total Wall Area (Sq Ft) Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft) Unex. Wall Area (Sq Ft)
1 880.50 0.00 880.50
2 845.50 175.50 670.00
3 709.25 93.00 616.25
4 858.00 0.00 858
Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft) 3,293.25
Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft) 268.50
% of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)8.2%
Unexposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)3024.75
% of Unexposed Wall (Unexposed / Total)91.8%
Proposed Entry Level Wall Calculations
Entry Level Wall Label Total Wall Area (Sq Ft) Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft) Unex. Wall Area (Sq Ft)
1 379.00 379.00 0.00
2 102.50 102.50 0.00
3 326.25 121.25 205.00
4 177.00 177.00 0.00
5 44.00 44.00 0.00
6 455.50 455.50 0.00
7 662.75 587.00 75.75
8 732.50 58.50 674.00
Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft) 2,879.50
Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft) 1924.75
% of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)66.84%
Unexposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)954.75
% of Unexposed Wall (Unexposed / Total)33.16%
78'-91/4"
73'-41/2"
78'-91/4"
73'-41/4"
9'
-
8
"
9'
-
8
"
12
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
9'
-
8
"
858.50 sq ft
880.50 sq ft
171.75 sq ft 175.50 sq ft
616.25 sq ft
18.25 sq ft 38.25 sq ft 18.25 sq ft 18.25 sq ft
498.25 sq ft
PARK
ALLEY
ASPEN
HOPKINS
1
2
3
4
N
PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL FAR 1/8" = 1'-0"
SUBGRADE LEVEL WALL EXPOSURE 1/8" = 1'-0"
FREE MARKET AREA
NON UNIT AREA
LODGE AREA
AHU UNIT AREA
EXEMPT AREA
EXPOSED WALL AREA
UNEXPOSED WALL AREA
SUBGRADE WALL AREA
AREA BY USE CATEGORY
P
1
8
4
V
I
.
A
.
2
0
0
S
o
u
t
h
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
LUA-004
PROPOSED FLOOR
AREA CALCULATIONS
U
P
53.25 sq ft 53.25 sq ft
8.00 sq ft8.00 sq ft
UPUP
UP UP
F
763.00 sq ft 801.50 sq ft
623.00 sq ft
746.00 sq ft
1,194.00 sq ft
108.75 sq ft
245.50 sq ft
663.25 sq ft
1
4
5
6
7
8
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
UP
2
3
Subgrade Wall Area (Proposed)
200 S. Aspen Street
Proposed Lower Level Wall Calculations
Lower Level Wall Label Total Wall Area (Sq Ft) Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft) Unex. Wall Area (Sq Ft)
1 880.50 0.00 880.50
2 845.50 175.50 670.00
3 709.25 93.00 616.25
4 858.00 0.00 858
Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft) 3,293.25
Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft) 268.50
% of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)8.2%
Unexposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)3024.75
% of Unexposed Wall (Unexposed / Total)91.8%
Proposed Entry Level Wall Calculations
Entry Level Wall Label Total Wall Area (Sq Ft) Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft) Unex. Wall Area (Sq Ft)
1 379.00 379.00 0.00
2 102.50 102.50 0.00
3 326.25 121.25 205.00
4 177.00 177.00 0.00
5 44.00 44.00 0.00
6 455.50 455.50 0.00
7 662.75 587.00 75.75
8 732.50 58.50 674.00
Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft) 2,879.50
Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft) 1924.75
% of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)66.84%
Unexposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)954.75
% of Unexposed Wall (Unexposed / Total)33.16%
FAR (Proposed)
200 S. Aspen Street
LOWER LEVEL
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Lower Level unit area totals by use 326.50 226.00 4,255.75 1,175.75
Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed -299.88 -207.57 -3,908.78 -1,079.89
Lower Level FAR totals by use 26.62 18.43 346.97 95.86
ENTRY LEVEL
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Entry Level unit area totals by use 354.25 1369.00 1564.50 1,857.25
Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed -117.46 -453.92 -518.74 -615.80
Open to below ------ ------ ------ -8.00
Open to below ------ ------ ------ -8.00
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.D.2.a) ------ ------ -53.25 ------
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.D.2.a) ------ ------ -53.25 ------
Garage exemption 0-250 @100% (Table 26.575.20-2) ------ ------ ------ -663.25
Main Level FAR totals by use 236.79 915.08 939.26 562.20
JUNIOR SUITES LEVEL
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Junior Suites Level unit area totals by use 2,945.25 0.00 0.00 3112.75
Open to below ------ ------ ------ -8.00
Open to below ------ ------ ------ -8.00
Upper Level FAR totals by use 2945.25 0.00 0.00 3096.75
PRESIDENTIAL SUITES LEVEL
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Presidential Suites Level unit area totals by use 2,351.50 0.00 0.00 3,130.00
Open to below ------ ------ ------ -8.00
Open to below ------ ------ ------ -8.00
Roof Level FAR totals by use 2351.50 0.00 0.00 3114.00
ROOF DECK LEVEL
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Roof Deck Level unit area totals by use 0.00 0.00 0.00 330.00
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.D.2.a) ------ ------ ------ -60.75
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.D.2.a) ------ ------ ------ -153.50
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.D.2.a) ------ ------ ------ -101.00
Roof Level FAR totals by use 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.75
Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category (referenced from “Gross Unit Area” chart)
Square Feet (Sq Ft) Percentage (%)
5,977.50 44.63%
Gross AHU (Sq Ft) 1,595.00 11.91%
Free Market Unit Area (Sq Ft) 5,820.25 43.46%
13,392.75 100.00%
Application of Use Category Percentages to Non-Unit Floor Area
Lodge FAR
Lodge Floor Area Non-Unit @ 44.63% Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft) 26.62 42.78 69.40
Main Level (Sq Ft) 236.79 250.92 487.71
Second Level (Sq Ft) 2,945.25 1,382.15 4,327.40
Third Level (Sq Ft) 2,351.50 1,389.85 3,741.35
Roof Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 6.58 6.58
Total Lodge FAR (Sq Ft)8,632.45
AHU FAR
AHU Floor Area Non-Unit @ 11.91% Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft) 18.43 11.42 29.84
Main Level (Sq Ft) 915.08 66.95 982.04
Second Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 368.81 368.81
Third Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 370.86 370.86
Roof Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 1.76 1.76
Total AHU FAR (Sq Ft)1,753.30
FREE MARKET FAR
Free Market Floor Area Non-Unit @ 43.46% Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft) 346.97 41.66 388.63
Main Level (Sq Ft) 939.26 244.32 1,183.58
Second Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 1,345.79 1,345.79
Third Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 1,353.29 1,353.29
Roof Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 6.41 6.41
Total Free Market FAR (Sq Ft)4,277.70
Total FAR (Sq Ft)14,663.46
Total Lodge FAR Summary
Allowable Limit (Sq Ft) Existing (Sq Ft) Proposed (Sq Ft)
Lodge (1:1) 8,970 9,081.60 8,632.45
AHU (2:1) 17,940 342.86 1,753.30
Free Market (.50:1) 4,485 ------4,277.70
Cumulative (2:1) 17,940 9,424.46 14,663.46
Gross Lodge (Sq Ft)
Total Unit Floor Area (Sq Ft) excludes non-unit area
78'-23/4"
33'-103/4"39'-21/2"
48'-13/4"18'-33/4"
10'-71/4"
68'-63/4"
9'
-
8
"
9'
-
8
"
9
'
-
8
"
4'-61/2"
9'
-
8
"
9'
-
8
"
121.25 sq ft
379.00 sq ft
177.00 sq ft
587.00 sq ft
674.00 sq ft
58.50 sq ft
102.50 sq ft
205.00 sq ft
75.75 sq ft
1 2 3
4 5 6
7
8
455.50 sq ft44.00 sq ft
9'
-
8
"
N
PROPOSED ENTRY LEVEL FAR 1/8" = 1'-0"
SUBGRADE LEVEL WALL EXPOSURE 1/8" = 1'-0"
FREE MARKET AREA
NON UNIT AREA
LODGE AREA
AHU UNIT AREA
EXEMPT AREA
EXPOSED WALL AREA
UNEXPOSED WALL AREA
SUBGRADE WALL AREA
AREA BY USE CATEGORY
P
1
8
5
V
I
.
A
.
