Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20150915 AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING September 15, 2015 4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISIT II. ROLL CALL III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public IV. MINUTES A. August 18, 2015 Meeting Minutes V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 200 S. Aspen Street (Hotel Lenado) - Commercial Design Review - Continued Public Hearing from April 7, 2015 VII. OTHER BUSINESS VIII. BOARD REPORTS IX. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legaJ notice (affi d avit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clari fications of applicant 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 Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission August 18, 2015 1 Ryan Walterscheid, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Jason Elliot, Skippy Mesirow, Kelly McNicholas, Jasmine Tygre, Brian McNellis, Keith Goode and Spencer McKnight. Also present from City staff; James True, Chris Bendon and Jessica Garrow. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES Ms. Tygre moved to approve the minutes for August 4th, seconded by Mr. Goode. All in favor, motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. Mesirow stated he would need to recuse himself from the public hearing because he has been involved in a supportive advisory role for the applicant. Mr. Bendon noted he will also leaving for the public hearing because his spouse is associated with the development team. 709 E Durant Ave – Sky Hotel – PD Detailed Review, Final Commercial Design Review – Public Hearing Mr. Walterscheid opened the public hearing for 709 E Durant Ave – Sky Hotel and turned the floor over to the Staff. Mr. True reviewed the affidavits, which appeared to be appropriate and entered them as Exhibit H. Ms. Garrow, Community Development Long Range Planner, opened with a review of the application. P&Z is asked to review the final commercial design and the planned development (PD) detail review. Before proceeding, Ms. Garrow identified a couple of errors in the agenda packet materials. One is a typo in the memo within the Dimensional Data Table on p 7 of the agenda packet. It lists the below grade setback for the east side is listed at 10 ft and it should be five ft. The values are correct within the staff findings as well as within the proposed resolution. The second error is in DRC comments exhibit which is labeled as Exhibit B in the agenda packet, but is actually Exhibit E. P1 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission August 18, 2015 2 Ms. Garrow stated P&Z is being asked to review and approve the final details of the Sky Hotel project which includes items such as any phasing (which are not proposed), finalizing landscape plans, final materials as well as fenestration. City Council approved the project in February, 2014 through Ordinance 39, Series 2014 which established the use mix, dimensions, massing and the general site plan. There were no dimensional variations approved. The project met all of the dimensional requirements for the Lodge (L) Zone district which is the underlying zone district. The ordinance did allow minor changes to be approved administratively and by P&Z after the Council approval. In summary, Council approved the following: • 104 lodge units including • 117 lodge bedrooms • 2 affordable housing units • 3,450 sf of net leasable area • Sub grade parking garage including 54 spaces In July, 2015 there was an administrative amendment to correct a clerical error on the setbacks. The dimensional table in the Ordinance (039-15) did not correct the fact that the applicant did meet all the setback requirements. She reiterated all the proposed setbacks and floor area meet the underlying lodge requirements. As part of the PD review, the applicant is requesting an amendment to correct the amount of floor area and update the public amenity sf values. In terms of floor area, the applicant has updated the calculations based on the current calculation methods which resulted in a decrease of about 5,000 sf of floor area. She noted this is a technical correction to address a subgrade portion of the first level along the Aspen Alps side of the building which impacts the floor area calculation. The actual mass of the building is not changing and the amounts approved by City Council remain in place. In regards to the public amenity space, the applicant is proposing an overall decrease in the public amenity space by about 430 sf as a result of a refined roof plan, changes to the planters, changes to the roof pool as well as a miscalculated setback on the upper level. Staff is supportive of both changes. The floor area change is only technical and doesn’t change the overall project mass or the building uses. In regards to the public amenity spaces, Staff supports the change because the project continues to exceed the requirements of the zone district. The Lodge zone district requires public amenity space of 25% of the lot and the project proposes 47.4%. In addition, the project includes an agreement by the applicant to allow permanent, public access to the roof deck. Staff feels the project meets all the PD review criteria, all plantings are being coordinated with the Parks and Engineering Departments, and all requirements are met in regards to tree mitigation and stormwater. The project is located within a mudflow zone and Engineering has confirmed the proposed mitigation techniques meet all the requirements. The project has a number of pedestrian and bicycle approvals meeting all the City requirements for transportation mitigation. The applicant is over mitigating the generated 5.3 trips with 25 net new vehicle trips mitigated with increased sidewalks, plantings, bike racks as well as some end of trip facilities for workers who may bike to work and need to shower before starting work. In terms of design, Staff is recommending approval. There were some minor changes to roof forms and window placement, but there is no changes to the massing. They have reworked the entryway to incorporate an ADA access ramp inside the building along with an entry airlock and planters. P2 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission August 18, 2015 3 In terms of materials, Staff is recommending a change. The proposed materials include three different types of wood siding, stone veneer and stucco. She then displayed a picture of a mock-up provided by the applicant which included one of the types of wood, stone and stucco. Staff feels in terms of cohesive design, it makes more sense to continue the wood material all the way to the roof line and eliminate the stucco. The stucco is not as high quality as the wood and stone veneer. She noted Staff has added this a condition of the approval in the draft resolution to eliminate the stucco and use the wood to the roofline. She then entered two items into record. The first, F.1, is a public comment from John Corcoran, the General Manager of the Aspen Alps. He has written that overall the Aspen Alps Condominium Association has no objection to and is generally supportive of the application as presented. The second entry, Exhibit G, is a letter from the applicant’s attorney, Gideon Kaufman, responding to some of the statements in a letter from Jody Edwards who is representing the Chateau Chaumont. This letter was also emailed to the commissioners earlier in the day. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions of Staff. Mr. McNellis asked if there were any variances requested by the applicant at the time of the meeting at which Ms. Garrow replied there are none. He then asked if the application qualified as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Ms. Garrow replied it is required to be reviewed as a Planned Development (PD) because some of the lodge units are timeshare. The timeshare use was reviewed and approved by City Council. He then asked other than the timeshare use, if everything follows the parameters of the code at which she replied it does. Mr. Walterscheid asked for confirmation regarding the approval process. He noted tonight’s meeting and the next scheduled meeting which also includes the Sky Hotel. She stated the next meeting was reserved for a continued review of the Sky Hotel application if necessary, but P&Z’s decision is final. She noted the continuation date is on the schedule in case the commission needed additional information or if a decision could not be reached at tonight’s meeting. Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. John Sarpa, Sarpa Development, stated they have been busy the past six months since the approval of the ordinance working extensively with Staff on the engineering, architectural, landscaping details. Mr. Sarpa also stated they have been working with their neighbors and the vast majority are very supportive. The applicant team realizes they are in a tight neighborhood and aware they need to be sensitive to interacting with their neighbors which they realize will be an ongoing interaction. He noted there are still some concerns and they will continue to work with them. In regards to the schedule, Mr. Sarpa stated they are trying to be as sensitive as possible to the community and to their neighbors regarding the start of the project. He stated the biggest impact will be the demolition of the existing building and excavation for the new building. He feels the best time in Aspen to accomplish this is April after the ski season. Ms. Sara Broughton, Rowland and Broughton Architecture and Urban Design, is the architect for the project. She wanted to remind P&Z of the precedent for the architecture and design of the new Sky Hotel. She provided pictures of examples of the chalet style which were prevalent in Aspen from 1945 to P3 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission August 18, 2015 4 the 1960’s. The features of the chalet style include prominent wood balconies, sloping roofs, horizontal design features, and the use of stucco and wood siding. She provided both historic and modern examples of the chalet style both here and from Europe. She then displayed elevation examples of each side of the new hotel from the following aspects. a. Corner of Durant and S Spring St – demonstrates the chalet style with the three types of wood, b. S Spring St – utilizes wood, stucco on the upper level to break up the mass c. Corner of S Spring ST and Ute Ave – predominate use is stone and wood with stucco on the upper level d. Dean Alley – includes the use of wood, stone and the stucco She noted they also have samples of the materials on hand for the commission to view if they wish. She wanted to point out the stucco will be off-white in color and heavily textured and the sun will cast a nice shape and shadow on the stucco. She then displayed a picture showing the various materials. Ms. Broughton then displayed a map depicting a new location of the bike rack. She stated in the application, the bike rack was located closer to the entrance near the Alps. In conversations with the Alps, they suggested the bike rack would be better in the depicted location which is more in the public right-of-way. They have received approval from the Engineering Department for an encroachment license to move the location of the bike rack. Mr. Sarpa stated the new location reduces the impact on the Alps and is more visible. Regarding the setback values in the table, Ms. Broughton noted the table now reflects what was represented in the drawings approved by City Council. Regarding the public amenity, Ms. Broughton noted there was a small reduction from what was approved by City Council which was 49.2%. The reduced amount is now at 47.4% which still substantially exceeds the 25% requirement. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions for the applicant. Mr. Goode asked of any changes impacting the valet parking. Mr. Sarpa stated they had previously discussed a bump out with the Engineering Department, but it has since been cleaned up and Engineering has signed off on the plans included the packet. Mr. Elliott asked if the line of stucco continues through the balcony. Ms. Broughton replied it would be continued through the balcony. Mr. Walterscheid then opened for public comment. Ms. Jo Ann Silverstein, has owned 104 Aspen Alps for 43 years. She recognizes this as a long process and wanted to thank John Sarpa and his team who have been patient, diligent, thoughtful and considerate when dealing with the members of the Alps. She stated their unit will be most impacted by the destruction and construction of the project. She acknowledged the agreement they had hoped would go P4 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission August 18, 2015 5 through, but unfortunately required all 16 members of the 100 building to sign off and three owners refused to sign the agreement. She does look forward to working John and his team on a continual basis. Mr. Jody Edwards, represents the Chateau Chaumont Condominium Association. He noted the letter he sent which was included in the agenda packet. He wanted to reiterate they have no objections to the final building plans as submitted and they are neutral on the project review application. Their only real concern is the Construction Management Plan (CMP). He stated he has had conversations with Jessica (Garrow) and has read Gideon’s (Kaufman) letter and feels they will argue that this meeting is not the time and it is the City Engineer’s purview to look at the CMP. He feels Ordinance 039-15 specifically requested the applicant put a draft CMP in this application. He feels this arose from the fact that everybody was concerned how they were going to have access through block 107 alley or Dean St in order for the Chateau Chaumont unit owners and the Chateau Dumont unit owners to get to their units. He feels it will be a very difficult construction process and everyone is going to have to work together. They think the CMP, as proposed, is not even a reasonable proposal for access. He then submitted a copy of a traffic engineers report (Exhibit F.2) he received earlier in the day which basically supports his submitted letter. He stated there are four issues he points out in his letter. One is the proposed access under the CMP that is not reasonable in these circumstances. Another is the proposed tower crane which would constitute a trespass over their airspace. Ordinance 039-15 talks specifically about the direction of traffic flow in the CMP and they are talking about reversing the direction. And there is no schedule in the proposed CMP which he feels they need in order to see if they complied with the ordinance. Without this additional information, he feels it is beyond P&Z’s ability to approve the application at today’s meeting. Mr. Richard Antopol is not an owner, but is a frequent visitor. He was in Aspen last Saturday night and there was a Grammy winning band playing at a party on the upper deck of the Aspen Art Museum. The party was four blocks away from the Chateau Dumont and they couldn’t hear themselves think. It made him think a roof top bar with the new Sky Hotel will magnify that problem. He feels it will affect people on the surrounding four to five blocks of the Sky Hotel every night. Mr. Mick Ireland represents the Chateau Dumont homeowners. He stated the owners favor the project and noted there is an acknowledgment letter. He stated the owners feel the traffic management and construction management plan are properly addressed by the City Engineer who is fully apprised of the issues. They hope P&Z will go forward with the project and look forward to working with the City Engineer on the CMP that works for all the neighbors. Mr. Cory Enloe, formally the general manager of the Sky Hotel, wanted to respond to the earlier comment regarding the sound from the Art Museum. He was very involved with the process and feels the Sky team has made extensive efforts to manage the sound. The event at the Art Museum had external speakers brought in for the event and this will not happen at the Sky Hotel. There will be a very integrated sound system and they plan to take advantage of the latest technology. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions or rebuttal from the commissioners. Ms. Tygre asked for clarification of the guarantees or assurances that the public space will remain public. Ms. Garrow referred to Section 18 of Ordinance 039-15 on p 283 & 284 of the packet stating the spaces shall be permanently accessible by the public through stairs and/or elevators and the spaces cannot be enclosed accept for some noise barriers which are required and the approved public amenity space on P5 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission August 18, 2015 6 the roof is subject to a public easement. The easement will be recorded as part of their plat as well as incorporated in their subdivision improvement agreement. Mr. Walterscheid then closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Mr. Walterscheid asked for Staff rebuttal. Ms. Garrow asked to clarify a couple of items. The first is related to noise. Section 13.4 on p 282 of the approval ordinance includes a very detailed requirement for the Sky Hotel to make sure they comply with all the City’s noise ordinances and a requirement for an engineered solution related to speakers as well as the ability to include noise barrier walls during periods of special events. She stated this is much more detailed than what is typically seen for projects. She also wanted to note the Engineering Department requested a draft CMP as part of the detail review to start a conversation between the applicant and the Engineering Department to make sure the applicant was thinking about the tough issues existing with this site. From the Engineering Department’s perspective as well as the Planning Department, the applicant has met this obligation. The applicant has met the ordinance requirement to submit a draft plan. All the issues raised in Mr. Edward’s letter will be addressed as part of Engineering’s final review of the CMP that occurs during the building permit review. All CMPs are reviewed during the building permit process and are required for any construction project within the City of Aspen, not just the big projects seen by P&Z and City Council. The Engineering Department is aware and working with the applicant. P&Z does not have purview of the CMP. The Engineering Department is required to administer the CMP and ensure the requirements are met. Much like a tree mitigation plan, the Parks Department ensures the requirements are met, not P&Z. Mr. Walterscheid then opened for commissioner comments and discussion. Ms. Kelly McNicholas stated given the proposal as proposed meets all the code requirements and reflects a robust input process with affected neighbors and stakeholders, she supports it as proposed. Mr. Goode agreed and feels the applicant has done a great job reaching out to the neighbors. Mr. McNellis stated he found no language in the resolution specific to making sure the applicant addresses these issues in the CMP. He wondered if the commission wanted to add some clarifying language in regards to addressing some of the concerns brought up by Mr. Edwards to make sure the applicant will be working with the Engineering Department to go beyond a draft CMP that meets all the standards. Ms. McNicholas feels this was reflected in the ordinance. Ms. Garrow stated the reason there is no language in the draft resolution is that it is a City requirement and the applicant does not get to vary the requirement. The applicant has to meet the City requirement for CMP. Staff felt it was redundant to add language in the resolution stating the applicant must comply with CMP standards. In addition, there is a condition within the ordinance in Section 9.4 on p 279 of the packet requiring the applicant to have one point of contact to work with the neighbors. She added their CMP commitment within the ordinance goes beyond what City requirements state. Mr. McNellis responded there isn’t a need in every instance to add redundancy in regard to complying with every requirement and every standard for every department. In this case, given the standing concerns of some of the adjacent neighbors, he requested some language be added to the resolution. P6 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission August 18, 2015 7 Mr. Elliott asked if the commission wanted to further discuss if the resolution should approve the use of stucco and stated he is okay with the use of the stucco. Mr. Goode stated he accepts the use of stucco. Ms. McNicholas agreed and likes how it breaks up the massing. Ms. Tygre agreed with the others. Mr. McNight feels the proposal is great and doesn’t see the need to change anything approved by City Council. Mr. Walterscheid also felt the applicant has done an outstanding job reaching out to their neighbors. He understands they are still working on concerns. He also understands the process working with Engineering and is not too concerned. He looks forward to seeing the project. Mr. McNellis motioned to approve Resolution 17, Series 2015 as drafted by Staff with additional information be added for the applicant to comply with all Engineering standards in regards to the CMP. Ms. Garrow stated if the motion is seconded, Staff proposes adding sub section 6.5 Construction Management Plan stating the applicant shall work with the Engineering Department to ensure the final CMP meets all City requirements. Mr. McNellis was acceptable to Staff’s proposal. Mr. McNellis also added that any language referring to the removal of stucco should be removed from the resolution. Ms. Tygre seconded the motion. Mr. Walterscheid asked for a roll call: Ms. McNicholas, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Elliot, yes; Mr. Goode, yes; and Mr. Walterscheid, yes. The motion passed with a six to zero (6-0) vote. Mr. Walterscheid then closed the public hearing. Housing Credits Code Amendment Check-In – Other Business Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to Staff. Ms. Garrow stated this is not a public hearing and Staff will periodically meet with P&Z to review proposed code amendments. She stated this was a second check-in regarding housing credits. In the previous week, City Council approved a policy resolution directing Staff to move forward with code amendments to the certificates of affordable housing credit chapter. Previously, P&Z as well as the Aspen \ Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) Board had weighed in potential code amendments. The potential amendments are the result of evaluating the program over the past two to three years and included amendments related to category limitations, location limitations, sales or rental limitations. The feedback received earlier from P&Z and APCHA was presented to Council who then asked Staff to move forward with the code amendment. Council also requested Staff obtain additional comments from both boards regarding category limitations. At the previous meeting with P&Z, Staff had recommended the credits chapter be limited to categories one through four for two reasons. P7 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission August 18, 2015 8 1) There are no cash-in-lieu figures for the higher categories, five through seven and it is needed in order to convert the certificates between the different categories. Often a developer will build affordable housing at a category two or three level and then convert them to credits to sell them to developers who need to satisfy their mitigation requirements. For example, a developer’s mitigation requirement may be at a category four, so if the housing credit holder has category two certificates, there needs to be a way to convert them to category four so the developer can satisfy their mitigation requirement. 2) If the code mitigation is required for a category four, there may be a policy tie in. The Next Generation Commission had submitted comments to Council during the previous hearing requesting the higher categories be included within the housing credits program to allow a developer of housing credits to pick whatever category they want to build. She noted their research indicates there is some need for the higher categories for the 18-40 demographic. She stated APCHA is planning to discuss this at a meeting on August 19th. She noted their stance currently is that APCHA Staff recognizes the City’s Land Use Code limits certificates of affordable housing credits to categories four and lower. However, APCHA Staff believes there could and should be further policy discussion allowing certificates of affordable housing credit for categories five through seven for housing mitigation purposes. Staff is requesting P&Z to respond regarding their level of comfort with allowing certificates to be created at any category level or would they prefer those be created for categories one through four only. Because Planning Staff considers the issue to be technical in nature, they are proposing the code amendment include language stating categories are limited to those with established cash-in-lieu numbers. That leaves a policy discussion for APCHA to consider and addresses the technical issue. She asked P&Z for feedback and recommendations for City Council on this item to be considered in the public hearing scheduled in September. Mr. Walterscheid asked for the current cap on category four income. Ms. Garrow did not have them readily available but provided them later in the meeting. They are as stated in the following table. Mr. Walterscheid asked if the only thing needed is a metric to convert the higher categories. Ms. Garrow stated he is correct, so instead Staff’s proposal is to allow for housing credits to be created for any unit where cash-in-lieu numbers exist in the APCHA Guidelines. This will allow for APCHA to have the policy discussion. Maximum Incomes 0 dependents 3 or more dependents Category four $145,000 $167,500 Categories five-seven $155,000 $208,000 Ms. Tygre noted category four has the largest number of owners followed by category three owners per the APCHA Inventory Stats table included as part of Exhibit A. She is concerned there are only 15 units in category one. She feels the policy discussion needs to be looked into more deeply than what can be done at tonight’s meeting so she agrees with Staff’s proposed solution to continue the policy portion and implement only the technical portion at this time. Ms. McNicholas agreed with Ms. Tygre and is sensitive to APCHA driving the policy discussion more than P&Z. P8 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission August 18, 2015 9 Mr. Mesirow acknowledged he sits on both P&Z as well as the Next Generation Advisory Commission (NextGen) that conducted polling sessions regarding housing in the Aspen Area. He stated housing is seen as one of the biggest inhibitors for young people to sustain a life in Aspen. The housing committee conducted four housing summits including discussion groups, clicker sessions and white board sessions in which 48 people between the ages of 18 and 40 participated. To Mr. Mesirow’s surprise, the number one concern was the lack of units in certain categories. Ms. Kimbo Brown-Schiratto and Ms. Lindsey Palardy, NextGen members, requested to add input on the conversation. Mr. Walterscheid stated he would allow her input as long as other commissioners were not concerned. None spoke of any concerns. In regards to the top challenges, Ms. Palardy stated the number one concern based on feedback from the participants was that there were not enough units in certain categories. The white board sessions identified concerns of available units in higher categories as well as the lower categories. Ms. Brown- Schiratto felt the income levels of the participants skewed to the higher category units. Mr. Mesirow feels clearly there is demand in the higher categories and it is important to address the demand in all categories. He feels it is politically more difficult to justify the higher category units so they don’t tend to get built. In terms of the tonight’s discussion, the policy should not favor any one category and feels the current limits of categories one through four creates an artificial ceiling. Mr. Walterscheid then acknowledged Mr. Peter Fornell to speak. Mr. Fornell stated building for higher categories is not necessarily a bad idea and allowing certificates to be created for higher categories is not a bad idea. He described scenarios for using credits to build affordable housing and noted you currently can put more money in your pocket with the category two units. The majority of the money derived from the production of the units comes from the certificate sales which takes time. If there were a cash-in-lieu number for category seven, the majority of a money to a developer is going to come at the closing table and a small part of the overall development pro forma is going to come from the certificate sales. It will pave the road for developers to want to build at the higher category levels. For him, demand at the lower categories is tremendous. He stated there were 242 applicants for 10 units at 518 Main St. He is concerned that care needs to be taken so that it does not become advantageous to only build higher category units. The City wants to build units with the least subsidy (higher categories) so they can get more front doors. He noted they lowered some of the categories at Burlingame. He understands NextGen’s concerns but he wants to make sure the certificate program is not turned into something that only serves a smaller demand level. Ms. Garrow stated another issue to keep in mind is the code requires mitigation at a category four level and the certificates are used to mitigate developer’s requirement. In other words, mitigation is allowed at the higher categories, like the Sky Hotel for instance. They currently are required to mitigate at category four or lower. Mr. Walterscheid asked why the policy was set this way. Ms. Garrow stated the housing program has been around for many years and when it first began, it focused on moderate income and that translated to categories, specifically categories three and four. She did not know why APCHA does not have cash-in-lieu numbers for the higher categories. Ms. Tygre stated in regards to mitigating, any new hotel being built is not going to pay its employees over $100,000 for the most part. She feels it makes sense to have the mitigation match the type of employees needed and she also recognizes the category for young professionals is completely different category. P9 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission August 18, 2015 10 Mr. Walterscheid asked about the City’s stance in regards to the value of the certificate. Ms. Garrow stated the City does not place a value on the certificates. They are bought and sold on the free market and the City has no involvement whatsoever. Mr. Walterscheid then asked about the City’s stance in regards to the valuation of the cash-in-lieu fee. Ms. Garrow stated the cash-in-lieu fee is under discussion currently and believes it will be going before Council within the next few weeks. She feels the number is likely to change and looks like it will be going down. Mr. McNellis asked if P&Z was part of this discussion at which Ms. Garrow replied no. She added there was a detailed study completed by a third party company to study real employment figures related to areas including construction and the operation of homes. The study revealed the cash-in-lieu numbers are higher than they should be. Ms. McNicholas noted that Mr. Chris Bendon had previously discussed the study with P&Z. Mr. Walterscheid asked in addition to the value, was the number of full time employees (FTEs) created by development part of the study. Ms. Garrow stated it was part of the methodology used. Ms. Garrow stated Council wants to know if P&Z have a strong feeling on any kind of category limitation for credits. Should they be limited to category four and lower or should the land use code be agnostic and state it is limited to whatever categories have cash-in-lieu figures within the APCHA guidelines. Mr. McNellis stated a third option would be to create a number for all categories. APCHA would have to determine the values for categories above category four. Mr. McNellis stated he agrees with Staff’s language and supports it being driven by APCHA who should determine the need to define numbers for categories five through seven. Ms. McNicholas asked if Council will adopt the conversion figure as part of the code amendment. Ms. Garrow stated it is already in the land use code now. The code amendment is focused on how the certificates are created. For instance, it could only be created from housing within the City of Aspen or it can only be for sale if part of a mixed use building. Ms. McNicholas asked if you could take credits created by a category two or three. Ms. Garrow stated there are already cash-in-lieu numbers for categories one through four which allows staff to determine the value for FTEs at category one for a category four. Mr. Walterscheid was curious if there were advantages to a category seven than a lower category and should the metric be determined to favor the middle level categories. Ms. Garrow stated it is possible to state certificates at a higher level are worth few FTEs. She added this is a much larger policy discussion and would require more input from both P&Z and APCHA. Mr. Fornell asked Ms. Garrow about Council’s recent discussion regarding remainder or fractional certificates. Ms. Garrow stated Council’s direction is that if a developer over mitigates their project and they have a fraction or full unit remaining, they can be turned into credits if they are for sale units or there some other deed restriction agreement in place to ensure they will permanently be in the inventory. Mr. Fornell stated the certificate program is currently in dire straits. It’s on the verge of collapse because they are about to change the cash-in-lieu number to a number that no one can afford to use to build P10 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission August 18, 2015 11 affordable housing including the City and other developers. Almost four years ago, Council directed APCHA to conduct a study of what it takes to produce a FTE within the city limits. The 11 month study determined they are collecting approximately half of what it takes to produce the unit currently. The direction coming to Council recently requests they lower the cash-in-lieu number based on the notion the City can take the money and someday forward can build 400 units at the lumberyard. They are basing their calculation of the future possibility. When a developer has to mitigate housing, they don’t have a choice of walking six miles outside of town to build their housing. He feels they are not comparing apples to apples. There are currently no competitors in the market for the development of housing for certificates out of fear the City is going to drop the number and collect all the money. The recent study was not an independent study. It was done by Barry Crook internally and is a bad deal for the Next Generation people and for the community. He encouraged P&Z to support the certificate program. Mr. Mesirow asked if Mr. Fornell’s concerns impact tonight’s question at which Ms. Garrow stated it does not. Mr. Fornell stated the recent discussion regarding fractional certificates impact potential competition. Ms. Brown-Schiratto added