2
0
0
S
o
u
t
h
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
LUA-005
PROPOSED FLOOR
AREA CALCULATIONS
U
P
U
P
8.00 sq ft8.00 sq ft
UP UP
618.75 sq ft
518.75 sq ft
424.75 sq ft424.75 sq ft424.75 sq ft533.50 sq ft
3,130.00 sq ft
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
W W W W
CD CD CD CD
R
A
M
P
U
P
FAR (Proposed)
200 S. Aspen Street
LOWER LEVEL
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Lower Level unit area totals by use 326.50 226.00 4,255.75 1,175.75
Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed -299.88 -207.57 -3,908.78 -1,079.89
Lower Level FAR totals by use 26.62 18.43 346.97 95.86
ENTRY LEVEL
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Entry Level unit area totals by use 354.25 1369.00 1564.50 1,857.25
Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed -117.46 -453.92 -518.74 -615.80
Open to below ------ ------ ------ -8.00
Open to below ------ ------ ------ -8.00
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.D.2.a) ------ ------ -53.25 ------
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.D.2.a) ------ ------ -53.25 ------
Garage exemption 0-250 @100% (Table 26.575.20-2) ------ ------ ------ -663.25
Main Level FAR totals by use 236.79 915.08 939.26 562.20
JUNIOR SUITES LEVEL
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Junior Suites Level unit area totals by use 2,945.25 0.00 0.00 3112.75
Open to below ------ ------ ------ -8.00
Open to below ------ ------ ------ -8.00
Upper Level FAR totals by use 2945.25 0.00 0.00 3096.75
PRESIDENTIAL SUITES LEVEL
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Presidential Suites Level unit area totals by use 2,351.50 0.00 0.00 3,130.00
Open to below ------ ------ ------ -8.00
Open to below ------ ------ ------ -8.00
Roof Level FAR totals by use 2351.50 0.00 0.00 3114.00
ROOF DECK LEVEL
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Roof Deck Level unit area totals by use 0.00 0.00 0.00 330.00
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.D.2.a) ------ ------ ------ -60.75
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.D.2.a) ------ ------ ------ -153.50
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.D.2.a) ------ ------ ------ -101.00
Roof Level FAR totals by use 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.75
Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category (referenced from “Gross Unit Area” chart)
Square Feet (Sq Ft) Percentage (%)
5,977.50 44.63%
Gross AHU (Sq Ft) 1,595.00 11.91%
Free Market Unit Area (Sq Ft) 5,820.25 43.46%
13,392.75 100.00%
Application of Use Category Percentages to Non-Unit Floor Area
Lodge FAR
Lodge Floor Area Non-Unit @ 44.63% Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft) 26.62 42.78 69.40
Main Level (Sq Ft) 236.79 250.92 487.71
Second Level (Sq Ft) 2,945.25 1,382.15 4,327.40
Third Level (Sq Ft) 2,351.50 1,389.85 3,741.35
Roof Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 6.58 6.58
Total Lodge FAR (Sq Ft)8,632.45
AHU FAR
AHU Floor Area Non-Unit @ 11.91% Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft) 18.43 11.42 29.84
Main Level (Sq Ft) 915.08 66.95 982.04
Second Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 368.81 368.81
Third Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 370.86 370.86
Roof Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 1.76 1.76
Total AHU FAR (Sq Ft)1,753.30
FREE MARKET FAR
Free Market Floor Area Non-Unit @ 43.46% Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft) 346.97 41.66 388.63
Main Level (Sq Ft) 939.26 244.32 1,183.58
Second Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 1,345.79 1,345.79
Third Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 1,353.29 1,353.29
Roof Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 6.41 6.41
Total Free Market FAR (Sq Ft)4,277.70
Total FAR (Sq Ft)14,663.46
Total Lodge FAR Summary
Allowable Limit (Sq Ft) Existing (Sq Ft) Proposed (Sq Ft)
Lodge (1:1) 8,970 9,081.60 8,632.45
AHU (2:1) 17,940 342.86 1,753.30
Free Market (.50:1) 4,485 ------4,277.70
Cumulative (2:1) 17,940 9,424.46 14,663.46
Gross Lodge (Sq Ft)
Total Unit Floor Area (Sq Ft) excludes non-unit area
N
PROPOSED JUNIOR SUITES LEVEL FAR 1/8" = 1'-0"
FREE MARKET AREA
NON UNIT AREA
LODGE AREA
AHU UNIT AREA
EXEMPT AREA
AREA BY USE CATEGORY
P
1
8
6
V
I
.
A
.
2
0
0
S
o
u
t
h
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
LUA-006
PROPOSED FLOOR
AREA CALCULATIONS
U
P
8.00 sq ft
UP
W/D
DN
1,389.50 sq ft
3,170.00 sq ft
395.75 sq ft
566.25 sq ft
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
UP
DW
F
F
FAR (Proposed)
200 S. Aspen Street
LOWER LEVEL
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Lower Level unit area totals by use 326.50 226.00 4,255.75 1,175.75
Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed -299.88 -207.57 -3,908.78 -1,079.89
Lower Level FAR totals by use 26.62 18.43 346.97 95.86
ENTRY LEVEL
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Entry Level unit area totals by use 354.25 1369.00 1564.50 1,857.25
Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed -117.46 -453.92 -518.74 -615.80
Open to below ------ ------ ------ -8.00
Open to below ------ ------ ------ -8.00
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.D.2.a) ------ ------ -53.25 ------
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.D.2.a) ------ ------ -53.25 ------
Garage exemption 0-250 @100% (Table 26.575.20-2) ------ ------ ------ -663.25
Main Level FAR totals by use 236.79 915.08 939.26 562.20
JUNIOR SUITES LEVEL
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Junior Suites Level unit area totals by use 2,945.25 0.00 0.00 3112.75
Open to below ------ ------ ------ -8.00
Open to below ------ ------ ------ -8.00
Upper Level FAR totals by use 2945.25 0.00 0.00 3096.75
PRESIDENTIAL SUITES LEVEL
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Presidential Suites Level unit area totals by use 2,351.50 0.00 0.00 3,130.00
Open to below ------ ------ ------ -8.00
Open to below ------ ------ ------ -8.00
Roof Level FAR totals by use 2351.50 0.00 0.00 3114.00
ROOF DECK LEVEL
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Roof Deck Level unit area totals by use 0.00 0.00 0.00 330.00
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.D.2.a) ------ ------ ------ -60.75
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.D.2.a) ------ ------ ------ -153.50
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.D.2.a) ------ ------ ------ -101.00
Roof Level FAR totals by use 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.75
Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category (referenced from “Gross Unit Area” chart)
Square Feet (Sq Ft) Percentage (%)
5,977.50 44.63%
Gross AHU (Sq Ft) 1,595.00 11.91%
Free Market Unit Area (Sq Ft) 5,820.25 43.46%
13,392.75 100.00%
Application of Use Category Percentages to Non-Unit Floor Area
Lodge FAR
Lodge Floor Area Non-Unit @ 44.63% Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft) 26.62 42.78 69.40
Main Level (Sq Ft) 236.79 250.92 487.71
Second Level (Sq Ft) 2,945.25 1,382.15 4,327.40
Third Level (Sq Ft) 2,351.50 1,389.85 3,741.35
Roof Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 6.58 6.58
Total Lodge FAR (Sq Ft)8,632.45
AHU FAR
AHU Floor Area Non-Unit @ 11.91% Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft) 18.43 11.42 29.84
Main Level (Sq Ft) 915.08 66.95 982.04
Second Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 368.81 368.81
Third Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 370.86 370.86
Roof Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 1.76 1.76
Total AHU FAR (Sq Ft)1,753.30
FREE MARKET FAR
Free Market Floor Area Non-Unit @ 43.46% Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft) 346.97 41.66 388.63
Main Level (Sq Ft) 939.26 244.32 1,183.58
Second Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 1,345.79 1,345.79
Third Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 1,353.29 1,353.29
Roof Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 6.41 6.41
Total Free Market FAR (Sq Ft)4,277.70
Total FAR (Sq Ft)14,663.46
Total Lodge FAR Summary
Allowable Limit (Sq Ft) Existing (Sq Ft) Proposed (Sq Ft)
Lodge (1:1) 8,970 9,081.60 8,632.45
AHU (2:1) 17,940 342.86 1,753.30
Free Market (.50:1) 4,485 ------4,277.70
Cumulative (2:1) 17,940 9,424.46 14,663.46
Gross Lodge (Sq Ft)
Total Unit Floor Area (Sq Ft) excludes non-unit area
N
PROPOSED PRESIDENTIAL SUITES LEVEL FAR 1/8" = 1'-0"
FREE MARKET AREA
NON UNIT AREA
LODGE AREA
AHU UNIT AREA
EXEMPT AREA
AREA BY USE CATEGORY
P
1
8
7
V
I
.
A
.
2
0
0
S
o
u
t
h
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
LUA-007
PROPOSED FLOOR
AREA CALCULATIONS
101.00 sq ft 153.50 sq ft
60.75 sq ft DN
UP
101.00 sq ft 153.50 sq ft
16.25 sq ft
60.75 sq ft
PROPERTY LINE
UP U
P
UP
U
P
UP
U
P
UP
UP UP
SETBACK LINE
FAR (Proposed)
200 S. Aspen Street
LOWER LEVEL
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Lower Level unit area totals by use 326.50 226.00 4,255.75 1,175.75
Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed -299.88 -207.57 -3,908.78 -1,079.89
Lower Level FAR totals by use 26.62 18.43 346.97 95.86
ENTRY LEVEL
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Entry Level unit area totals by use 354.25 1369.00 1564.50 1,857.25
Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed -117.46 -453.92 -518.74 -615.80
Open to below ------ ------ ------ -8.00
Open to below ------ ------ ------ -8.00
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.D.2.a) ------ ------ -53.25 ------
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.D.2.a) ------ ------ -53.25 ------
Garage exemption 0-250 @100% (Table 26.575.20-2) ------ ------ ------ -663.25
Main Level FAR totals by use 236.79 915.08 939.26 562.20
JUNIOR SUITES LEVEL
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Junior Suites Level unit area totals by use 2,945.25 0.00 0.00 3112.75
Open to below ------ ------ ------ -8.00
Open to below ------ ------ ------ -8.00
Upper Level FAR totals by use 2945.25 0.00 0.00 3096.75
PRESIDENTIAL SUITES LEVEL
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Presidential Suites Level unit area totals by use 2,351.50 0.00 0.00 3,130.00
Open to below ------ ------ ------ -8.00
Open to below ------ ------ ------ -8.00
Roof Level FAR totals by use 2351.50 0.00 0.00 3114.00
ROOF DECK LEVEL
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Roof Deck Level unit area totals by use 0.00 0.00 0.00 330.00
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.D.2.a) ------ ------ ------ -60.75
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.D.2.a) ------ ------ ------ -153.50
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.D.2.a) ------ ------ ------ -101.00
Roof Level FAR totals by use 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.75
Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category (referenced from “Gross Unit Area” chart)
Square Feet (Sq Ft) Percentage (%)
5,977.50 44.63%
Gross AHU (Sq Ft) 1,595.00 11.91%
Free Market Unit Area (Sq Ft) 5,820.25 43.46%
13,392.75 100.00%
Application of Use Category Percentages to Non-Unit Floor Area
Lodge FAR
Lodge Floor Area Non-Unit @ 44.63% Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft) 26.62 42.78 69.40
Main Level (Sq Ft) 236.79 250.92 487.71
Second Level (Sq Ft) 2,945.25 1,382.15 4,327.40
Third Level (Sq Ft) 2,351.50 1,389.85 3,741.35
Roof Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 6.58 6.58
Total Lodge FAR (Sq Ft)8,632.45
AHU FAR
AHU Floor Area Non-Unit @ 11.91% Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft) 18.43 11.42 29.84
Main Level (Sq Ft) 915.08 66.95 982.04
Second Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 368.81 368.81
Third Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 370.86 370.86
Roof Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 1.76 1.76
Total AHU FAR (Sq Ft)1,753.30
FREE MARKET FAR
Free Market Floor Area Non-Unit @ 43.46% Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft) 346.97 41.66 388.63
Main Level (Sq Ft) 939.26 244.32 1,183.58
Second Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 1,345.79 1,345.79
Third Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 1,353.29 1,353.29
Roof Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 6.41 6.41
Total Free Market FAR (Sq Ft)4,277.70
Total FAR (Sq Ft)14,663.46
Total Lodge FAR Summary
Allowable Limit (Sq Ft) Existing (Sq Ft) Proposed (Sq Ft)
Lodge (1:1) 8,970 9,081.60 8,632.45
AHU (2:1) 17,940 342.86 1,753.30
Free Market (.50:1) 4,485 ------4,277.70
Cumulative (2:1) 17,940 9,424.46 14,663.46
Gross Lodge (Sq Ft)
Total Unit Floor Area (Sq Ft) excludes non-unit area
N
PROPOSED ROOF DECK LEVEL FAR 1/8" = 1'-0"
FREE MARKET AREA
NON UNIT AREA
LODGE AREA
AHU UNIT AREA
EXEMPT AREA
AREA BY USE CATEGORY
P
1
8
8
V
I
.
A
.
2
0
0
S
o
u
t
h
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
LUA-008
PROPOSED FAR
PLANS
DN
UP
PROPERTY LINE
UP UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP UP
SETBACK LINE
U
P
UP
W/D
DN
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
UP
DW
F
F
U
P
U
P
UP UP
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
W W W W
CD CD CD CD
RA
M
P
UP
U
P
UPUP
UP UP
F
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
UP
UP
U
P
UP UP
UPUP
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
Gross Unit Area (sf)
PROPOSED
Lodge 5,977.50 44.63%
AHU 1,595.00 11.91%
Free Market 5,820.25 43.46%
Cumulative Unit Area 13,392.75 100.00%
EXISTING
Lodge 11,514.25 91.59%
AHU 1,057.50 8.41%
Free Market ------ ------
Cumulative Unit Area 12,571.75 100.00%
FAR (sf)
Allowable Existing Proposed
Lodge (1:1) 8,970 9,081.60 8,632.45
AHU (2:1) 17,940 342.86 1,753.30
Free Market (.50:1) 4,485 ------ 4,277.70
Cumulative FAR (2:1) 17,940 9,424.46 14,663.46
Net Leasable / Livable (sf)
Existing Leasable Existing Livable Proposed Leasable Proposed Livable
Lodge 11,230.95 ------ ------ 7,656.94
AHU ------1004.8 ------ 1,935.73
Free Market ------ ------ ------ 7,325.57
Cumulative Leasable 11,230.95 ------ ------ ------
Cumulative Livable ------1004.8 ------ 16,918.25
**** Proposal does NOT include Net Leasable (sf) ****
Gross Unit Area (sf)
PROPOSED
Lodge 5,977.50 44.63%
AHU 1,595.00 11.91%
Free Market 5,820.25 43.46%
Cumulative Unit Area 13,392.75 100.00%
EXISTING
Lodge 11,514.25 91.59%
AHU 1,057.50 8.41%
Free Market ------ ------
Cumulative Unit Area 12,571.75 100.00%
FAR (sf)
Allowable Existing Proposed
Lodge (1:1) 8,970 9,081.60 8,632.45
AHU (2:1) 17,940 342.86 1,753.30
Free Market (.50:1) 4,485 ------ 4,277.70
Cumulative FAR (2:1) 17,940 9,424.46 14,663.46
Net Leasable / Livable (sf)
Existing Leasable Existing Livable Proposed Leasable Proposed Livable
Lodge 11,230.95 ------ ------ 7,656.94
AHU ------1004.8 ------ 1,935.73
Free Market ------ ------ ------ 7,325.57
Cumulative Leasable 11,230.95 ------ ------ ------
Cumulative Livable ------1004.8 ------ 16,918.25
**** Proposal does NOT include Net Leasable (sf) ****
N
4.ROOF DECK LEVEL FAR 3/32" = 1'-0"3.PRESIDENTIAL SUITES LEVEL FAR 3/32" = 1'-0"
2.JUNIOR SUITES LEVEL FAR 3/32" = 1'-0"1.ENTRY LEVEL FAR 3/32" = 1'-0"-1.SUBGRADE LEVEL FAR 3/32" = 1'-0"
FREE MARKET AREA
NON UNIT AREA
LODGE AREA
AHU UNIT AREA
EXEMPT AREA
AREA BY USE CATEGORY
P
1
8
9
V
I
.
A
.