NextGen has come to the conclusion the City is most likely not going to build the higher category units. She referred to the APCHA Inventory Stats table in Exhibit A of the agenda which shows those looking for housing categorized five or higher must rely on private developers and the housing credit program to house people. She also noted from their commission, there are only two people that live in the City of Aspen. Everyone else lives outside the city. She added there are young professionals who are willing to be part of this community but who actually are unable to live in Aspen. Mr. McNight likes Staff’s approach, but feels there could be a much easier and scientific approach. Letting the developers decide rather than APCHA and the City deciding our needs and where demand exists. He would like to see APCHA’s numbers on people who have submitted applications and for what category they are eligible. Ms. Garrow stated the information she has from APCHA states the most need is categories two and three. When APCHA has had a higher category unit, they have had difficulty selling it and the unit typically does not get sold in the lottery process. Mr. McNight believed there were a lot of category five units at Burlingame that ended up as category four in order to sell them. Ms. Garrow confirmed this as true as well as some units with a category six and seven that had be adjusted down to three and four. He feels there should be a more fluid process to identify the current category needs. Mr. Mesirow stated the credit program is separate from what APCHA is building. He thought if a developer does not feel he could sell a category six, he would not build it. Mr. Fornell stated the higher category units built were by and large in an inferior location to a person with that level of income. He said he would build category five and six on Park Ave if the was a cash-in- lieu number today. Ms. McNicholas feels this is APCHA’s realm because your advocacy is more important because they decide the value is determined within categories. The history and the basis of the program is for lower income workers in the town. Not to say professional workers are not, but to put a higher priority on P11 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission August 18, 2015 12 providing housing to the lower income employees. She stated that is a cultural value expressed within the town and advocated by those that live here participate in APCHA. She is supportive of Staff’s suggested amendment and feels it is better served by APCHA. Mr. McNellis added this approach allows APCHA to have the conversation. He suggested NextGen continue their dialogue with APCHA. Mr. Goode also felt it would be helpful for NextGen to suggest APCHA to look into it further. Mr. Walterscheid feels the metric should be created and then let APCHA control a system for identifying where the need is based on market fluctuations. He feels this is something APCHA needs to institute and control. Ms. Garrow stated she heard consensus to move forward to tie it to cash-in-lieu and asking APCHA to look at the cash-in-lieu for the higher categories. She thanked P&Z for their feedback. Mr. Good asked if there was anything P&Z could do to highlight Mr. Fornell’s concerns. Ms. Garrow and Mr. McNellis encouraged members to speak during public comment to Council. Mr. Walterscheid then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager P12 IV.A. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 1 of 10 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: Hotel Lendao (400 E. Cooper Ave.) – Commercial Design Review-Conceptual Review, Growth Management Reviews, Resolution No. , Series 2015 – Public Hearing MEETING DATE: September 15, 2015 APPLICANT /OWNER: DCBD2, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Steve Wilson, Forum Phi 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 4 lodge units with 9 keys, 2 free-market residential units and 2 affordable housing units. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Applicant continue to revise the proposed plans. SUMMARY: The Applicant requests of the Planning and Zoning Commission multiple land use approvals to redevelop the site. Photo: Existing building P13 VI.A. Page 2 of 10 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.) • 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.) NOTE ON PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS: On May 19th the Applicant requested that the redevelopment of the application for the Hotel Lenado be tabled due to the scope of comments that were provided by both staff and the Planning Commission. A tabled application is still active; however, it must be re-noticed when it is reintroduced to a review body. Since the 19th, the design of the project has been modified and notice has been provided for the hearing. The memo has been updated to reflect the current proposal. 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 present owner and is currently not operating. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant, DCBD2 LLC, is proposing to redevelop the Hotel Lenado into a mixed use building containing lodging, affordable housing and free-market residential uses. The new proposal reduces the number of lodging units on the property from 17 to 4 units, reduces the number of keys from 19 to 9, adds two free-market residential units, and maintains the number of affordable housing units (2) on the site. In summary, the new proposal contains: Table: 1 Existing and Proposed Development Existing Previous Iteration Proposed 17 hotel units with 19 keys 8 hotel units with 9 keys 4 hotel units with 9 keys No free market residences 3 free market residences 2 free market residences 2 affordable housing units 2 affordable housing units 2 affordable housing units 6 parking spaces 2 parking spaces 11 parking spaces 9,424 sq. ft. of Floor Area 14,663 sq. ft. of Floor Area 11,447.79 sq. ft. unknown 32 feet in height 32 feet in height P14 VI.A. Page 3 of 10 Table 2: Comparison of Proposed vs. Required Dimensional Requirements Dimensional Requirement Existing Development Previous Iteration Proposed Development Zone District Allowances Minimum Lot Size 9,000 sq. ft. 9,000 sq. ft. 9,000 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. 10 ft. Minimum Side Yard Setback (Aspen St.) 10 ft. 0 ft. (wall) +/- 9 ft. 5ft. Minimum Side Yard Setback (park) 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. Minimum Rear Yard Setback (alley) 26 Feet 0 Feet 5 ft. 5 Feet Maximum Height unknown 32 Feet 32 Feet 28 - 32 Feet Cumulative Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.05:1 1.63:1 1.27:1 2:1 Lodge FAR 1:1 .96:1 .59:1 .75:1 to 1:1 Affordable Housing FAR .04:1 .19:1 .18:1 No limitation Free-Market Residential FAR 0 .48:1 .5:1 .5:1 Max. Multi-Family Unit Size N/A ≤ 1,190 sq. ft. ≤1,761 sq. ft. 2,000 sq. ft. Note: All dimensions will need to meet underlying zone district requirements and shall be verified at building permit application. 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 P15 VI.A. Page 4 of 10 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 2 Free-Market Residential Units: 2 spaces Total: 8.5 spaces The applicant proposes 11 on-site parking spaces, exceeding the parking requirement for the proposed development. All parking is accessed from the alley, while two are provided at alley level and the balance, 9 spaces, are provided in the lowest level via a car lift. Applicant could reduce two of the parking spaces and still meet the underlying requirement. Lodging Units: The proposal includes 4 lodge units with 9 keys (smallest, rentable configuration) which is a net decrease of 13 units and 10 keys. The lodge keys are proposed to be between 343 sq. ft. and 667 sq. ft. The average unit size is 437 square feet1, and the density is one key per 1,000 square feet of gross lot area.2 Lodge units are located on the main and park levels of the building. Free-Market Residential Units: The applicant proposes two (2) free-market residential units located on the upper level. The units are proposed to be divided into a one-bedroom unit and loft unit. The two residences will range in size from 1,616 sq. ft to 1,761 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 main and park levels. The two story units are proposed to be two, two-bedroom units. 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; • Two (2) new free-market residential units requiring two (2) residential allotments. 1 3,937 sq ft lodge net livable / 9 lodge units = 437 sq ft net livable per unit. 2 9,000 sq ft gross lot area / 9 lodge keys = 1,000 sq ft gross lot area per unit. P16 VI.A. Page 5 of 10 The mitigation required for the project is as follows (and is detailed in Exhibit J): 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 3,377.75 sq ft * 30% = 1,013 square feet net livable area required as affordable housing or 2.53 FTEs 1.62 FTEs + 2.53 FTEs = 4.15 FTEs Affordable Housing: Adopted regulations require the number of employees housed prior to the demolition of affordable housing 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 4.15 employees required to be mitigated by the new development, the applicant is proposing that 4.5 employees continue to be housed on-site via two, two-bedroom units, meeting the affordable housing mitigation requirement. Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to replace the existing affordable housing units with two units on site. The existing units are basement units and the new units are two stories, with one story above grade and one below. Since half of the finished floor of the two units is considered at or above grade per code, the current design meets the review criteria for affordable housing units. The APCHA recommendation supports the design and size of the two units and recommends that both units 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. However, the two bedroom units do 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) for a Category 4 unit. Since both units are less than the required size it is reasonable to deed restrict them to Category 2. Finally, one unit provides mitigation for the lodging use on the property while the other unit provides mitigation for the new free market residential component. Community Development staff P17 VI.A. Page 6 of 10 recommends that at least one of the units be required to be a ‘for sale’ rather than a rental unit because it is mitigation for the free-market residential component and not the lodge component. 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. 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. MU – Mixed Use CC – Commercial Core L – Lodge R/MF – Residential Multi- Family R-6 – Medium Density Residential P - Park P18 VI.A. Page 7 of 10 Figure 2:208 W. Hopkins Ave. Figure 3: 214 W. Hopkins Ave. 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 Since the last review of this application there have been changes in the project that are improvements: parking is less visible, the building is smaller and additional setbacks have been provided along Hopkins, and the building, as well as the public amenity space, is relating better to grade. 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 design is providing more “yard” along Hopkins and Aspen Street and a better relationship with the topography. Still, the portion of the public amenity space closest to the corner 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. The hardscape area should be further refined, with an emphasis on activating the space, rather than providing some bike parking and a few benches. P19 VI.A. Page 8 of 10 With regard to building height, mass and scale, the applicant proposes a flat roof building that cuts into the natural slope but the latest iteration is beginning to reduce the use of retaining walls and has reduced the size of the building. The proposal includes substantial areas of floor to ceiling glazing along the upper residential level, with a floor to ceiling height that is taller than the lower floors and in the range of 11-13 feet in height from floor to ceiling. The building, especially along Hopkins, does not relate to the historic resources across the street and does not relate to the residential context west of the lot. The façade along Hopkins could relate better with the buildings across the street that are individual vertical masses with some simple elements such as porches or recessed decks to assist in breaking up the mass. Figure 6: Current Proposal Figure 6: Initial Design P20 VI.A. Page 9 of 10 Figure 7: 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 still 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, although this latest iteration is less dramatic, 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 entry is still sunken and does not relate well to grade. More can be done to break down the scale of the building inclusive of design standards that require more modulation and varied heights. Staff finds the current design of the building does not fit into the context of the neighborhood, particularly on the Hopkins façade. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: The City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Water Department, Aspen Sanitation District, Housing Authority, Building Department, Environmental Health Department, and the Parks Department have all reviewed the proposed application and their requirements have been included as conditions within the resolution when appropriate. P21 VI.A. Page 10 of 10 RECOMMENDATION: As noted previously, there have been changes in the project that are improvements: parking is less visible, the building is smaller and additional setbacks have been provided along Hopkins, and the building, as well as the public amenity space, is relating better to grade. At this point, staff recommends the applicant continue to revise the plans before returning to the Commission. The height, mass and scale should continue to be restudied. Specifically, staff recommends the design of the building be amended to incorporate the following. • The height of the building is limited to 28 feet. • Continued study and refinement of the building’s relationship with grade, inclusive of the entry and the public amenity space. • Consider removing the two alley parking spaces, which will reduce the wall of garage doors along the alley and may allow some flexibility with massing or repurposing of the space. • The mass, scale and design be amended to be compatible with the neighborhood. Continue to work on the Hopkins façade so that it relates better to the residential character across the street. This could be in a more residential form, inclusive roof forms, along part of Hopkins or further modulation of the proposed building. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to continue the Hotel Lenado application to------.” ATTACHMENTS: (ATTACHMENTS IN BOLD ARE PROVIDED FOR THIS MEMO) 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 EXHIBIT F – Public Comment EXHIBIT G – Applicant responses to Development Review Comments EXHIBIT H – Application – dated 1/2015 EXHIBIT I – Amended Architectural Drawings EXHIBIT J – Growth Management Review Criteria EXHIBIT K –Commercial Design Review Criteria EXHIBIT L –Development Review Committee Comments EXHIBIT M – Amended application - summary EXHIBIT N – Amended application - drawings P22 VI.A. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. __, Series 2015 Page 1 of 6 RESOLUTION NO. ___ (SERIES OF 2015) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN 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 initially proposed: 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 recommendation for approval by the board was provided at their March 4, 2015, regular meeting; and, P23 VI.A. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. __, Series 2015 Page 2 of 6 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, the Applicant tabled the application and worked on changes to the design of the project, resubmitted the application, and received referral agency comments on the amended application; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on ________, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution __, Series of 2015, by a ___ to ___ (_-_) vote approving 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 approves Growth Management approvals, and Conceptual Commercial Design approval for the Hotel Lenado, subject to the conditions of approval as listed herein to develop a mixed use building containing 4 lodge units and 9 keys, 2 free-market residential units, and 2 affordable housing units. The dimensions are attached as Exhibit A. Section 2: 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. 2 free market residential dwelling unit allotments. Section 3: Affordable Housing 5.1 Mitigation Requirements. The project is proposed to include two (2) affordable housing units, being two, two-bedroom unit. The mitigation required for the project is as follows: P24 VI.A. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. __, Series 2015 Page 3 of 6 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 3,377.75 sq ft * 30% = 1,013 square feet net livable area required as affordable housing or 2.53 FTEs 1.62 FTEs + 2.53 FTEs = 4.15 FTEs The proposed affordable housing units include 933 sq. ft. and 922 sq. ft. of net livable area and have access to two separate storage rooms equaling 244 sq ft. A total of 4.5 FTEs are housed by the two units. 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 and APCHA approved deed restrictions have been recorded. 