2
0
0
S
o
u
t
h
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
LUA-009
PROPOSED NET
LEASABLE / LIVABLE
CALCULATIONS
U
P
U
P
UP UP
UPUP
1,910.00 sq ft 1,005.00 sq ft
1,178.50 sq ft
113.00 sq ft
311.25 sq ft
113.00 sq ft
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
Net Leasable & Net Livable (Proposed)
200 S. Aspen Street
LOWER LEVEL
Lodge (Livable) AHU (Livable) Free Market (Livable) Non-Unit
311.25 113.00 1,178.50 0.00
------113.00 1,005.00 ------
------ ------1,910.00 ------
Subgrade Level area totals by use 311.25 226.00 4,093.50 0.00
ENTRY LEVEL
Lodge (Livable) AHU (Livable) Free Market (Livable) Non-Unit
227.50 600.00 768.25 219.75
108.75 611.50 752.25 ------
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.I) top level of stair ------ ------ -53.25 ------
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.I) top level of stair ------ ------ -53.25 ------
Entry Level area totals by use 336.25 1,211.50 1,414.00 219.75
JUNIOR SUITES LEVEL
Lodge (Livable) AHU (Livable) Free Market (Livable) Non-Unit
497.25 0.00 0.00 1,721.75
511.50 ------ ------ 55.75
418.50 ------ ------ ------
418.50 ------ ------ ------
418.50 ------ ------ ------
594.50 ------ ------ ------
Junior Suites Level area totals by use 2,858.75 0.00 0.00 1,777.50
PRESIDENTIAL SUITES LEVEL
Lodge (Livable) AHU (Livable) Free Market (Livable) Non-Unit
1,351.50 0.00 0.00 2,009.25
389.50 ------ ------55.75
542.50 ------ ------121.25
Presidential Suites Level area totals by use 2,283.50 0.00 0.00 2,186.25
ROOF DECK LEVEL
Lodge (Livable) AHU (Livable) Free Market (Livable) Non-Unit
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Roof Deck Level area totals by use 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Area totals by use 5,789.75 1,437.50 5,507.50 4,183.50
Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category (referenced from “Gross Unit Area” chart)
Square Feet (Sq Ft) Percentage (%)
Lodge Unit Area (Sq Ft)5,977.50 44.63%
AHU Unit Area (Sq Ft)1,595.00 11.91%
Free Market Unit Area (Sq Ft) 5,820.25 43.46%
Total Unit Area (Sq Ft) excludes non-unit area 13,392.75 100.00%
Application of Use Category Percentages to Non-Unit Floor Area
Lodge Net Livable
Lodge (Livable) Non-Unit @ 44.63% Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)311.25 0.00 311.25
Entry Level (Sq Ft)336.25 98.08 434.33
Junior Suites Level (Sq Ft)2,858.75 793.34 3,652.09
Presidential Suites Level (Sq Ft) 2,283.50 975.77 3,259.27
Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Lodge Net Livable (Sq Ft)7,656.94
AHU Net Livable
AHU (Livable) Non-Unit @ 11.91% Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)226.00 0.00 226.00
Entry Level (Sq Ft)1,211.50 26.17 1,237.67
Junior Suites Level (Sq Ft)0.00 211.69 211.69
Presidential Suites Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 260.37 260.37
Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Total ADU Net Livable (Sq Ft)1,935.73
Free Market Net Livable
Free Market (Livable) Non-Unit @ 43.46% Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)4,093.50 0.00 4,093.50
Entry Level (Sq Ft)1,414.00 95.50 1,509.50
Junior Suites Level (Sq Ft)0.00 772.47 772.47
Presidential Suites Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 950.11 950.11
Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Total ADU Net Livable (Sq Ft)7,325.57
Total Lodge Net Leasable & Net Livable Summary
Allowable Limit (Sq Ft) Existing (Sq Ft) Proposed (Sq Ft)
Lodge ------- 11,230.95 7,656.94
AHU ------- 1,004.80 1,935.73
Free Market ------- -------7,325.57
Cumulative ------- 12,235.75 16,918.25
Gross Unit Area (sf)PROPOSEDLodge 5,977.50 44.63%AHU 1,595.00 11.91%Free Market 5,820.25 43.46%Cumulative Unit Area 13,392.75 100.00%
EXISTING
Lodge 11,514.25 91.59%
AHU 1,057.50 8.41%
Free Market ------ ------
Cumulative Unit Area 12,571.75 100.00%
FAR (sf)
Allowable Existing Proposed
Lodge (1:1) 8,970 9,081.60 8,632.45
AHU (2:1) 17,940 342.86 1,753.30
Free Market (.50:1) 4,485 ------ 4,277.70
Cumulative FAR (2:1) 17,940 9,424.46 14,663.46
Net Leasable / Livable (sf)
Existing Leasable Existing Livable Proposed Leasable Proposed Livable
Lodge 11,230.95 ------ ------ 7,656.94
AHU ------1004.8 ------ 1,935.73
Free Market ------ ------ ------ 7,325.57
Cumulative Leasable 11,230.95 ------ ------ ------
Cumulative Livable ------1004.8 ------ 16,918.25
**** Proposal does NOT include Net Leasable (sf) ****
N
LOWER LEVEL NET LEASABLE / LIVABLE CALCULATIONS 1/8" = 1'-0"
P
1
9
0
V
I
.
A
.
2
0
0
S
o
u
t
h
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
LUA-010
PROPOSED NET
LEASABLE / LIVABLE
CALCULATIONS
U
P
53.25 sq ft 53.25 sq ft
UPUP
UP UP
F
717.75 sq ft
752.25 sq ft 768.25 sq ft
600.00 sq ft
108.75 sq ft
227.50 sq ft
219.75 sq ft
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
UP
Net Leasable & Net Livable (Proposed)
200 S. Aspen Street
LOWER LEVEL
Lodge (Livable) AHU (Livable) Free Market (Livable) Non-Unit
311.25 113.00 1,178.50 0.00
------113.00 1,005.00 ------
------ ------1,910.00 ------
Subgrade Level area totals by use 311.25 226.00 4,093.50 0.00
ENTRY LEVEL
Lodge (Livable) AHU (Livable) Free Market (Livable) Non-Unit
227.50 600.00 768.25 219.75
108.75 611.50 752.25 ------
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.I) top level of stair ------ ------ -53.25 ------
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.I) top level of stair ------ ------ -53.25 ------
Entry Level area totals by use 336.25 1,211.50 1,414.00 219.75
JUNIOR SUITES LEVEL
Lodge (Livable) AHU (Livable) Free Market (Livable) Non-Unit
497.25 0.00 0.00 1,721.75
511.50 ------ ------ 55.75
418.50 ------ ------ ------
418.50 ------ ------ ------
418.50 ------ ------ ------
594.50 ------ ------ ------
Junior Suites Level area totals by use 2,858.75 0.00 0.00 1,777.50
PRESIDENTIAL SUITES LEVEL
Lodge (Livable) AHU (Livable) Free Market (Livable) Non-Unit
1,351.50 0.00 0.00 2,009.25
389.50 ------ ------55.75
542.50 ------ ------121.25
Presidential Suites Level area totals by use 2,283.50 0.00 0.00 2,186.25
ROOF DECK LEVEL
Lodge (Livable) AHU (Livable) Free Market (Livable) Non-Unit
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Roof Deck Level area totals by use 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Area totals by use 5,789.75 1,437.50 5,507.50 4,183.50
Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category (referenced from “Gross Unit Area” chart)
Square Feet (Sq Ft) Percentage (%)
Lodge Unit Area (Sq Ft)5,977.50 44.63%
AHU Unit Area (Sq Ft)1,595.00 11.91%
Free Market Unit Area (Sq Ft) 5,820.25 43.46%
Total Unit Area (Sq Ft) excludes non-unit area 13,392.75 100.00%
Application of Use Category Percentages to Non-Unit Floor Area
Lodge Net Livable
Lodge (Livable) Non-Unit @ 44.63% Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)311.25 0.00 311.25
Entry Level (Sq Ft)336.25 98.08 434.33
Junior Suites Level (Sq Ft)2,858.75 793.34 3,652.09
Presidential Suites Level (Sq Ft) 2,283.50 975.77 3,259.27
Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Lodge Net Livable (Sq Ft)7,656.94
AHU Net Livable
AHU (Livable) Non-Unit @ 11.91% Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)226.00 0.00 226.00
Entry Level (Sq Ft)1,211.50 26.17 1,237.67
Junior Suites Level (Sq Ft)0.00 211.69 211.69
Presidential Suites Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 260.37 260.37
Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Total ADU Net Livable (Sq Ft)1,935.73
Free Market Net Livable
Free Market (Livable) Non-Unit @ 43.46% Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)4,093.50 0.00 4,093.50
Entry Level (Sq Ft)1,414.00 95.50 1,509.50
Junior Suites Level (Sq Ft)0.00 772.47 772.47
Presidential Suites Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 950.11 950.11
Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Total ADU Net Livable (Sq Ft)7,325.57
Total Lodge Net Leasable & Net Livable Summary
Allowable Limit (Sq Ft) Existing (Sq Ft) Proposed (Sq Ft)
Lodge ------- 11,230.95 7,656.94
AHU ------- 1,004.80 1,935.73
Free Market ------- -------7,325.57
Cumulative ------- 12,235.75 16,918.25
Gross Unit Area (sf)PROPOSEDLodge 5,977.50 44.63%AHU 1,595.00 11.91%Free Market 5,820.25 43.46%Cumulative Unit Area 13,392.75 100.00%
EXISTING
Lodge 11,514.25 91.59%
AHU 1,057.50 8.41%
Free Market ------ ------
Cumulative Unit Area 12,571.75 100.00%
FAR (sf)
Allowable Existing Proposed
Lodge (1:1) 8,970 9,081.60 8,632.45
AHU (2:1) 17,940 342.86 1,753.30
Free Market (.50:1) 4,485 ------ 4,277.70
Cumulative FAR (2:1) 17,940 9,424.46 14,663.46
Net Leasable / Livable (sf)
Existing Leasable Existing Livable Proposed Leasable Proposed Livable
Lodge 11,230.95 ------ ------ 7,656.94
AHU ------1004.8 ------ 1,935.73
Free Market ------ ------ ------ 7,325.57
Cumulative Leasable 11,230.95 ------ ------ ------
Cumulative Livable ------1004.8 ------ 16,918.25
**** Proposal does NOT include Net Leasable (sf) ****
N
ENTRY LEVEL NET LEASABLE / LIVABLE CALCULATIONS 1/8" = 1'-0"
P
1
9
1
V
I
.