5.2 Affordable Housing Conditions. The two affordable housing units shall be deed restricted at a Category 4 income level or lower, are permitted to be rental units, and shall comply with the APCHA Guidelines, now and as amended. Section 4: 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 Final Commercial Design Review application inclusive of, but not limited to, an engineering report, a detailed grading plan, and a compliant Transportation Impact Analysis. Section 5: 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 6: 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. P25 VI.A. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. __, Series 2015 Page 4 of 6 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 7: 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. Section 8: 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 Final Commercial Design 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 9: 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 Final Commercial Design Review. Section 10: Public Amenity Spaces The Applicant has committed to providing ground floor public amenity spaces. These spaces shall be permanently accessible by the public. Section 11: Condominium Declarations The Applicant shall provide an overview, with the Final Commercial Design application, showing how the applicant intends to meet the covenants that the City of Aspen is a party to, which affect certain lodge operations. Section 12: 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 P26 VI.A. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. __, Series 2015 Page 5 of 6 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 13: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 14: 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 P27 VI.A. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. __, Series 2015 Page 6 of 6 Exhibit A – Approved Dimensional Requirements Dimensional Requirement Proposed Development Zone District Allowances Minimum Lot Size 9,000 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft. Minimum Front Yard Setback (Hopkins Ave.) 10 ft. 10 ft. Minimum Side Yard Setback (Aspen St.) +/- 9 ft. 5ft. Minimum Side Yard Setback (park) 5 ft. 5 ft. Minimum Rear Yard Setback (alley) 5 ft. 5 Feet Maximum Height 32 Feet 28 - 32 Feet Cumulative Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.27:1 2:1 Lodge FAR .59:1 .75:1 to 1:1 Affordable Housing FAR .18:1 No limitation Free-Market Residential FAR .5:1 .5:1 Max. Multi-Family Unit Size ≤1,761 sq. ft. 2,000 sq. ft. Note: All dimensions will need to meet underlying zone district requirements and shall be verified at building permit application. P28 VI.A. Exhibit A – 9.15.15 Growth Management Reviews Page 1 of 5 Exhibit J - 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, that the Applicant is subject to, have minimum standards associated with the development of affordable housing units including minimum net livable area of a unit based on the deed restricted income category. The code requirement is for a Category 4 unit containing a minimum of 950 sq. ft. of net livable area. As proposed the unit sizes are smaller than the minimum required (933 and 922 sq. ft.) but are greater than the size requirements for a Category 2 unit. The board’s recommendation is included as Exhibit E. APCHA recommends: • The two units are rental units or may be sale units if requested by applicant. • The two units are provided at a lower income category level (Category 2) than required. Under the APCHA guideline applicable to this application, the two units are greater than 850 sq. ft. which is the minimum requirement for a Category 2 unit. As the units are smaller than the Category 3 & 4 size requirements, deed restricting the units at a Category 2 income category is a reasonable option. Staff finds this criterion is 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 4.15 employees. With two, two-bedroom units 4.5 employees are housed on-site. Staff finds this criterion met. P29 VI.A. Exhibit A – 9.15.15 Growth Management Reviews Page 2 of 5 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 meet this standard as the units are two story units with common living space at grade (park level) and bedrooms below grade. Staff finds 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, one unit houses 2.25 employees which is in excess of the employees (1.62) required to be mitigated for the lodge component of the mixed-use project. The second two-bedroom unit on-site provides mitigation for most 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 one 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 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 P30 VI.A. Exhibit A – 9.15.15 Growth Management Reviews Page 3 of 5 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 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. P31 VI.A. Exhibit A – 9.15.15 Growth Management Reviews Page 4 of 5 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 units as two, two-bedroom units so that 4.5 employees will 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 two free-market residential units include a total of 3,377.75 sq. ft of net livable area for mitigation purposes. The following calculation shows that 1,013.33 sq. ft. sq. ft. or 2.53 employees are generated by the new residential development. 3,377.75 sq. ft. x .3 = 1,013.33 sq. ft. 1 FTE = 400 sq. ft. 1,013.33sq. ft. / 400 = 2.53 FTEs 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 P32 VI.A. Exhibit A – 9.15.15 Growth Management Reviews Page 5 of 5 2.7 employees x .6 required mitigation = 1.62 employees With two, two-bedroom units provided on-site, 4.5 employees are housed. The sum total mitigation required is 4.15 FTEs, so the on-site units will exceed the required mitigation. Staff finds this criterion met. P33 VI.A. Exhibit C - 9.15.15 Commercial Design Review Page 1 of 10 Exhibit K - 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 P34 VI.A. Exhibit C - 9.15.15 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 2,156 sq ft of public amenity space, primarily located along Aspen Street, Hopkins Ave, and adjacent to the park. This represents 24% of the site and more than the 14% required as a redevelopment. Part of the public amenity space is essentially treated as a walkway (along the park) and yard (along both Hopkins and Aspen) allowing for little, if any, active use. The amenity space along the corner of Aspen Street and Hopkins Avenue has the potential to be an active space but only shows some seating and bike storage. As a lodge, some additional study is necessary to ensure that the space contributes to the streetscape and will be an amenity for the lodge component of the development as further discussed in subsequent criteria. 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. The depth of the amenity space along Hopkins has increased since the last iteration and relates better to the depth of residential front yards across the street. The larger amenity space, provided along Aspen Street, is about half landscape and half hardscape. Along Aspen Street, where the western sun and southern views can be utilized, the design includes some benches for seating and bike storage at the corner. It appears that most of the amenity space is used as circulation. 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 improvements along Hopkins (sidewalk) will enhance the pedestrian environment; however, the grade change between the sidewalk and the amenity space along Aspen Street, although improved, still 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. P35 VI.A. Exhibit C - 9.15.15 Commercial Design Review Page 3 of 10 Staff Findings: The proposed amenity does not include any of the items listed. Staff finds this criterion is met. 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 will meet the requirements of Title 12, as represented by the Applicant’s architect. The Applicant is providing a space that is noted to be 201 sq. ft. (interior wall to interior wall). Staff does 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: An area at the corner of the alley and Aspen Street is shown for placement of a transformer. 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 Final Commercial Design Review to verify compliance. Staff 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 site plan is showing co-location of some utilities within the trash enclosure. Environmental health has reviewed the application and noted that additional information will be needed to determine if utilities can be collocated. More information is required to ensure the ability to collocate and will be required as part of Final Commercial Design Review. Staff finds 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. P36 VI.A. Exhibit C - 9.15.15 Commercial Design Review Page 4 of 10 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 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 Final Commercial Design Review. Staff finds 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 alley. The building provides direct access along the alley and a second access along the east property line. Staff finds this criterion met. P37 VI.A. Exhibit C - 9.15.15 Commercial Design Review Page 5 of 10 9. All commercial tenant spaces located on the ground floor in excess of 1,500 square feet shall contain a vestibule (double set of doors) developed internal to the structure to meet the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen, or an air curtain. Staff 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 Final Commercial Design Review. Staff finds 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. P38 VI.A. Exhibit C - 9.15.15 Commercial Design Review Page 6 of 10 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. 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 P39 VI.A. Exhibit C - 9.15.15 Commercial Design Review Page 7 of 10 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: 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 eleven parking spaces: two are in a garage along the alley while the balance, or nine parking spaces, is within a lower level garage accessed from the alley via a lift. All of the parking is enclosed, with no surface parking. The street facing garage from the initial design has been removed and all parking is accessed from the alley; however, with the two parking stalls, car lift and trash enclosure, the entire alley façade is comprised of garage doors, negatively impacting the alley façade. Staff finds the Parking portion of the Guidelines met. Staff finds the following Guidelines are 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 P40 VI.A. Exhibit C - 9.15.15 Commercial Design Review Page 8 of 10 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. The depth of the amenity space along Hopkins has been increased, with a better relationship to the depth of the residential front yards across the street. The larger amenity space, provided along Aspen Street, is about half landscaped yard and half hardscape feature. Along Aspen Street, where the western sun and southern views can be utilized the design includes some benches for seating and bike storage at the corner. It appears that most of the amenity space is used as circulation for the Aspen Street entry, which does not meet the intent of public amenity space. The objective for these areas includes “the creation of well designed public gathering space adjacent to the street edge.” Although the relationship of the amenity space with grade is improving, portions of the public amenity space along Aspen Street are not level with the sidewalk, which impairs the space and its relationship to the public realm of the street and sidewalk and creates a sunken space. The design of the amenity space is improving, and staff recommends additional study of the amenity space to develop a “well designed public gathering space” and encourages outdoor use. At this time staff does not find the Public Amenity Space portion of the guidelines met. Staff finds the following Guidelines are 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 P41 VI.A. Exhibit C - 9.15.15 Commercial Design Review Page 9 of 10 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. 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 increased setback depth along Hopkins relates better to the residences along Hopkins Avenue. The applicant proposes a flat roof building that cuts into the slope, with the latest iteration of the building it is beginning to reduce the use of retaining walls and the size of the building has been reduced. The proposal still includes substantial areas of floor to ceiling glazing along the upper residential level, with a floor to ceiling height that is taller than the lower floors and in the range of 11-13 feet in height from floor to ceiling, making the building feel top heavy. The building, especially along Hopkins, does not relate to the historic resources across the street and does not relate to the residential context west of the lot. The façade along Hopkins could relate better with the buildings across the street by changing the massing and roof form. The residences across the street are comprised of individual, vertical masses with some simple elements such as porches or recessed decks to assist in breaking up the mass. 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.” Although improved, 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 current design of the building, although improved, does not fit into the context of the neighborhood especially along the Hopkins façade. Staff finds the following Guideline is met: 5.4 Front, side and rear setbacks should generally be consistent with the range of the existing neighborhood. • These should include landscaping. P42 VI.A. Exhibit C - 9.15.15 Commercial Design Review Page 10 of 10 Staff finds the following Guidelines are not met: 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. 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. 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. P43 VI.A. Exhibit E DRC, September 2015 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). Sanitation Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Oil and Grease interceptors (NOT traps) are required for all food processing establishment. Locations of food processing shall be identified prior to building permit. Even though the commercial space is tenet finish, interceptors will be required at this time if food processing establishments are anticipated for this project. ACSD will not approve service to food processing establishments retrofitted for this use by small under counter TRAPS at a later date. Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments. Trench drains for the vehicle lift must drain to drywells or the storm sewer. Elevator shaft drains including the vehicle lift must flow thru o/s interceptor Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. A new sanitary sewer service will be required to serve this application. One tap is allowed for each building. Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. P44 VI.A. Exhibit E 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. 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. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines and within 3 feet vertically below an ACSD main sewer line. We can comment on this application in greater detail once detailed plans have been submitted to the District. Zoning 1. Height: sheet Northwest Heights • The perimeter height shall be from the lowest walkout area as the area does not meet the exception for height. See section 26.575.020(F)(4)(j)Exceptions for light wells and basement stairwells. In summary the height is not meeting the zone districts limitations. • Height shall be measured from the most restrictive grade pursuant 26.575.020(F)Measuring Building Height. The height measurements provided are not illustrated as the most restrictive grade. Provide a chart for perimeter measurements and roof over topography measurements. Section 26.575.020(f)(3)(a and b). • Provide an interpolated grade survey, per 26.575.020(f)(3)(b) In instances where the natural grade of a property has been affected by prior development activity, the Community Development Director may accept an estimation of pre-development topography prepared by a registered land surveyor or civil engineer. The Director may require additional historical documentation, technical studies, reports, or other information to verify a pre-development topography. If necessary, the Community Development Director may require an applicant document natural grade, finished grade, grade being used within the footprint of the building, and other relevant height limitation information that may need to be documented prior to construction. • Roof top elements shall meet exception to height pursuant section 26.575.020(F)(4)Allowed Exception to Height Limitations. However, the exceptions may not have other elements adjoined to them. For example the elevator tower may not have a canopy. • other elements on the roof. There are specific exceptions and setbacks from street facing facades. See roof top railings, permanent rooftop amenities, and mechanical equipment and venting. 2. Setbacks: elevation sheets, and Main Level P45 VI.A. Exhibit E • Items in setback shall meet section 26.575.020(E)(5)Allowed Projections into Setbacks. Address the following items, retaining walls, planters, bike racks, stairs and stair tower which cantilevers into the setback above grade. 3. Floor area and deck calculation: • The overhang of the Parking level over the main level creates a loggia. Count it in the deck totals. See section 26.575.020(D)(4) Decks, Balconies, Loggias, Gazebos, Trellis, Exterior Stairways and non-street-facing porches. Also count landscape stairs and patios. • The car parking shall be labeled as non-unit for the calculation of floor area and the allocation of non-unit space. Pursuant section 26.575.020(d)(14)Allocation of non-unit space in a mixed-use building. 