A
.
2
0
0
S
o
u
t
h
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
LUA-011
PROPOSED NET
LEASABLE / LIVABLE
CALCULATIONS
U
P
U
P
UP UP
511.50 sq ft
497.25 sq ft
418.50 sq ft 418.50 sq ft 418.50 sq ft
594.50 sq ft
1,721.75 sq ft
55.75 sq ft
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
W W W W
CD CD CD CD
R
A
M
P
U
P
Net Leasable & Net Livable (Proposed)
200 S. Aspen Street
LOWER LEVEL
Lodge (Livable) AHU (Livable) Free Market (Livable) Non-Unit
311.25 113.00 1,178.50 0.00
------113.00 1,005.00 ------
------ ------1,910.00 ------
Subgrade Level area totals by use 311.25 226.00 4,093.50 0.00
ENTRY LEVEL
Lodge (Livable) AHU (Livable) Free Market (Livable) Non-Unit
227.50 600.00 768.25 219.75
108.75 611.50 752.25 ------
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.I) top level of stair ------ ------ -53.25 ------
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.I) top level of stair ------ ------ -53.25 ------
Entry Level area totals by use 336.25 1,211.50 1,414.00 219.75
JUNIOR SUITES LEVEL
Lodge (Livable) AHU (Livable) Free Market (Livable) Non-Unit
497.25 0.00 0.00 1,721.75
511.50 ------ ------ 55.75
418.50 ------ ------ ------
418.50 ------ ------ ------
418.50 ------ ------ ------
594.50 ------ ------ ------
Junior Suites Level area totals by use 2,858.75 0.00 0.00 1,777.50
PRESIDENTIAL SUITES LEVEL
Lodge (Livable) AHU (Livable) Free Market (Livable) Non-Unit
1,351.50 0.00 0.00 2,009.25
389.50 ------ ------55.75
542.50 ------ ------121.25
Presidential Suites Level area totals by use 2,283.50 0.00 0.00 2,186.25
ROOF DECK LEVEL
Lodge (Livable) AHU (Livable) Free Market (Livable) Non-Unit
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Roof Deck Level area totals by use 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Area totals by use 5,789.75 1,437.50 5,507.50 4,183.50
Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category (referenced from “Gross Unit Area” chart)
Square Feet (Sq Ft) Percentage (%)
Lodge Unit Area (Sq Ft)5,977.50 44.63%
AHU Unit Area (Sq Ft)1,595.00 11.91%
Free Market Unit Area (Sq Ft) 5,820.25 43.46%
Total Unit Area (Sq Ft) excludes non-unit area 13,392.75 100.00%
Application of Use Category Percentages to Non-Unit Floor Area
Lodge Net Livable
Lodge (Livable) Non-Unit @ 44.63% Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)311.25 0.00 311.25
Entry Level (Sq Ft)336.25 98.08 434.33
Junior Suites Level (Sq Ft)2,858.75 793.34 3,652.09
Presidential Suites Level (Sq Ft) 2,283.50 975.77 3,259.27
Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Lodge Net Livable (Sq Ft)7,656.94
AHU Net Livable
AHU (Livable) Non-Unit @ 11.91% Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)226.00 0.00 226.00
Entry Level (Sq Ft)1,211.50 26.17 1,237.67
Junior Suites Level (Sq Ft)0.00 211.69 211.69
Presidential Suites Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 260.37 260.37
Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Total ADU Net Livable (Sq Ft)1,935.73
Free Market Net Livable
Free Market (Livable) Non-Unit @ 43.46% Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)4,093.50 0.00 4,093.50
Entry Level (Sq Ft)1,414.00 95.50 1,509.50
Junior Suites Level (Sq Ft)0.00 772.47 772.47
Presidential Suites Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 950.11 950.11
Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Total ADU Net Livable (Sq Ft)7,325.57
Total Lodge Net Leasable & Net Livable Summary
Allowable Limit (Sq Ft) Existing (Sq Ft) Proposed (Sq Ft)
Lodge ------- 11,230.95 7,656.94
AHU ------- 1,004.80 1,935.73
Free Market ------- -------7,325.57
Cumulative ------- 12,235.75 16,918.25
Gross Unit Area (sf)PROPOSEDLodge 5,977.50 44.63%AHU 1,595.00 11.91%Free Market 5,820.25 43.46%Cumulative Unit Area 13,392.75 100.00%
EXISTING
Lodge 11,514.25 91.59%
AHU 1,057.50 8.41%
Free Market ------ ------
Cumulative Unit Area 12,571.75 100.00%
FAR (sf)
Allowable Existing Proposed
Lodge (1:1) 8,970 9,081.60 8,632.45
AHU (2:1) 17,940 342.86 1,753.30
Free Market (.50:1) 4,485 ------ 4,277.70
Cumulative FAR (2:1) 17,940 9,424.46 14,663.46
Net Leasable / Livable (sf)
Existing Leasable Existing Livable Proposed Leasable Proposed Livable
Lodge 11,230.95 ------ ------ 7,656.94
AHU ------1004.8 ------ 1,935.73
Free Market ------ ------ ------ 7,325.57
Cumulative Leasable 11,230.95 ------ ------ ------
Cumulative Livable ------1004.8 ------ 16,918.25
**** Proposal does NOT include Net Leasable (sf) ****
N
JUNIOR SUITES LEVEL NET LEASABLE / LIVABLE CALCULATIONS 1/8" = 1'-0"
P
1
9
2
V
I
.
A
.
2
0
0
S
o
u
t
h
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
LUA-012
PROPOSED NET
LEASABLE / LIVABLE
CALCULATIONS
U
P
UP
W/D
DN
542.50 sq ft
389.50 sq ft
1,351.50 sq ft
2,009.25 sq ft
121.25 sq ft
55.75 sq ft
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
UP
DW
F
F
Net Leasable & Net Livable (Proposed)
200 S. Aspen Street
LOWER LEVEL
Lodge (Livable) AHU (Livable) Free Market (Livable) Non-Unit
311.25 113.00 1,178.50 0.00
------113.00 1,005.00 ------
------ ------1,910.00 ------
Subgrade Level area totals by use 311.25 226.00 4,093.50 0.00
ENTRY LEVEL
Lodge (Livable) AHU (Livable) Free Market (Livable) Non-Unit
227.50 600.00 768.25 219.75
108.75 611.50 752.25 ------
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.I) top level of stair ------ ------ -53.25 ------
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.I) top level of stair ------ ------ -53.25 ------
Entry Level area totals by use 336.25 1,211.50 1,414.00 219.75
JUNIOR SUITES LEVEL
Lodge (Livable) AHU (Livable) Free Market (Livable) Non-Unit
497.25 0.00 0.00 1,721.75
511.50 ------ ------ 55.75
418.50 ------ ------ ------
418.50 ------ ------ ------
418.50 ------ ------ ------
594.50 ------ ------ ------
Junior Suites Level area totals by use 2,858.75 0.00 0.00 1,777.50
PRESIDENTIAL SUITES LEVEL
Lodge (Livable) AHU (Livable) Free Market (Livable) Non-Unit
1,351.50 0.00 0.00 2,009.25
389.50 ------ ------55.75
542.50 ------ ------121.25
Presidential Suites Level area totals by use 2,283.50 0.00 0.00 2,186.25
ROOF DECK LEVEL
Lodge (Livable) AHU (Livable) Free Market (Livable) Non-Unit
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Roof Deck Level area totals by use 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Area totals by use 5,789.75 1,437.50 5,507.50 4,183.50
Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category (referenced from “Gross Unit Area” chart)
Square Feet (Sq Ft) Percentage (%)
Lodge Unit Area (Sq Ft)5,977.50 44.63%
AHU Unit Area (Sq Ft)1,595.00 11.91%
Free Market Unit Area (Sq Ft) 5,820.25 43.46%
Total Unit Area (Sq Ft) excludes non-unit area 13,392.75 100.00%
Application of Use Category Percentages to Non-Unit Floor Area
Lodge Net Livable
Lodge (Livable) Non-Unit @ 44.63% Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)311.25 0.00 311.25
Entry Level (Sq Ft)336.25 98.08 434.33
Junior Suites Level (Sq Ft)2,858.75 793.34 3,652.09
Presidential Suites Level (Sq Ft) 2,283.50 975.77 3,259.27
Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Lodge Net Livable (Sq Ft)7,656.94
AHU Net Livable
AHU (Livable) Non-Unit @ 11.91% Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)226.00 0.00 226.00
Entry Level (Sq Ft)1,211.50 26.17 1,237.67
Junior Suites Level (Sq Ft)0.00 211.69 211.69
Presidential Suites Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 260.37 260.37
Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Total ADU Net Livable (Sq Ft)1,935.73
Free Market Net Livable
Free Market (Livable) Non-Unit @ 43.46% Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)4,093.50 0.00 4,093.50
Entry Level (Sq Ft)1,414.00 95.50 1,509.50
Junior Suites Level (Sq Ft)0.00 772.47 772.47
Presidential Suites Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 950.11 950.11
Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Total ADU Net Livable (Sq Ft)7,325.57
Total Lodge Net Leasable & Net Livable Summary
Allowable Limit (Sq Ft) Existing (Sq Ft) Proposed (Sq Ft)
Lodge ------- 11,230.95 7,656.94
AHU ------- 1,004.80 1,935.73
Free Market ------- -------7,325.57
Cumulative ------- 12,235.75 16,918.25
Gross Unit Area (sf)PROPOSEDLodge 5,977.50 44.63%AHU 1,595.00 11.91%Free Market 5,820.25 43.46%Cumulative Unit Area 13,392.75 100.00%
EXISTING
Lodge 11,514.25 91.59%
AHU 1,057.50 8.41%
Free Market ------ ------
Cumulative Unit Area 12,571.75 100.00%
FAR (sf)
Allowable Existing Proposed
Lodge (1:1) 8,970 9,081.60 8,632.45
AHU (2:1) 17,940 342.86 1,753.30
Free Market (.50:1) 4,485 ------ 4,277.70
Cumulative FAR (2:1) 17,940 9,424.46 14,663.46
Net Leasable / Livable (sf)
Existing Leasable Existing Livable Proposed Leasable Proposed Livable
Lodge 11,230.95 ------ ------ 7,656.94
AHU ------1004.8 ------ 1,935.73
Free Market ------ ------ ------ 7,325.57
Cumulative Leasable 11,230.95 ------ ------ ------
Cumulative Livable ------1004.8 ------ 16,918.25
**** Proposal does NOT include Net Leasable (sf) ****
N
PRESIDENTIAL SUITES LEVEL NET LEASABLE / LIVABLE CALCULATIONS 1/8" = 1'-0"
P
1
9
3
V
I
.
A
.
2
0
0
S
o
u
t
h
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
LUA-013
PROPOSED NET
LEASABLE / LIVABLE
CALCULATIONS
DN
UP
PROPERTY LINE
UP U
P
UP
U
P
UP
U
P
UP
UP UP
SETBACK LINE
Net Leasable & Net Livable (Proposed)
200 S. Aspen Street
LOWER LEVEL
Lodge (Livable) AHU (Livable) Free Market (Livable) Non-Unit
311.25 113.00 1,178.50 0.00
------113.00 1,005.00 ------
------ ------1,910.00 ------
Subgrade Level area totals by use 311.25 226.00 4,093.50 0.00
ENTRY LEVEL
Lodge (Livable) AHU (Livable) Free Market (Livable) Non-Unit
227.50 600.00 768.25 219.75
108.75 611.50 752.25 ------
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.I) top level of stair ------ ------ -53.25 ------
Vertical circulation exemption (26.575.20.I) top level of stair ------ ------ -53.25 ------
Entry Level area totals by use 336.25 1,211.50 1,414.00 219.75
JUNIOR SUITES LEVEL
Lodge (Livable) AHU (Livable) Free Market (Livable) Non-Unit
497.25 0.00 0.00 1,721.75
511.50 ------ ------ 55.75
418.50 ------ ------ ------
418.50 ------ ------ ------
418.50 ------ ------ ------
594.50 ------ ------ ------
Junior Suites Level area totals by use 2,858.75 0.00 0.00 1,777.50
PRESIDENTIAL SUITES LEVEL
Lodge (Livable) AHU (Livable) Free Market (Livable) Non-Unit
1,351.50 0.00 0.00 2,009.25
389.50 ------ ------55.75
542.50 ------ ------121.25
Presidential Suites Level area totals by use 2,283.50 0.00 0.00 2,186.25
ROOF DECK LEVEL
Lodge (Livable) AHU (Livable) Free Market (Livable) Non-Unit
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Roof Deck Level area totals by use 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Area totals by use 5,789.75 1,437.50 5,507.50 4,183.50
Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category (referenced from “Gross Unit Area” chart)
Square Feet (Sq Ft) Percentage (%)
Lodge Unit Area (Sq Ft)5,977.50 44.63%
AHU Unit Area (Sq Ft)1,595.00 11.91%
Free Market Unit Area (Sq Ft) 5,820.25 43.46%
Total Unit Area (Sq Ft) excludes non-unit area 13,392.75 100.00%
Application of Use Category Percentages to Non-Unit Floor Area
Lodge Net Livable
Lodge (Livable) Non-Unit @ 44.63% Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)311.25 0.00 311.25
Entry Level (Sq Ft)336.25 98.08 434.33
Junior Suites Level (Sq Ft)2,858.75 793.34 3,652.09
Presidential Suites Level (Sq Ft) 2,283.50 975.77 3,259.27
Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Lodge Net Livable (Sq Ft)7,656.94
AHU Net Livable
AHU (Livable) Non-Unit @ 11.91% Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)226.00 0.00 226.00
Entry Level (Sq Ft)1,211.50 26.17 1,237.67
Junior Suites Level (Sq Ft)0.00 211.69 211.69
Presidential Suites Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 260.37 260.37
Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Total ADU Net Livable (Sq Ft)1,935.73
Free Market Net Livable
Free Market (Livable) Non-Unit @ 43.46% Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)4,093.50 0.00 4,093.50
Entry Level (Sq Ft)1,414.00 95.50 1,509.50
Junior Suites Level (Sq Ft)0.00 772.47 772.47
Presidential Suites Level (Sq Ft) 0.00 950.11 950.11
Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Total ADU Net Livable (Sq Ft)7,325.57
Total Lodge Net Leasable & Net Livable Summary
Allowable Limit (Sq Ft) Existing (Sq Ft) Proposed (Sq Ft)
Lodge ------- 11,230.95 7,656.94
AHU ------- 1,004.80 1,935.73
Free Market ------- -------7,325.57
Cumulative ------- 12,235.75 16,918.25
Gross Unit Area (sf)PROPOSEDLodge 5,977.50 44.63%AHU 1,595.00 11.91%Free Market 5,820.25 43.46%Cumulative Unit Area 13,392.75 100.00%
EXISTING
Lodge 11,514.25 91.59%
AHU 1,057.50 8.41%
Free Market ------ ------
Cumulative Unit Area 12,571.75 100.00%
FAR (sf)
Allowable Existing Proposed
Lodge (1:1) 8,970 9,081.60 8,632.45
AHU (2:1) 17,940 342.86 1,753.30
Free Market (.50:1) 4,485 ------ 4,277.70
Cumulative FAR (2:1) 17,940 9,424.46 14,663.46
Net Leasable / Livable (sf)
Existing Leasable Existing Livable Proposed Leasable Proposed Livable
Lodge 11,230.95 ------ ------ 7,656.94
AHU ------1004.8 ------ 1,935.73
Free Market ------ ------ ------ 7,325.57
Cumulative Leasable 11,230.95 ------ ------ ------
Cumulative Livable ------1004.8 ------ 16,918.25
**** Proposal does NOT include Net Leasable (sf) ****
N
ROOF DECK LEVEL NET LEASABLE / LIVABLE CALCULATIONS 1/8" = 1'-0"
P
1
9
4
V
I
.
A
.