4. Addressing shall be requested and complete prior to Building Permit Submittal Environmental Health Space Allotment for Trash and Recycling comments 1. This building is subject to the space requirements of 20’w x10’d x10’h found in Municipal Code 12.10.040 (A)c. The drawings (Proposed Floor area circulations) show 179.75 sq. ft. which is less than the minimum required space (200 sq. ft.). However, the applicant stated in DRC review the actual space would be 23’w x 9’d x 10’h which meets the space requirement. 2. None of the submitted drawing indicate if the required 10’ of height clearance will be met. (see above comment) 3. Access to the trash and recycling needs to be accessible (Municipal Code 12.10.040 (F) and the drawings do not sufficiently demonstrate that it meets accessibility requirements. 4. Applicant inquired during the DRC process about reducing the size of the space in exchange for enclosing it. Staff indicated this would require Special Review, but it is possible to provide less than 200 sq. ft. in exchange for completely enclosing the space from wildlife. Building 1) The project includes 9 sleeping units one of which will need to be Accessible. 4 dwelling units all of which will be ICC A117.1-2009 type B. 2) Revise the plans to include an accessible route throughout the parcel to include the roof decks, pool, trash and recycling, public and private parking. 3) Provide a listed assembly for the proposed pocket doors in the fire partitions of change them to a listed side hinged door. 4) Emergency escape and rescue window wells are not permitted in the path of egress travel. The fire sprinkler system may be substituted for the escape requirement. 5) Provide a calculation to show the percentage of opening at the east property line. P46 VI.A. Exhibit E 6) Provide a exiting plan that show travel distances and justification for the units and private roof deck be to have access to a single exit. 7) Provide a plan to show the stories above and below grade plane. 8) Provide a top rail on the proposed glass guards. 9) Oil and sand interceptor is required for the parking facility. 10) The new building will be reviewed under the 2015 International Codes. Engineering These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project packet submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting. The following should be included in the building permit submittal. 1. 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 side of building. Show the existing and proposed grade to get a better idea and view of the cut and fill around the trees. Limit fill around trees on N and E sides. 2. 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. A bridged sidewalk spec is attached. The transition from the bridged sidewalk to street ramps must be ADA compliant. This may require that a bulb out be installed on the SE corner of the Hopkins and Aspen St intersection to make the grade work. 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. Scheduled for spring 2016 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. The alignment of the crosswalk on the SE corner shall take into account the alterations across the street. The city plan is attached. 3. 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. Vertical structures are not permitted in the ROW – ensure all grade changes to accommodate the garages and car lift are done without exceeding the permitted alley slope. The permitted maximum grade of an alley is 12% and the maximum cross slope is 5%. P47 VI.A. Exhibit E 4. Drainage The property is required to manage offsite runoff onto their property and is required to do so within their own property boundaries. 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. Provide information on the existing street inlet. Ensure there is adequate capacity for the redevelopment. A sand oil separator is required in the parking garage and carport. The drainage from the separator shall be connected to the sanitary sewer system and not the stormwater system. 5. Utilities Installation of a new waterline from the street shall be done in a manner which limits negative impacts to the trees. 6. Transportation Impact Analysis No updated TIA was submitted within the application. The initial comments remain to be addressed. 7. 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. • 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. • The project does not propose a detached sidewalk on an adjacent property. • The proposed landscaping does not meet the requirement to take credit for the measure. This measure is applicable to larger scale projects. • 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. • 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. • Demonstrate the pedestrian directness factor on a site map. • No traffic calming features are proposed. 8. TDM • 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. • 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. • 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. P48 VI.A. Exhibit E APCHA ISSUE: The applicant is seeking approval for the redevelopment of the Hotel Lenado property located at 200 South Aspen Street. BACKGROUND: The Board reviewed the application earlier this year. The applicant has amended the application to include the following: 9 lodge units (decreasing from current 17 units) approximately 570 square feet; 2 single-family residential units (decreased from the original proposal of 3); 2 affordable housing units to be located on the park 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 redevelopment of the project will replace both units on-site, but in a slightly different location. There is additional mitigation required due to the two 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. The existing units mitigate at 4 FTE’s (1.75 for the 1-bedroom and 2.25 for the 2-bedroom). The proposal is for 2 2-bedroom units that mitigate at 2.25 X 2 = 4.5 FTE’s. The 4.5 FTE’s are to be replaced on-site based on the City’s multi-family replacement requirements, creating additional use of .25 FTE. • 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); however, it is uncertain if additional mitigation is required for the lodge rooms. • 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. It is not known at this time what will count towards the mitigation requirement. • Total Mitigation Requirement: To be determined by the Community Development Department The actual mitigation requirement will be confirmed prior to City Council review. P49 VI.A. Exhibit E 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. 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 2-bedroom ≈1,150 square feet + an additional storage unit 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 two-bedroom is 850 square feet, and the newly approved Guidelines require a minimum square footage of 900 square feet for a two- bedroom. The proposed units are located on two levels. The main level includes two-bedrooms, with a shared bathroom. The park level includes the living space, kitchen and a powder room. Each room has one assigned parking space in the garage, along with a storage unit. APCHA recommends that the units include laundry facilities or have access to a laundry facility if one is provided for the lodge. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the Land Use Code APCHA recommends approval of the redevelopment of the Hotel Lenado property, with the additional mitigation requirement (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, nor is the fee-in-lieu. P50 VI.A. Exhibit E 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 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 2" as that term is defined by the qualification guidelines established and indexed by the Authority on an annual basis; however, if the tenants are employees of the Lodge, the maximum income and asset requirements shall be waived. The Owner shall have the right to lease the Employee Dwelling Units to "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 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. P51 VI.A. Exhibit E 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 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 P52 VI.A. Exhibit E 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. 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 2. 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. P53 VI.A. 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 22 July 2015               Land  Use  Application  Resubmission   Hotel  Lenado     A  lodge  preservation  project,  featuring  lodging,  associated  free-­‐ market  residential  units,  and  onsite  affordable  housing.     22  July  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     P54 VI.A. 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 22 July 2015 PROJECT  OVERVIEW   DCBD2  LLC  (the  “  Applicant”)  resubmits  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  an  associated  residential  development.  The  subject  site  is  a  8,970  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  redevelopment  includes  nine  (9)  lodge  units,  two  (2)  single-­‐family  residential   units  to  be  located  on  the  upper  level  of  the  lodge,  and  two  (2)  affordable  housing  units  that   will  be  located  on  the  park  level  of  the  lodge.  This  will  aid  the  community  by  maintaining  lodge   rooms,  as  opposed  to  the  replacement  of  the  building  with  individual  residences  as  we  are   currently  seeing  on  other  properties  within  the  community.    The  lodging  units,  which  will  be   approximately  350-­‐500  SF  in  size,  have  been  designed  with  layouts  that  are  adjoining  so  they   may  be  combined  in  order  to  provide  flexibility  and  appeal  to  more  family  oriented  visitors.  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,  and  is  understood  to  be  a  priority  of   the  City  Council.     After  the  previous  presentation  to  the  city  of  Aspen  Planning  and  Zoning  commission  on  March   17th,  the  design  has  been  modified  significantly  to  meet  the  standards  and  concerns  that  were   raised  during  that  hearing.    The  applicant  is  no  longer  requesting  any  variances  for  this   project.  The  development  fully  complies  with  the  applicable  land  use  code  for  height  and   maximum  floor  areas,  as  well  as  parking  requirements.  The  building  footprint  has  been   modified  from  the  existing  structure  and  previous  proposals  to  fit  entirely  within  the  required   setbacks,  reducing  the  amount  of  the  existing  encroachment  on  the  north  side  of  the  property.   The  interior  spaces  of  the  building  have  been  considerably  revised,  with  the  majority  of  the   lodging  units  on  the  entry  level  of  the  building.    An  entry  lobby  has  been  provided  in  the   northwest  corner  of  the  main  level,  nearest  the  corner  of  Hopkins  and  Aspen  streets,  to   accommodate  guests  as  they  enter  and  depart  the  lodge.    Additional  lodge  units  and  the  hotel   lounge  have  been  located  on  the  level  above  with  access  to  the  adjacent  park  to  the  east.       While  the  existing  building  has  two  affordable  housing  units,  these  units  are  both  currently   subgrade  and  well  below  the  current  size  requirements.  The  proposed  design  has  been   reconfigured  to  bring  the  entry  and  living  spaces  of  these  units  entirely  above  grade  while   P55 VI.A. 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 22 July 2015 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.  These  units   will  have  a  private  external  entry  to  their  units,  located  directly  off  of  the  adjacent  Francis   Whitaker  park,  with  views  toward  Smuggler  Mountain  and  Independence  Pass.    This  fully   exceeds  the  requirement  for  affordable  housing  that  is  required  for  this  project,  locating  all  of   the  required  housing  onsite,  near  the  core  of  Aspen.  The  proposed  affordable  housing  units   provided  on-­‐site  will  be  fully  compliant  with  Aspen  Pitkin  County  Housing  Authority  Guidelines.     A  primary  concern  for  the  public  at  the  previous  hearing  had  been  the  decrease  in  parking   spaces.    The  current  proposal  will  provide  a  below  grade  parking  garage,  which  will  contain  9   parking  spaces,  with  2  additional  parking  spaces  within  a  private  garage  off  of  the  alley.    This   exceeds  the  parking  requirements  of  9  total  spaces;  5  for  the  lodge  spaces,  2  for  the  affordable   housing  units,  and  2  for  the  free  market  units,  by  an  additional  2  spaces.       The  size  of  the  building  has  been  reduced  dramatically.  The  previous  submission  had  requested   the  existing  nonconforming  building  setbacks  be  maintained.    The  required  10-­‐foot  front   setback,  5-­‐foot  side  setbacks,  and  the  5-­‐foot  rear  setbacks  are  now  being  met,  with  the  west   setback  actually  further  increased  to  10  feet  to  allow  for  increased  public  amenity  space,  and  a   stronger  presence  for  the  fully  accessible  entry  to  the  lodge.    The  exterior  of  the  upper  level  has   been  pulled  back  from  each  façade  of  the  building  below,  with  varied  flat  or  low  sloped  roofs   above  that  are  all  completely  under  the  32’  height  limit,  and  provide  a  reduced  appearance  of   massing.       These  modifications  also  have  affected  the  square  footage  of  the  building,  resulting  in  a   reduction  of  proposed  free  market  units  from  3  units  to  2  units.    This  has  also  decreased  the   amount  of  lodging  square  footage  that  has  been  requested,  and  the  development  no  longer   needs  an  increase  in  the  allowable  lodging  FAR  as  previously  requested,  while  it  is  still   maintaining  the  9  lodge  units  that  were  proposed  originally.     The  Applicant  has  worked  diligently  to  respond  to  the  concerns  of  the  community  and  design  a   project  that  meets  City  goals  with  respect  to  small  lodge  development.  This  redevelopment  will   provide  a  unique  and  exceptional  experience  for  lodge  patrons  within  walking  distance  of  the   many  restaurants  and  stores  available  only  a  block  away  in  the  downtown  core.           P56 VI.A. 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 22 July 2015               Land  Use  Application  Resubmission   Hotel  Lenado     A  lodge  preservation  project,  featuring  lodging,  associated  free-­‐ market  residential  units,  and  onsite  affordable  housing.     10  September  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     P57 VI.A. 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 22 July 2015 PROJECT  OVERVIEW   DCBD2  LLC  (the  “  Applicant”)  resubmits  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  an  associated  residential  development.  The  subject  site  is  a  8,970  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  redevelopment  includes  nine  (9)  lodge  units,  two  (2)  single-­‐family  residential   units  to  be  located  on  the  upper  level  of  the  lodge,  and  two  (2)  affordable  housing  units  that   will  be  located  on  the  park  level  of  the  lodge.  This  will  aid  the  community  by  maintaining  lodge   rooms,  as  opposed  to  the  replacement  of  the  building  with  individual  residences  as  we  are   currently  seeing  on  other  properties  within  the  community.    The  lodging  units,  which  will  be   approximately  343-­‐667  SF  in  size,  have  been  designed  with  layouts  that  are  adjoining  so  they   may  be  combined  in  order  to  provide  flexibility  and  appeal  to  more  family  oriented  visitors.  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,  and  is  understood  to  be  a  priority  of   the  City  Council.     After  the  previous  presentation  to  the  City  of  Aspen  Planning  and  Zoning  commission  on  March   17th,  the  design  has  been  modified  significantly  to  meet  the  standards  and  concerns  that  were   raised  during  that  hearing.    The  applicant  is  no  longer  requesting  any  variances  for  this   project.  The  development  fully  complies  with  the  applicable  land  use  code  for  height  and   maximum  floor  areas,  as  well  as  parking  requirements.  The  building  footprint  has  been   modified  from  the  existing  structure  and  previous  proposals  to  fit  entirely  within  the  required   setbacks,  reducing  the  amount  of  the  existing  building  encroachment  on  the  north  side  of  the   property,  as  well  as  the  reduction  of  the  encroachment  of  the  existing  areaway  on  the  west  side   of  the  building.   The  interior  spaces  of  the  building  have  been  considerably  revised,  with  the  majority  of  the   lodging  units  on  the  entry  level  of  the  building.    An  entry  lobby  has  been  provided  in  the   northwest  corner  of  the  main  level,  nearest  the  corner  of  Hopkins  and  Aspen  streets,  to   accommodate  guests  as  they  enter  and  depart  the  lodge.    Additional  lodge  units  and  the  hotel   lounge  have  been  located  on  the  level  above  with  access  to  the  adjacent  park  to  the  east.       P58 VI.A. 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 22 July 2015 While  the  existing  building  has  two  affordable  housing  units,  these  units  are  both  currently   subgrade  and  well  below  the  current  size  requirements.  