2
0
0
S
o
u
t
h
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
LUA-014
PROPOSED NET
LEASABLE / LIVABLE
PLANS
DN
UP
PROPERTY LINE
UP UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP UP
SETBACK LINE
U
P
UP
W/D
DN
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
UP
DW
F
F
U
P
U
P
UP UP
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
W W W W
CD CD CD CD
RA
M
P
UP
U
P
UPUP
UP UP
F
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
UP
UP
U
P
UP UP
UPUP
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
Gross Unit Area (sf)
PROPOSED
Lodge 5,977.50 44.63%
AHU 1,595.00 11.91%
Free Market 5,820.25 43.46%
Cumulative Unit Area 13,392.75 100.00%
EXISTING
Lodge 11,514.25 91.59%
AHU 1,057.50 8.41%
Free Market ------ ------
Cumulative Unit Area 12,571.75 100.00%
FAR (sf)
Allowable Existing Proposed
Lodge (1:1) 8,970 9,081.60 8,632.45
AHU (2:1) 17,940 342.86 1,753.30
Free Market (.50:1) 4,485 ------ 4,277.70
Cumulative FAR (2:1) 17,940 9,424.46 14,663.46
Net Leasable / Livable (sf)
Existing Leasable Existing Livable Proposed Leasable Proposed Livable
Lodge 11,230.95 ------ ------ 7,656.94
AHU ------1004.8 ------ 1,935.73
Free Market ------ ------ ------ 7,325.57
Cumulative Leasable 11,230.95 ------ ------ ------
Cumulative Livable ------1004.8 ------ 16,918.25
**** Proposal does NOT include Net Leasable (sf) ****N
ROOF DECK LEVEL NET LEASABLE / LIVABLE 3/32" = 1'-0"PRESIDENTIAL SUITES LEVEL NET LEASABLE / LIVABLE 3/32" = 1'-0"
JUNIOR SUITES LEVEL NET LEASABLE / LIVABLE 3/32" = 1'-0"ENTRY LEVEL NET LEASABLE / LIVABLE 3/32" = 1'-0"LOWER LEVEL NET LEASABLE / LIVABLE 3/32" = 1'-0"
FREE MARKET AREA
NON UNIT AREA
LODGE AREA
AHU UNIT AREA
EXEMPT AREA
AREA BY USE CATEGORY
P
1
9
5
V
I
.
A
.
2
0
0
S
o
u
t
h
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
LUA-101
FLOOR PLANS
U
P
U
P
UP UP
UPUP
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
FM UNIT #2 FM UNIT #1FM UNIT #3
LODGE STORAGE
ADU STORAGE
STAIR #1 STAIR #2
SHARED MECHANICAL
ELEV.
ADU STORAGE
1
LUA-201
2
LUA-202
3
LUA-203
4
LUA-204
A3
LUA-205
A3
LUA-205
A4
LUA-206
A4
LUA-206
N
LOWER LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0"
P
1
9
6
V
I
.
A
.
2
0
0
S
o
u
t
h
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
LUA-102
FLOOR PLANS
U
P
UPUP
UP UP
F
1
LUA-201
2
LUA-202
3
LUA-203
4
LUA-204
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
STAIR #1 STAIR #2
FM UNIT #2 FM UNIT #1
EMPLOYEE UNIT #1
EMPLOYEE UNIT #2
PARKING GARAGE
LODGE STORAGEMUD
FRONT DESK
MAIN ENTRY
DRIVEWAY RAMP
PARALLEL SPOT #1
ALLEY
ELEV.
UP
OPEN AIR WALKWAY
OPEN TO BELOW
DRIVEWAY
A3
LUA-205
A3
LUA-205
A4
LUA-206
A4
LUA-206
N
ENTRY LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0"
P
1
9
7
V
I
.
A
.
2
0
0
S
o
u
t
h
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
LUA-103
FLOOR PLANS
U
P
U
P
UP UP
1
LUA-201
2
LUA-202
3
LUA-203
4
LUA-204
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
STAIR #1 STAIR #2
GAME AREA
GAME BAR
TRASH & UTILITY ENCLOSURE
LAUNDRY
POWDER
LODGE UNIT #2
LODGE UNIT #1
LODGE UNIT #3 LODGE UNIT #4 LODGE UNIT #5
LODGE UNIT #6
GAME LOUNGE
ELEV.
(TYPE B UNIT)
PARALLEL SPOT #1
DECKDECKDECKDECKDECK
W W W W
CD CD CD CD
R
A
M
P
U
P
DECK
A3
LUA-205
A3
LUA-205
A4
LUA-206
A4
LUA-206
N
JUNIOR SUITES LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0"
P
1
9
8
V
I
.
A
.
2
0
0
S
o
u
t
h
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
LUA-104
FLOOR PLANS
U
P
UP
W/D
DN
1
LUA-201
2
LUA-202
3
LUA-203
4
LUA-204
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
STAIR #1 STAIR #2
POWDER
UPPER LOUNGE B
UPPER BAR
COMMUNITY KITCHEN
UPPER LOUNGE A
COMMUNITY DINING
BR
E
A
K
F
A
S
T
B
O
O
T
H
STORAGE
KITCHEN #2
SITTING LOUNGE
LODGE UNIT #7 LODGE UNIT #8
LODGE UNIT #9
ELEV.
UP
DW
F
F
A3
LUA-205
A3
LUA-205
DECK
DECKDECKDECKDECK
A4
LUA-206
A4
LUA-206
N
PRESIDENTIAL SUITES LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0"
P
1
9
9
V
I
.
A
.
2
0
0
S
o
u
t
h
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
LUA-105
FLOOR PLANS
DN
UP
1
LUA-201
2
LUA-202
3
LUA-203
4
LUA-204
PROPERTY LINE
STAIR #1 STAIR #2
ROOFTOP MECHANICAL
ROOF AREA NOT ACCESSIBLEROOF AREA NOT ACCESSIBLE
ELEV.
A3
LUA-205
A3
LUA-205
A4
LUA-206
A4
LUA-206
UP
U
P
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP UP
SETBACK LINE
GREEN ROOF
SPA DECK
ROOFTOP LOUNGE
ROOFTOP BAR
EXT. KITCHEN
N
ROOF DECK LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0"
P
2
0
0
V
I
.
A
.
2
0
0
S
o
u
t
h
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
LUA-201
HEIGHTS
GLASS
21'-4"
T.O. FF @ JUNIOR SUITES LEVEL
21'-4"
T.O. FF @ PRESIDENTIAL SUITES LEVEL
32'-9"
T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK
0'-0"
T.O. FF @ ENTRY LEVEL
41'-9"
T.O. STAIR ENCLOSURE
21'-4"
T.O. FF @ JUNIOR SUITES LEVEL
21'-4"
T.O. FF @ PRESIDENTIAL SUITES LEVEL
SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE
36'-4 1/2"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
29
'
-
4
3/
4
"
MIXED WEATHERED WOOD
BOARD FORMED CONCRETE
GLASS PANEL GUARD
BOARD FORMED CONCRETE
-13'-0"
T.O. FF @ LOWER LEVEL
0'-0"
T.O. FF @ ENTRY LEVEL
-13'-0"
T.O. FF @ LOWER LEVEL
1
181920
4
3
2
FINISHED GRADE
NATURAL GRADE
ZINC CLADDING
1 SOUTH ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"
P
2
0
1
V
I
.
A
.
2
0
0
S
o
u
t
h
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
LUA-202
HEIGHTS
21'-4"
T.O. FF @ JUNIOR SUITES LEVEL
21'-4"
T.O. FF @ PRESIDENTIAL SUITES LEVEL
31'-9"
T.O. LOWER ROOF
21'-4"
T.O. FF @ JUNIOR SUITES LEVEL
21'-4"
T.O. FF @ PRESIDENTIAL SUITES LEVEL
36'-4 1/2"
T.O. UPPER ROOF
41'-9"
T.O. STAIR ENCLOSURE
SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE
32'-9"
T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK
32
'
-
0
"
32
'
-
0
"
MIXED WEATHERED WOOD
BOARD FORMED CONCRETE
GLASS
BOARD FORMED CONCRETEBOARD FORMED CONCRETE
0'-0"
T.O. FF @ ENTRY LEVEL
-13'-0"
T.O. FF @ LOWER LEVEL
0'-0"
T.O. FF @ ENTRY LEVEL
-13'-0"
T.O. FF @ LOWER LEVEL
4
56
7
9 8
NATURAL GRADE
FINISHED GRADE AT ENTRY DOOR
NATURAL GRADE FINISHED GRADE
ZINC CLADDING
20
2 WEST ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"
P
2
0
2
V
I
.
A
.
2
0
0
S
o
u
t
h
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
LUA-203
HEIGHTS
GLASS
GLASS GUARD
21'-4"
T.O. FF @ JUNIOR SUITES LEVEL
21'-4"
T.O. FF @ PRESIDENTIAL SUITES LEVEL
31'-9"
T.O. LOWER ROOF
0'-0"
T.O. FF @ ENTRY LEVEL
21'-4"
T.O. FF @ JUNIOR SUITES LEVEL
21'-4"
T.O. FF @ PRESIDENTIAL SUITES LEVEL
36'-4 1/2"
T.O. UPPER ROOF
41'-9"
T.O. STAIR ENCLOSURE
PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINE
32
'
-
0
"
32
'
-
0
"
MIXED WEATHERED WOOD
ZINC CLADDING
-13'-0"
T.O. FF @ LOWER LEVEL
0'-0"
T.O. FF @ ENTRY LEVEL
-13'-0"
T.O. FF @ LOWER LEVEL
13
12
23
2211
10 9
201918
FINISHED GRADE
BEHIND @ FREE MARKET ENTRY
NATURAL GRADE
NATURAL GRADE
NATURAL GRADE
3 NORTH ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"
P
2
0
3
V
I
.
A
.
2
0
0
S
o
u
t
h
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
LUA-204
HEIGHTS
GLASS GUARD
GLASS
21'-4"
T.O. FF @ JUNIOR SUITES LEVEL
21'-4"
T.O. FF @ PRESIDENTIAL SUITES LEVEL
31'-9"
T.O. LOWER ROOF
0'-0"
T.O. FF @ ENTRY LEVEL
-13'-0"
T.O. FF @ LOWER LEVEL
41'-9"
T.O. STAIR ENCLOSURE
21'-4"
T.O. FF @ JUNIOR SUITES LEVEL
21'-4"
T.O. FF @ PRESIDENTIAL SUITES LEVEL
36'-4 1/2"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
0'-0"
T.O. FF @ ENTRY LEVEL
-13'-0"
T.O. FF @ LOWER LEVEL
SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE
2
9
'
-
4
3/
4
"
MIXED WEATHERED WOOD
BOARD FORMED CONCRETE
12
FINISHED GRADE
NATURAL GRADE
NATURAL GRADE
FINISHED GRADE NATURAL GRADE
FINISHED GRADE
10
13
18
141
4 EAST ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"
P
2
0
4
V
I
.
A
.
2
0
0
S
o
u
t
h
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
LUA-205
HEIGHTS SECTION
N/S
3
'-0 1 /4 "9'
-
0
"
32
'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
30
'-1
1
5 /8 "
26
'-7 7 /8 "
2'
-
1
"
32' (MU) ZONE DISTRICT SPECIAL REVIEW HEIGHT LIMIT
HEIGHT LIMIT FOR PERMANENT ROOFTOP AMENITIES
PER. 26.575.020.F.4.k
HEIGHT LIMIT FOR ELEVATOR AND STAIR ENCLOSURES
PER. 26.575.020.F.4.c
28' (MU) ZONE DISTRICT HEIGHT LIMIT
ALLOWED ROOFTOP RAILING PROJECTION
PER. 26.575.020.F.4.d
LINE OF NATURAL GRADE
LINE OF FINISHED GRADE
PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINE
SECTION N/S 3/16" = 1'-0"
P
2
0
5
V
I
.
A
.
2
0
0
S
o
u
t
h
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
LUA-206
HEIGHTS SECTION
E/W
9'
-
8
"
22
'
-
4
"
32
'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
1 '-2 3 /8 "
28
'-2 1 /8 "
29
'-4 3 /4 "
PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINE
32' (MU) ZONE DISTRICT SPECIAL REVIEW HEIGHT LIMIT
HEIGHT LIMIT FOR PERMANENT ROOFTOP AMENITIES
PER. 26.575.020.F.4.k
HEIGHT LIMIT FOR ELEVATOR AND STAIR ENCLOSURES
PER. 26.575.020.F.4.c
28' (MU) ZONE DISTRICT HEIGHT LIMIT
ALLOWED ROOFTOP RAILING PROJECTION
PER. 26.575.020.F.4.d
LINE OF NATURAL GRADE
LINE OF FINISHED GRADE
4,122.00 sq ft
SECTION E/W 3/16" = 1'-0"
P
2
0
6
V
I
.
A
.
2
0
0
S
o
u
t
h
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
LUA-209
HEIGHT OVER
TOPOGRAPHY
LINE OF FACADE
29'-4 3/4"
T.O. ROOF
29'-4 3/4"
T.O. ROOF
29'-4 3/4"
T.O. ROOF
29'-7"
T.O. ROOF
PROPERTY LINE
79
0
7
79
0
6
79
0
5
7904
790
17900
78
9
9
78
9
878
9
7
7896
7895
79037902
15.
2.
14.
13.
UP UP
U
P
UP
UP
UP
UP
SETBACK LINE
PROPERTY LINE
LINE OF FACADE
30'-3"
T.O. ROOF
29'-7"
T.O. ROOF
30'-1"
T.O. ROOFTOP
WALKWAY
35'-9"
T.O. STAIR
ENCLOSURE
36'-9"
T.O. STAIR
ENCLOSURE
31'-9"
T.O. ROOFTOP
WALKWAY
29'-4 3/4"
T.O. ROOF
28'-9"
T.O. ROOF 26'-9"
T.O. ROOF
32'-0"
T.O. ROOF
32'-0"
T.O. ROOF
32'-0"
T.O. ROOF
29'-8"
T.O. ROOF
31'-9"
T.O. ROOF
31'-9"
T.O. ROOF
30'-4 3/4"
T.O. ROOF
37'-9"
T.O. ELEVATOR
ENCLOSURE
SETBACK LINE
ARCHITECTURAL
PROJECTION
1.3.4.
23.
18.19.
22.
17.
11.
12.
10.9.
8.
7.
6.
5.
16.
20.
ELEVATOR
ENCLOSURE STAIR ENCLOSURE
UPPER
ROOF DECK
LOWER
ROOF DECK
ACCESSIBLE
ROOFTOP RAMP & WALKWAY
ROOFROOF
Height Over Topography
200 South Aspen Street
Elevation Label Most Restrictive Height Exemption Surveyed Height
1 7906'-6” 7905'-9” Proposed 7935'-1 3/4” 29'-4 3/4” N/A
2 7904'-8” 7904'-0” Proposed 7935'-8” 31'-8” N/A
3 7902'-11” 7899'-9” Proposed 7930'-0” 30'-3” N/A
4 7902'-9” 7901'-2” Proposed 7930'-9” 29'-7” N/A
5 7902'-4” 7899'-0” Proposed 7930'-9” 31'-9” N/A
6 7901'-4” 7899'-0” Proposed 7930'-9” 31'-9” N/A
7 7899'-7” 7899'-0” Proposed 7928'-8” 29'-8” N/A
8 7898'-9” 7896'-8” Proposed 7928'-8” 32'-0” N/A
9 7898'-1” 7896'-8” Proposed 7928'-8” 32'-0” N/A
10 7901'-0” 7896'-8” Proposed 7928'-8” 32'-0” N/A
11 7902'-0” N/A Natural 7930'-9” 28'-9” N/A
12 7904'-0” N/A Natural 7930'-9” 26'-9” N/A
13 7905'-0” N/A Natural 7934'-7” 29'-7” N/A
14 7906'-0” N/A Natural 7935'-4 3/4” 29'-4 3/4” N/A
15 7906'-0” N/A Natural 7935'-4 3/4” 29'-4 3/4” N/A
16 7905'-0” N/A Natural 7935'-4 3/4” 30'-4 3/4” N/A
17 7904'-0” N/A Natural 7933'-4 3/4” 29'-4 3/4” N/A
18 7905'-0” N/A Natural 7940'-9” 35'-9” 26.575.020.D.4.c
19 7904'-0” N/A Natural 7940'-9” 36'-9” 26.575.020.D.4.c
20 7903'-0” N/A Natural 7940'-9” 37'-9” 26.575.020.D.4.c
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
22 7899'-0” N/A Natural 7930'-9” 31'-9” N/A
23 7903'-0” N/A Natural 7933'-1' 30'-1” N/A
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Elevation of Natural
Grade
Elevation of Proposed
Grade
Roof Height over
Topography
Actual Roof Height over
Most Restrictive
N
HEIGHTS OVER TOPOGRAPHY 1/8" = 1'-0"
P
2
0
7
V
I
.
A
.