The  proposed  design  has  been   reconfigured  to  bring  the  entry  and  living  spaces  of  these  units  entirely  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.  These  units   will  have  a  private  external  entry  to  their  units,  located  directly  off  of  the  adjacent  Francis   Whitaker  park,  with  views  toward  Smuggler  Mountain  and  Independence  Pass.    This  fully   exceeds  the  requirement  for  affordable  housing  that  is  required  for  this  project,  locating  all  of   the  required  housing  onsite,  near  the  core  of  Aspen.  The  proposed  affordable  housing  units   provided  on-­‐site  will  be  fully  compliant  with  Aspen  Pitkin  County  Housing  Authority  Guidelines.     A  primary  concern  for  the  public  at  the  previous  hearing  had  been  the  decrease  in  parking   spaces.    The  current  proposal  will  provide  a  below  grade  parking  garage,  which  will  contain  9   parking  spaces,  with  2  additional  parking  spaces  within  a  private  garage  off  of  the  alley.    This   exceeds  the  parking  requirements  of  9  total  spaces;  5  for  the  lodge  spaces,  2  for  the  affordable   housing  units,  and  2  for  the  free  market  units,  by  an  additional  2  spaces.       The  size  of  the  building  has  been  reduced  dramatically.  The  previous  submission  had  requested   the  existing  nonconforming  building  setbacks  be  maintained.    The  required  10-­‐foot  front   setback,  5-­‐foot  side  setbacks,  and  the  5-­‐foot  rear  setbacks  are  now  being  met,  with  the  west   setback  actually  further  increased  to  10  feet  to  allow  for  increased  public  amenity  space,  and  a   stronger  presence  for  the  fully  accessible  entry  to  the  lodge.    The  exterior  of  the  upper  level  has   been  pulled  back  from  each  façade  of  the  building  below,  with  varied  flat  or  low  sloped  roofs   above  that  are  all  completely  under  the  32’  height  limit,  and  provide  a  reduced  appearance  of   massing.       These  modifications  also  have  affected  the  square  footage  of  the  building,  resulting  in  a   reduction  of  proposed  free  market  units  from  3  units  to  2  units.    This  has  also  decreased  the   amount  of  lodging  square  footage  that  has  been  requested,  and  the  development  no  longer   needs  an  increase  in  the  allowable  lodging  FAR  as  previously  requested,  while  it  is  still   maintaining  the  9  lodge  units  that  were  proposed  originally.     The  Applicant  has  worked  diligently  to  respond  to  the  concerns  of  the  community  and  design  a   project  that  meets  City  goals  with  respect  to  small  lodge  development.  This  redevelopment  will   provide  a  unique  and  exceptional  experience  for  lodge  patrons  within  walking  distance  of  the   many  restaurants  and  stores  available  only  a  block  away  in  the  downtown  core.       P59 VI.A. 200 S ASPEN RENDERINGS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.01 P 6 0 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN RENDERINGS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.02 P 6 1 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN RENDERINGS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.03 P 6 2 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN RENDERINGS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.04 P 6 3 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.05 P 6 4 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.06 P 6 5 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.07 P 6 6 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.08 P 6 7 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN EXISTING OVERLAY FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.09 P 6 8 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN EXISTING OVERLAY FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.10 P 6 9 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN LOWER LEVEL FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.11 UP U P REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E STAIR 2 UNIT 204 STORAGE ELEVATOR MECH. LODGE STORAGE STAIR 1 PARKING GARAGE UNIT 203 STORAGE CAR LIFT LODGE MECHANICAL ELEVATOR EMPLOYEE R/R LU.21 LU.18 LU.19 LU.20 F EMPLOYEE LOUNGE LU.24 LU.24 LU.22LU.22 LU.23 LU.23 P 7 0 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN MAIN LEVEL FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.12 F F F F F UP U P UP W W W W LU.21 LU.18 LU.19 LU.20 REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E UNIT 104 UNIT 105 UNIT 106 ELEVATOR STAIR 1 MAIN ENTRY CAR LIFT BATH BATH WETBAR WETBAR UNIT 103 MGMNT VALET BATH UNIT 102 BATH UNIT 101 UNIT 107 LIBRARY BATH UNIT 203 UNIT 204 HOUSE KEEPING WETBAR WETBAR WETBAR STAIR 2 BATH BATH BATH BATH F LU.24 LU.24 OPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO STAIR BELOW OPEN TO STAIR BELOW WETBAR LU.22LU.22 LU.23 LU.23 P 7 1 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN PARK LEVEL FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.13 OPEN TO STAIR BELOW OPEN TO STAIR BELOW UP DW RG DW R G W W W LU.21 LU.18 LU.19 LU.20 201.75 sq ft ELECTRICAL REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E UNIT 202 UNIT 201 FREE MARKET GARAGE CAR LIFT STAIR 1 STAIR TRASH ENCLOSURE TRANSFORMER GAME LOUNGE / BAR UNIT 203 UNIT 204 WETBAR ELEVATORHALL ENTRY BATH BATH RESTROOM BATH BATH RESTROOM LOUNGE LOBBY F F F W OPEN TO STAIR BELOW LU.24 LU.24 DW F LU.22LU.22 LU.23 LU.23 GAS OPEN TO BELOW HOUSE- KEEPING P 7 2 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN UPPER LEVEL FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.14 OPEN TO STAIR BELOW U P LU.21 LU.18 LU.19 LU.20 REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E UNIT 302 STAIR ELEVATOR HALL UNIT 301 STAIR BATH BATH DECK DECK DECK BEDROOM BEDROOM F W DW W LU.24 LU.24 LU.22LU.22 LU.23 LU.23 F DW P 7 3 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN ROOFTOP LEVEL FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.15 OPEN TO STAIR BELOW U P UP LU.21 LU.18 LU.19 LU.20 REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E ELEVATOR DECK DECK DECK LU.24 LU.24 LU.22LU.22 LU.23 LU.23 F P 7 4 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN ROOF PLAN FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.16 U P UP REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E F 0:12 0:12 2.5:12 0:12 2.5:12 0:12 2.5:120:12 WALL BELOW 0:122:12 P 7 5 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN PROPOSED SITE PLAN FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.17 ELEVATOR DECK DECK UPUP UP UP 5'-0" 1 0 ' - 0 " 5'-0" 5 ' - 0 " SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SS LINE GAS LINE W LINE EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINT 7900 790679057904 7 9 0 3 7 9 0 2 79 0 1 7899 78 9 8 79 0 7 7897 7896 F S . A S P E N S T R E E T E. HOPKINS AVENUE F R A N C I S W H I T A K E R P A R K ALLEY S I D E Y A R D FRONT YARD REAR YARD S I D E Y A R D N P 7 6 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN SOUTH ELEVATION FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.21 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINE MIXED WEATHERED WOOD GLASS RAILING GLASS 141'-6" T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK 133'-6" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK 122'-0" T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE 110'-6" T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL 141'-6" T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK 133'-6" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK 122'-0" T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE 110'-6" T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL 100'-0" = 7896'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL 87'-0" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL 138'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK 138'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK GLASS RAILING PLASTER FINISH METAL PANELS 125'-0" T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE 125'-0" T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE OUTLINE OF EXISTING BUILDING FINISH GRADE HISTORIC GRADE 100'-0" = 7896'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL 87'-0" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL P 7 7 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN WEST ELEVATION FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.18 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINE MIXED WEATHERED WOOD GLASS RAILING GLASS 133'-6" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK 122'-0" T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE 110'-6" T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL 133'-6" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK 122'-0" T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE 110'-6" T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL 138'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK 138'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK 141'-6" T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK 141'-6" T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK METAL PANELS GLASS RAILING PLASTER FINISH BOARD FORMED CONCRETE 125'-0" T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE 125'-0" T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE OUTLINE OF EXISTING BUILDING 100'-0" = 7896'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL 87'-0" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL 100'-0" = 7896'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL 87'-0" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL HISTORIC GRADE FINISH GRADE P 7 8 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN NORTH ELEVATION FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.19 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINE 141'-6" T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK 133'-6" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK 122'-0" T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE 110'-6" T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL 141'-6" T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK 133'-6" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK 122'-0" T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE 110'-6" T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL 100'-0" = 7896'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL 87'-0" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL 138'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK 138'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK MIXED WEATHERED WOOD GLASS RAILING GLASS METAL PANELS GLASS RAILING PLASTER FINISH BOARD FORMED CONCRETE 125'-0" T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE 125'-0" T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE OUTLINE OF EXISTING BUILDING 100'-0" = 7896'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL 87'-0" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL HISTORIC GRADE FINISH GRADE P 7 9 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN EAST ELEVATION FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.20 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINE 133'-6" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK 122'-0" T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE 110'-6" T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL 133'-6" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK 122'-0" T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE 110'-6" T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL 137'-6" T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK 137'-6" T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK 141'-6" T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK 141'-6" T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK MIXED WEATHERED WOOD GLASS RAILING GLASS METAL PANELS GLASS RAILING PLASTER FINISH 125'-0" T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE 125'-0" T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE OUTLINE OF EXISTING BUILDING 100'-0" = 7896'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL 87'-0" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL 100'-0" = 7896'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL 87'-0" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL HISTORIC GRADE FINISH GRADE P 8 0 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN SECTIONS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.22 133'-6" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK 122'-0" T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE 110'-6" T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL 133'-6" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK 122'-0" T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE 110'-6" T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL 100'-0" = 7896'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL 87'-0" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL 125'-0" T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE 125'-0" T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE 138'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK 138'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK 141'-6" T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK 141'-6" T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK PARKING GARAGE LODGE STORAGE 100'-0" = 7896'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL 87'-0" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL FINISH GRADE FINISH GRADE 32'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT MAIN ENTRY/VALET HALL HOUSE- KEEPING UNIT 202 GAME ROOM LOBBY ENTRY NORTH PENTHOUSE HALL NORTH PENTHOUSE RESTROOM LU.22 NORTH SECTION P 8 1 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN SECTIONS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.23 141'-6" T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK 133'-6" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK 122'-0" T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE 110'-6" T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL 141'-6" T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK 133'-6" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK 122'-0" T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE 110'-6" T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL 100'-0" = 7896'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL 87'-0" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL 138'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK 138'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK 125'-0" T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE 125'-0" T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE PARKING GARAGE 100'-0" = 7896'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL 87'-0" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL FINISH GRADE FINISH GRADE 32'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT SOUTH PENTHOUSE SOUTH PENTHOUSE STAIR STAIR HALL LIBRARY UNIT 204 UNIT 204UNIT 203 UNIT 102 LU.23 SOUTH SECTION P 8 2 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN SECTIONS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.24 141'-6" T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK 133'-6" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK 122'-0" T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE 110'-6" T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL 141'-6" T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK 133'-6" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK 122'-0" T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE 110'-6" T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL 100'-0" = 7896'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL 87'-0" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL 138'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK 138'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK 125'-0" T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE 125'-0" T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE 100'-0" = 7896'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL 87'-0" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL FINISH GRADE FINISH GRADE 32'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT LODGE STORAGE PARKING GARAGE CAR LIFTUNIT 105 HALL HALL HALL GAME ROOM HOUSEKEEPING SOUTH PENTHOUSE NORTH PENTHOUSE CLOSET LIBRARY REST ROOM LU.24 EAST SECTION P 8 3 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN HEIGHTS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.25 U P UP REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E 79 0 0 7906 7 9 0 5 79 0 4 79 0 3 79 0 2 79 0 1 7899 7898 78 9 7 F 1 20 19 18 17 16151413 1211 109 8 6 5 4 3 2 7 0:12 0:12 2.5:12 0:12 2.5:12 0:12 2.5:120:12 WALL BELOW 0:122:12 BUILDING OUTLINE AT GRADE 15' OFFSET Elevation Label Elevation of Historic Grade Elevation of Proposed Grade Most Restrictive Roof Height over Topography Actual Roof Height over Most Restrictive 1 7904'-5"7903'-9"PROPOSED 7931'-1/8"27'-3 1/8" 2 7902'-1"7901'-6"PROPOSED 7927'-0"25'-6" 3 7900'-7"7901'-6"HISTORIC 7930'-1"29'-6" 4 7899'-1 7900'-8"HISTORIC 7926'-0"26'-11" 5 7899'-1"7900'-7"HISTORIC 7931'-1"32'-0" 6 7898'-2"7898'-0"PROPOSED 7930'-0"32'-0" 7 7899'-9"n/a HISTORIC 7929'-6"29'-9" 8 7899'-2"7896'-0"PROPOSED 7928'-0"32'-0" 9 7900'-3"7900'-10"HISTORIC 7932'-3"32'-0" 10 7900'-9"n/a HISTORIC 7932'-9"32'-0" 11 7900'-5"7901'-4"HISTORIC 7926'-9 1/4"26'-4 1/4" 12 7901'-1"7901'-4"HISTORIC 7929'-9 1/2"28'-8 1/2" 13 7902'-10"7903'-1"HISTORIC 7931'-0"28'-2" 14 7903'-5"7905'-1"HISTORIC 7931'-0"27'-7' 15 7904'-7"7906'-4"HISTORIC 7934'-7 1/4"29'-11 1/4" 16 7905'-10"7906'-6"HISTORIC 7934'-10"29'-0" 17 7906'-0"7906'-6"HISTORIC 7935'-0"29'-0" 18 7905'-4"7906'-6"HISTORIC 7935'-3 1/2"29'-10 1/2" 19 7903'-5"n/a HISTORIC 7937'-3 3/4"33' 10 3/4" (OVERRUN) 20 7902'-7"n/a HISTORIC 7938'-7"36'-0" (OVERRUN) Height Over Topography 200 S. Aspen Street HEIGHTS OVER TOPOGRAPHY P 8 4 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN HEIGHTS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.26 29'-6" 27'-3 1/8" 20'-0" 32'-0" 30'-53/8" NORTHWEST HEIGHTS P 8 5 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN HEIGHTS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.27 17'-97/8" 29'-13/4" 29'-0" 29'-0" 36'-0" ELEVATOR OVERRUN SOUTHEAST HEIGHTS P 8 6 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN EXISTING SUBGRADE WALL CALCS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.28 FAR (Existing) 200 S. Aspen Street Lodge AHU Non-Unit Lower Level unit area totals by use 2,878.25 1,056.50 867.00 Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed -922.26 -338.53 -277.81 Lower Level FAR totals by use 1,955.99 717.97 589.19 Lodge AHU Non-Unit Main Level unit area totals by use 3,374.00 0.00 573.00 Main Level FAR totals by use 3,374.00 0.00 573.00 Lodge AHU Non-Unit Upper Level unit area totals by use 3,101.00 0.00 590.75 Upper Level FAR totals by use 3,101.00 0.00 590.75 Square Feet (Sq Ft) Gross Lodge (Sq Ft)9,353.25 Gross AHU (Sq Ft)1,056.50 Total Unit Floor Area (Sq Ft) excludes non-unit area 10,409.75 Application of Use Category Percentages to Non-Unit Floor Area Lodge Floor Area (Sq Ft)Non-Unit @ 89.96%Total Lower Level (Sq Ft)1,955.99 529.40 2,485.39 Main Level (Sq Ft)3,374.00 514.85 3,888.85 Upper Level (Sq Ft)3,101.00 530.79 3,631.79 Gross Lodge (Sq Ft)10,006.03 AHU Floor Area (Sq Ft)Non-Unit @ 10.04%Total Lower Level (Sq Ft)717.97 59.80 777.77 Main Level (Sq Ft)0.00 58.15 58.15 Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 59.96 59.96 Total AHU FAR (Sq Ft)895.88 Total FAR (Sq Ft)10,901.91 Allowable Limit (Sq Ft)Existing (Sq Ft)Proposed (Sq Ft) Lodge (.75:1) 8,970 10,006.03 5,323.00 AHU (2:1) 17,940 895.88 1,629.88 Free Market (.50:1) 4,485 ------4,483.12 Cumulative (2:1) 17940 10,901.91 11,436.00 Lower Level Main Level Upper Level Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category (referenced from “Gross Unit Area” chart) Percentage (%) 89.85% 10.15% 100.00% Lodge FAR AHU FAR Total Lodge FAR Summary Subgrade Wall Area (Existing) 200 S. Aspen Street Existing Lower Level Wall Calculations Lower Level Wall Label Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)Unex. Wall Area (Sq Ft) 1 664.75 87.50 577.25 2 112.25 112.25 0 3 32.25 32.25 0 4 104.25 104.25 0 5 32.25 32.25 0 6 104.25 104.25 0 7 32.25 32.25 0 8 104.25 104.25 0 9 32.25 32.25 0 10 112.50 72.25 40.25 11 112.25 57.25 55 12 32.00 12.75 19.25 13 92.25 30.75 61.5 14 32.00 8.00 24 15 415.25 25.75 389.5 16 637.75 1.75 636 Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft)2,652.75 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)850.00 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)32.0% Unexposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)1802.75 % of Unexposed Wall (Unexposed / Total)68.0% 9 ' - 6 " 8 '-0 1 /4 " 8 '-0 1 /4 " 9 '-6 1 /4 " 74'-8" 44'-8" 14'-0" 4'-0"13'-0"4'-0"13'-0"4'-0"13'-0"4'-0"14'-0" 35'-2"4'-0"11'-6"4'-0"14'-0" 67'-0" 8 '-0 1 /4 " 166.75 sq ft 410.50 sq ft 40.25 sq ft 389.50 sq ft24.00 sq ft61.50 sq ft19.25 sq ft55.00 sq ft 636.00 sq ft 14.75 sq ft 58.75 sq ft 7.00 sq ft 7.00 sq ft 112.25 sq ft 32.25 sq ft 104.25 sq ft 32.25 sq ft 104.25 sq ft 32.25 sq ft 104.25 sq ft 32.25 sq ft 72.25 sq ft 25.75 sq ft8.00 sq ft30.75 sq ft12.75 sq ft57.25 sq ft 1.75 sq ft 8 '-0 1 /4 " 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 EXPOSED WALL AREA UNEXPOSED WALL AREA SUBGRADE WALL AREA EXISTING LOWER LEVEL SUBGRADE WALL P 8 7 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN EXISTING FLOOR AREA CALCS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.29 Allowable Limit (Sq Ft)Existing (Sq Ft)Proposed (Sq Ft) Lodge (.75:1) 8,970 10,006.03 5,323.00 AHU (2:1) 17,940 895.88 1,629.88 Free Market (.50:1) 4,485 ------4,483.12 Cumulative (2:1) 17940 10,901.91 11,436.00 Total Lodge FAR Summary Percentage (%) Lodge Area (Sq Ft)89.85% AHU Unit Area (Sq Ft)10.15% Total Unit Area (Sq Ft) excludes non-unit area 100.00% Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft) excluded from gross n/a 10,409.75 2,030.75 Square Feet (Sq Ft) 9,353.25 1,056.50 Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category 013 0.00 sq ft 2,336.50 sq ft 867.00 sq ft 491.25 sq ft 565.25 sq ft 186.75 sq ft 355.00 sq ft UP UP PROPERTY LINE LINE OF SETBACK 01 6 011 00 6 001 003 005 007 009 01 2 01 4 00 2 001 01 0 00 4 00 8 015 900.25 sq ft 35.25 sq ft 102.50 sq ft 441.50 sq ft 1,473.25 sq ft 1,118.25 sq ft UP UP UP DN DN UP PROPERTY LINE LINE OF SETBACK 3,101.00 sq ft 590.75 sq ft DN DN DN PROPERTY LINE LINE OF SETBACK DECK BELOW PROPERTY LINE LINE OF SETBACK NON UNIT AREA AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT AREA LODGE AREA FREE MARKET AREA DECK AREA AREA USE BY CATEGORY EXISTING LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS EXISTING MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS EXISTING UPPER LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS EXISTING ROOF LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS P 8 8 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN EXISTING NET LEASABLE PLANS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.30 858.00 sq ft 35.25 sq ft 1,090.00 sq ft 102.50 sq ft 438.25 sq ft 1,397.75 sq ft 235.25 sq ft UP UP UP DN DN UP PROPERTY LINE LINE OF SETBACK 587.00 sq ft 2,950.25 sq ft DN DN DN PROPERTY LINE LINE OF SETBACK 0.00 sq ft 532.25 sq ft 458.75 sq ft 180.00 sq ft 2,254.75 sq ft 351.50 sq ft 847.75 sq ft UP UP PROPERTY LINE LINE OF SETBACK DECK BELOW PROPERTY LINE LINE OF SETBACK Net Leasable & Net Livable (Existing) 200 S. Aspen Street Lodge (Leasable)AHU (Livable)Non-Unit 351.50 458.75 847.75 180.00 532.25 ------ 2,254.75 ------------ Lower Level area totals by use 2,786.25 991.00 847.75 Lodge (Leasable)AHU (Livable)Non-Unit 1,397.75 ------438.25 1,090.00 ------102.50 858.00 ------35.25 Main Level area totals by use 3,345.75 0.00 576.00 Lodge (Leasable)AHU (Livable)Non-Unit 2,950.25 ------587.00 Upper Level area totals by use 2,950.25 0.00 587.00 Area totals by use 9,082.25 991.00 2010.75 Square Feet (Sq Ft) Gross Lodge (Sq Ft)9,353.25 Gross AHU (Sq Ft)1,056.50 Total Unit Floor Area (Sq Ft) excludes non-unit area 10,409.75 Application of Use Category Percentages to Non-Unit Floor Area Lodge (Leasable)Non-Unit @ 89.96%Total Main Level (Sq Ft)2,786.25 761.71 3,547.96 Upper Level (Sq Ft)3,345.75 517.54 3,863.29 Upper Level (Sq Ft)2,950.25 527.42 3,477.67 10,888.93 AHU (Livable)Non-Unit @ 10.04%Total Lower Level (Sq Ft)991.00 86.04 1,077.04 Main Level (Sq Ft)0.00 58.46 58.46 Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 59.58 59.58 1,195.07 Lower Level Main Level Upper Level Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category (referenced from “Gross Unit Area” chart) Percentage (%) 89.85% 10.15% 100.00% Lodge Net Leasable Total Lodge Net Leasable (Sq Ft) Total AHU Net Leasable (Sq Ft) NON UNIT AREA AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT AREA LODGE AREA FREE MARKET AREA DECK AREA AREA USE BY CATEGORY EXISTING MAIN LEVEL NET LEASABLE / LIVABLE EXISTING UPPER LEVEL NET LEASABLE / LIVABLE EXISTING LOWER LEVEL NET LEASABLE / LIVABLE EXISTING ROOF LEVEL NET LEASABLE / LIVABLE P 8 9 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN PROPOSED SUBGRADE WALL CALCS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.32 Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit Lower Level unit area totals by use 1,969.00 256.50 0.00 3,386.00 Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed -1,969.00 -256.50 0.00 -3,386.00 Lower Level FAR totals by use 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit Main Level unit area totals by use 3,896.50 1,051.00 0.00 787.50 Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed -2,677.11 -722.09 -------541.06 Main Level FAR totals by use 1,219.39 328.91 0.00 246.44 Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit Park Level unit area totals by use 2,900.50 980.75 0.00 141.75 Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed ------------------------ Park Level FAR totals by use 2,900.50 980.75 0.00 141.75 Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit Upper Level unit area totals by use 0.00 0.00 4,303.00 0.00 Upper Level FAR totals by use 0.00 0.00 4,303.00 0.00 Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit Roof Deck Level unit area totals by use 0.00 ------46.25 0.00 Roof Deck Level FAR totals by use 0.00 0.00 46.25 0.00 Square Feet (Sq Ft) Gross Lodge (Sq Ft)8,968.25 Gross AHU (Sq Ft)2,316.75 Gross Free Market (Sq Ft)4,990.50 Total Unit Floor Area (Sq Ft) excludes non-unit area 16,275.50 Non-Unit Area Subgrade Exemption Total Lower Level (Sq Ft)3,386.00 -3,386.00 0.00 Main Level (Sq Ft)787.50 -541.06 246.44 Park Level (Sq Ft)141.75 0.00 141.75 Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00 Roof Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00 -3,927.06 388.19 Lodge Floor Area Non-Unit @ 0.551%Total Lower Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00 Main Level (Sq Ft)1,219.39 135.80 1,355.19 Park Level (Sq Ft)2,900.50 78.11 2,978.61 Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00 Roof Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00 213.91 Total Lodge FAR (Sq Ft)4,333.80 Free Market Floor Area Non-Unit @14.23%Total Lower Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00 Main Level (Sq Ft)328.91 35.08 363.99 Park Level (Sq Ft)980.75 20.18 1,000.93 Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00 Roof Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00 55.26 Total Affordable Housing Unit FAR (Sq Ft)1,364.91 Free Market Floor Area Non-Unit @ 30.66%Total Lower Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00 Main Level (Sq Ft)0.00 75.57 75.57 Park Level (Sq Ft)0.00 43.46 43.46 Upper Level (Sq Ft)4,303.00 0.00 4,303.00 Roof Level (Sq Ft)46.25 0.00 46.25 119.03 Total Free Market FAR (Sq Ft)4,468.28 Total FAR (Sq Ft)10,166.99 Allowable Limit (Sq Ft)Existing (Sq Ft)Proposed (Sq Ft) Lodge (.75:1) 8,970 9,081.60 4,333.80 AHU (2:1) 17,940 342.86 1,364.91 Free Market (.50:1) 4,485 0.00 4,468.28 Cumulative (2:1) 17,940 9,424.46 10,166.99 100.00% 14.23% 30.66% Applied Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft) Affordable Housing Unit FAR Lodge FAR Application of Use Category Percentages to Non-Unit Floor Area Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft) Total Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft) Applied Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft) 200 S. Aspen Street FAR (Proposed) UPPER LEVEL ROOF DECK LEVEL PARK LEVEL MAIN LEVEL LOWER LEVEL 55.10% Percentage (%) Total Lodge FAR Summary Free Market FAR Applied Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft) Applied Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft) Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category (referenced from “Gross Unit Area” chart) EXPOSED WALL AREA UNEXPOSED WALL AREA SUBGRADE WALL AREA Subgrade Wall Area (Proposed) 200 S. Aspen Street Existing Lower Level Wall Calculations Lower Level Wall Label Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)Unex. Wall Area (Sq Ft) 1.00 841.75 0.00 841.75 2.00 961.50 0.00 961.50 3.00 841.75 0.00 841.75 4.00 961.50 0.00 961.50 Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft)3,606.50 3,606.50 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)0.00 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)0.00% Unexposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)3,606.50 % of Unexposed Wall (Unexposed / Total)100.00% Main Level Wall Label 5.00 658.00 274.00 384.00 6.00 130.75 121.00 9.75 7.00 39.75 39.75 0.00 8.00 161.50 161.50 0.00 9.00 39.75 39.75 0.00 10.00 450.50 172.75 277.75 11.00 662.00 0.00 662.00 12.00 768.00 102.00 666.00 Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft)2,910.25 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)910.75 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)31.29% Unexposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)1,999.50 % of Unexposed Wall (Unexposed / Total)68.71% 384.00 sq ft 274.00 sq ft 9.75 sq ft 121.00 sq ft 277.75 sq ft 172.75 sq ft 11 ' - 7 " 72'-8"83'-0" 72'-8"83'-0" 9' - 1 " 72'-51/4"4'-45/8"17'-93/8"4'-45/8"14'-45/8"49'-71/4" 11 ' - 7 " 841.75 sq ft 961.50 sq ft 841.75 sq ft 961.50 sq ft 39.75 sq ft 161.50 sq ft 39.75 sq ft 25.50 sq ft 25.50 sq ft 25.50 sq ft 25.50 sq ft 666.00 sq ft662.00 sq ft 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 001 002 003 004 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL AND MAIN LEVEL SUBGRADE WALL CALCULATIONS P 9 0 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN PROPOSED GROSS AREA CALCS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.31 263.25 sq ft REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E OPEN TO STAIR BELOW 4,468.25 sq ft REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E OPEN TO STAIR BELOW OPEN TO STAIR BELOW 2,745.25 sq ft 160.50 sq ft 98.50 sq ft 984.00 sq ft201.00 sq ft REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E OPEN TO STAIR BELOW OPEN TO STAIR BELOW 2,075.75 sq ft 1,928.75 sq ft 1,060.00 sq ft REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E OPEN TO STAIR BELOW OPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO STAIR BELOW 132.75 sq ft 140.00 sq ft 1,591.00 sq ft 426.50 sq ft REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E Lodge AHU Free Market 1,591.00 132.75 ------ 426.50 140.00 ------ ------------------ Total Subgrade Level Unit Area by use 2,017.50 272.75 0.00 Lodge AHU Free Market 1,928.75 1,060.00 ------ 2,075.75 ------------ ------------------ Total Entry Level Unit Area by use 4,004.50 1,060.00 0.00 Lodge AHU Free Market 2,745.25 984.00 160.50 201.00 ------98.50 Total Second Level Unit Area by use 2,946.25 984.00 259.00 Lodge AHU Free Market ------------4,483.50 Total Third Level Unit Area by use 0.00 0.00 4,483.50 Lodge AHU Free Market ------------263.25 Total Roof Level Unit Area by use 0.00 0.00 263.25 Gross Lodge (Sq Ft) Gross AHU (Sq Ft) Gross Free Market (Sq Ft) Lodge Area (Sq Ft) AHU Unit Area (Sq Ft) Free Market Unit Area (Sq Ft) Total Lodge, AHU, FM Area (Sq Ft) Gross Summary 16,290.75 8,968.25 2,316.75 5,005.75 UPPER LEVEL ROOF DECK LEVEL 8,968.25 2,316.75 5,005.75 Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category Gross Unit Area (Proposed) 200 S. Aspen Street Percentage (%) 55.05% 14.22% 30.73% 100.00% Square Feet (Sq Ft) MAIN LEVEL LOWER LEVEL PARK LEVEL PROPOSED ROOFTOP LEVEL GROSS AREA CALCULATIONSPROPOSED UPPER LEVEL GROSS AREA CALCULATIONS PROPOSED PARK LEVEL GROSS AREA CALCULATIONSPROPOSED MAIN LEVEL GROSS AREA CALCULATIONSPROPOSED LOWER LEVEL GROSS AREA CALCULATIONS AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT AREA LODGE UNITS AREA FREE MARKET AREA EXEMPT AREA AREA USE BY CATEGORY P 9 1 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.33 46.25 sq ft REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E OPEN TO STAIR BELOW 4,303.00 sq ft REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E OPEN TOSTAIR BELOW OPEN TOSTAIR BELOW 2,709.50 sq ft 158.00 sq ft 89.25 sq ft 500.00 sq ft 980.75 sq ft191.00 sq ft 641.75 sq ft REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E OPEN TOSTAIR BELOW OPEN TO BELOW 005 012 011 010 009 008 007 006 2,000.00 sq ft 171.75 sq ft 1,896.50 sq ft 1,051.00 sq ft 615.75 sq ft REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E OPEN TOSTAIR BELOW OPEN TO STAIR BELOW OPEN TO BELOW 004 001 003 002 3,886.00 sq ft 1,558.25 sq ft121.50 sq ft 410.75 sq ft 135.00 sq ft REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E PROPOSED ROOFTOP LEVEL FAR CALCULATIONSPROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FAR CALCULATIONS PROPOSED PARK LEVEL FAR CALCULATIONSPROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FAR CALCULATIONSPROPOSED LOWER LEVEL FAR CALCULATIONS AREA USE BY CATEGORY NON UNIT AREA AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT AREA LODGE UNITS AREA FREE MARKET AREA DECK AREA EXEMPT AREA P 9 2 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN PROPOSED NET LEASABLE PLANS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.34 40.50 sq ft REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E OPEN TO STAIR BELOW 534.50 sq ft1,869.25 sq ft 1,710.25 sq ft REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E OPEN TOSTAIR BELOW OPEN TOSTAIR BELOW 384.25 sq ft 475.25 sq ft 464.25 sq ft 667.25 sq ft 87.50 sq ft 185.25 sq ft 1,701.75 sq ft 166.25 sq ft 548.75 sq ft REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E OPEN TO STAIR BELOW OPEN TO BELOW 343.25 sq ft176.25 sq ft 458.00 sq ft 458.00 sq ft 343.25 sq ft 343.25 sq ft 343.25 sq ft 726.75 sq ft 198.00 sq ft 537.50 sq ft 356.00 sq ft 570.50 sq ft 404.75 sq ft 92.25 sq ft REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E OPEN TO STAIR BELOW OPEN TO STAIR BELOW OPEN TO BELOW 121.25 sq ft 1,471.50 sq ft 376.50 sq ft 123.50 sq ft 160.25 sq ft 296.25 sq ft 246.00 sq ft 3,163.75 sq ft REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E Net Leasable & Net Livable (Proposed) 200 S. Aspen Street Lodge (Livable)AHU (Livable)Free Market (Livable)Non-Unit 1471.50 121.25 ------160.25 376.50 123.50 ------296.25 ------------------246.00 ------------------3,163.75 Lower Level area totals by use 1,848.00 244.75 0.00 3,866.25 Lodge (Livable)AHU (Livable)Free Market (Livable)Non-Unit 198.00 458.00 ------726.75 343.25 458.00 ------176.25 343.25 ------------------ 343.25 ------------------ 343.25 ------------------ 92.25 ------------------ 537.50 ------------------ 404.75 ------------------ 570.50 ------------------ 356.00 ------------------ Main Level area totals by use 3,532.00 916.00 0.00 903.00 Lodge (Livable)AHU (Livable)Free Market (Livable)Non-Unit 1,701.75 475.25 166.25 548.75 667.25 464.25 87.50 ------ 384.25 ------------------ 185.25 ------------------ Park Level area totals by use 2,938.50 939.50 253.75 548.75 Lodge (Livable)AHU (Livable)Free Market (Livable)Non-Unit ------------1,884.50 ------ ------------1,710.25 ------ ------------534.50 ------ Upper Level area totals by use 0.00 0.00 4,129.25 0.00 Lodge (Livable)AHU (Livable)Free Market (Livable)Non-Unit ------------40.50 ------ Roof Deck Level area totals by use 0.00 0.00 40.50 0.00 Area totals by use 8,318.50 2,100.25 4,423.50 5,318.00 Areas by Use Category Lodge AHU Free Market Total Gross Sq Ft Lower Level (Sq Ft) Main Level (Sq Ft) Park Level (Sq Ft) Upper Level (Sq Ft) Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft) Total Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft) Non-Unit @ 0.5505 Total Lower Level (Sq Ft)2,128.42 3,976.42 Main Level (Sq Ft)497.11 4,029.11 Park Level (Sq Ft)302.09 3,240.59 Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 Total Lodge Net Livable (Sq Ft)11,246.12 Non-Unit @ 0.1422 Total Lower Level (Sq Ft)549.83 794.58 Main Level (Sq Ft)128.42 1,044.42 Park Level (Sq Ft)78.04 1,017.54 Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 Total ADU Net Livable (Sq Ft)2,856.54 Non-Unit @ 0.3073 Total Lower Level (Sq Ft)1,188.00 1,188.00 Main Level (Sq Ft)277.47 277.47 Park Level (Sq Ft)168.62 422.37 Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 4,129.25 Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)0.00 40.50 Total ADU Net Livable (Sq Ft)6,057.59 100.00%16,290.75 ROOF DECK LEVEL UPPER LEVEL 14.22%2,316.75 55.05%8,968.25 Percentage (%)Gross Square Feet (Sq Ft) Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category (referenced from “Gross Unit Area” chart) 5,005.75 30.73% 244.75 AHU (Livable) AHU Net Livable Lodge Net Livable 0.00 2,938.50 0.00 Free Market (Livable) 0.00 0.00 939.50 916.00 PARK LEVEL MAIN LEVEL LOWER LEVEL Free Market Net Livable 40.50 4,129.25 253.75 0.00 0.00 Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft) Non-Unit Floor Area per Level Lodge (Livable) 1,848.00 3,532.00 0.00 0.00 548.75 903.00 3,866.25 5,318.00 PROPOSED ROOFTOP LEVEL NET LEASABLE CALCULATIONSPROPOSED UPPER LEVEL NET LEASABLE CALCULATIONS PROPOSED PARK LEVEL NET LEASABLE CALCULATIONSPROPOSED MAIN LEVEL NET LEASABLE CALCULATIONSPROPOSED LOWER LEVEL NET LEASABLE CALCULATIONS NON UNIT AREA AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT AREA LODGE UNITS AREA FREE MARKET AREA DECK AREA EXEMPT AREA AREA USE BY CATEGORY P 9 3 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN AHU MITIGATION FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.35 Affordable Housing Mitigation Credit 200 S. Aspen Street Proposed Affordable Housing Floor Area Calculations AHU Space Floor Area (Sq Ft)Employees Mitigated 2-BD Unit 933.25 2.25 2-BD Unit 922.25 2.25 Total Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,855.50 Total Employees Mitigated 4.50 Proposed Free Market Net Leasable Employees Generated Residential Net Leasable Floor Area (Sq Ft)Applicable Residential Area %Area After Reduction (Sq Ft)Employees Generated/400 Sq Ft Employees Generated Upper Level 3,761.00 30%1,128.30 1.00 2.82 Employees Generated 2.82 Proposed Lodge Unit Employees Generated Number of Units Employees Generated per Bedroom Employees Generated 9.00 0.30 2.70 Reduction % Due to Lodge Unit Size 60% Calculated Credit 1.62 Proposed Total Employees Generated 4.44 Total Mitigation Credit Calculation Employees Generated Total Employees Mitigated 4.50 Total Employees Generated 4.44 Additional Credits Required -0.06 P 9 4 V I . A . 200 S ASPEN PUBLIC AMENITY PLANS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Thursday, September 10, 2015 LU.36 PROPOSED PUBLIC AMENITY SPACE = 2,319.75 SF 25.87% OF LOT AREA EXISTING SITE AMENITY PLAN PROPOSED SITE AMENITY PLAN P 9 5 V I . A . P96 V I . A . Te~ Iii ::JI~ TUTTLE SURVEYING SERVICES From:Jeffrey A Tuttle P.L.S. Tuttle Surveying Services 727 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs,Co.81601 Ph.(970)928-9708 Fx.(970)947-9007 Email jeff@tss-us.com Date:December 15,2014 Project:Hotel Lenado (Lots A,Band C.Block 75,City of Aspen) I,Jeffrey Allen Tuttle being a Professional Land Surveyor in the State of Colorado hereby certifies that the Hotel Lenado falls within the Main Street View Plane but the proposed roof height is below is reference base line inclination angle of 06°29'20"as shown on t~~1iWt:G/s 'bitwhich shows the most restrictive base elevations. ~.P':···,······.·..~<' ,.',::~'..'~lLcA."."9'',.'-'/~'v 0. '-'~".c? •:LL • ,JiLL --1:cr:?".~;;;.:a J Allen uttl.e'·~ ts'"...'~ <.P/.••••••••••'0'0 / "°I1;A I\\'\.\) P97 VI.A. P98 VI.A. P99 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. 2 September 2015 Location: 200 S. Aspen Street, Aspen, CO (PID# 273707337001) Represented By: P100 VI.A. 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, and free market residential. The intent of this lodge redevelopment is to provide a “lifestyle” lodging experience for guests, 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. Two (2) affordable housing units are proposed to be contained on the walk-out level of the 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. Two (2) free market units will be located on the upper level of the lodge. 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 2 September 2015 P101 VI.A. The replacement affordable housing represents 1,260.95 SF of additional affordable housing net livable. The addition of the two (2), 2-bedroom affordable housing units will fulfill 4.5 credits of the required 4 affordable housing credits. The excess 0.5 credits will be applied to free-market residential and the remaining 2.25 required credits will be paid with fee in lieu or employee housing credits. 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 will provide a below grade parking garage, which will contain 9 parking spaces; 6 lodge spaces, 2 affordable housing unit spaces, and 1 van accessible space. This proposal will also provide a private garage off the alley providing 2 free market unit spaces. This exceeds the parking requirements of 9 total spaces by an additional 2 spaces. 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 Park s 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 f or 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 Cit y Council in the review of this important lodge project. Hotel Lenado (PID# 273707337001) Page 2 Transportation Impact Analysis in connection with an application for Comm ercial Design Review, Special Review, Demolition, Affordable Housing, Lodge Development, View Plane, and Subdivision Major Amendment 2 September 2015 P102 VI.A. MMLOS Measure Details Trip peak-hour generation for this project is calculated to be 1-2 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 Paepc ke Park bus stop providing easy transit access for guests and employees. As previously provided, t he 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. 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 2 September 2015 P103 VI.A. 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 im pact 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: Ryan Walterscheid Forum Phi 715 W. Main St. Ste. 204 Aspen, CO 81611 Tel: (970) 274-9598 E-mail: rwalterscheid@forumphi.com 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 2 September 2015 P104 VI.A. = input = calculation DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION: NAME, COMPANY, ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL Minor 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)2 Units 0.39 0.95 1.34 0.92 0.72 1.64 Affordable Housing (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lodging (Units)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 0.39 0.95 1.34 0.92 0.72 1.64 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 Ryan Walterscheid Forum Phi 715 W. Main St. #204, Aspen, CO 81611 970-274-9598 rwalterscheid@forumphi.com Trip Generation 9/2/2015 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? 200 S. Aspen St., Aspen CO 81611 Hotel Lenado Redevelopment Net New Units/Square Feet of the Proposed ProjectProposed Land Use *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 is applied to the trip generation. Instructions: IMPORTANT: Turn on Macros: In order for code to run correctly the security settings need to be altered. Click "File" and then click "Excel Options." In the "Trust Center"category, click "Trust Center Settings", and then click the "Macro Settings"category. Beneath "Macro Settings" select "Enable all Macros." Sheet 1. Trip Generation: Enter the project's square footage and/or unit counts under Proposed Land Use. The numbers should reflect the net change in land use between existing and proposed conditions. Sheet 2. MMLOS: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable under each of the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections.Points are only awarded for proposed and confirmed aspects of the project. Sheet 3. TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Sheet 4. Summary and Narrative: Review the summary of the project's mitigated trips and provide a narrative which explains the measures selected for the project. Click on "Generate Narrative" and individually explain each measure that was chosen and how it enhances the site or mitigates vehicle traffic. Ensure each selected measure make sense Minor Development -Inside the Roundabout Major Development -Outside the Roundabout Helpful Hints: 1. Refer to the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for information on the use of this tool. 2. Refer to TIA Frequently Asked Questions for a quick overview. 2. Hover over red corner tags for additional information on individual measures. 3. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the Transportation Impact Analysis TIA Frequently Asked Questions P105 VI.A. = input = calculation 45 Category Sub.Site Plan Question Answer Points Does the project propose a detached sidewalk where an attached sidewalk currently exists? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard minimum widths as well? 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 Does the project propose a detached sidewalk on an adjacent block? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard minimum widths? Yes 5 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width on an adjacent block greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 Is the proposed landscape buffer on an adjacent block greater than the standard minimum width?Yes 5 10 Are slopes between back of curb and sidewalk equal to or less than 5%?No -10 Are curbs equal to (or less than) 6 inches?Yes 0 Is new landscaping proposed that improves the pedestrian experience?Yes 5 Does the project propose an improved crosswalk? Yes 5 0 Are existing driveways removed from the street?NA 0 Is pedestrian and/or vehicle visibility unchanged by new structure or column?Yes 0 Is the grade (where pedestrians cross) on cross-slope of driveway 2% or less?Yes 0 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian access points?Yes 5 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian or bicyclist interaction with vehicles at driveway areas?Yes 5 10 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 Is the project proposing an off site improvement that results in a pedestrian directness factor below 1.2?* No 0 Are traffic calming features proposed that are part of an approved plan (speed humps, rapid flash)?*Yes 10 15 Pe d e s t r i a n s TOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS MITIGATED: 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 Pe d e s t r i a n N e t w o r k 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 MMLOS Input Page Subtotal Subtotal Si d e w a l k C o n d i t i o n on A d j a c e n t B l o c k s Si d e w a l k C o n d i t i o n on P r o j e c t F r o n t a g e Subtotal Instructions: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable to each measure under the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections. Subtotal Subtotal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 P106 VI.A. Are additional minor improvements proposed which benefit the pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff? No 0 Are additional major improvements proposed which benefit the pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff? No 0 40 Pedestrians Subtotal Ad d i t i o n a l Pr o p o s e d Im p r o v e m e n t s Pedestrian Total* P107 VI.A. Category Sub.Question Answer Points Is a new bicycle path being implemented with City approved design?No 0 Do new bike paths allow access without crossing a street or driveway?No 0 Is there proposed landscaping, striping, or signage improvements to an existing bicycle path?No 0 Does the project propose additional minor bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0 Does the project propose additional major bicycle improvements which have been 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 specifically for bus stop use?No 0 Are ADA improvements proposed?No 0 0 Is a bus pull-out proposed at an existing stop?No 0 Is relocation of a 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 Tr a n s i t Ba s i c A m e n i t i e s Subtotal Subtotal En h a n c e d Am e n i t i e s Subtotal Subtotal Bicycles Total* Transit Total* 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 B i c y c l e Pa t h s 1 2 3 4 5 6 P108 VI.A. Category Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will an onsite ammenities strategy be implemented?No Which onsite ammenities will be implemented? Will a shared shuttle service strategy be implemented?No What is the degree of implementation?Low What is the company size?Small What percentage of customers are eligible?100% Nonmotorized Zones Will a nonmotorized zones strategy be implemented?No 0.00% 0.00% Category Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will a network expansion stragtegy be implemented?No What is the percentage increase of transit network coverage?0% What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips?50% Will a service frequency/speed strategy be implemented?No What is the percentage reduction in headways (increase in frequency)? 0% What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips?50% What is the level of implementation?<50% of lines (within project) improved Will a transit access improvement strategy be implemented?Yes What is the extent of access improvements? Within Project Only Intercept Lot Will an intercept lot strategy be implemented?No 0.00% 1.00% Category Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will there be participation in TOP?Yes What percentage of employees are eligible?100% Is a transit fare subsidy strategy implemented?Yes What percentage of employees are eligible?100% What is the amount of transit subsidy per passenger (daily equivalent)?100% Is an employee parking cash-out strategy being implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a workplace parking pricing strategy implemented?No What is the daily parking charge? What percentage of employees are subject to priced parking? Is a compressed work weeks strategy implemented?No What percentage of employees are participating? What is the workweek schedule? Is an employer sponsered shuttle program implemented?No What is the employer size? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a carpool matching strategy implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligble?100% Is carshare participation being implemented?No How many employee memberships have been purchased?<100 What percentage of employees are eligble?100% Is a bikeshare program participation being implemented?Yes How many memberships have been purchased?<100 What percentage of employees/guests are eligble?100% Is an end of trip facilities strategy being implemented?Yes What is the degree of implementation? High What is the employer size? Small Is a self-funded emergency ride home strategy being implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a carpool/vanpool priority parking strategy being implemented?No What is the employer size? What number of parking spots are available for the program? Is a private employer shuttle strategy being implemented?No What is the employer size? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a trip reduction marketing/incentive program implemented?Yes What percentage of employees/guests are eligible?100% 5.34% 1.00% 6.29% 1. 22% work trips represents a mixed-used site (SF Bay Area Travel Survey). See Assumptions Tab for more detail. Participation in TOP Transit Fare Subsidy Employee Parking Cash-Out Workplace Parking Pricing Compressed Work Weeks Employer Sponsored Vanpool Carpool Matching Carshare Program Self-funded Emergency Ride Home Carpool/Vanpool Priority Parking Private Employer Shuttle Trip Reduction Marketing/Incentive Program End of Trip Facilities Cross Category Maximum Reduction, Neighborhood and Transit Global Maximum VMT Reductions TDM Input Page 1.50% 3.50% 0.00% Co 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 s S t r a t e g i e s Onsite Servicing Shared Shuttle Service Ne i g h b o r h o o d / S i t e En h a n c e m e n t s S t r a t e g i e s 0.00% 0.00% Network Expansion Service Frequency/Speed Transit Access Improvement Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category 13.80% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Bikeshare Program 0.00% 4.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.00% 4.00% Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category Maximum Reduction Allowed in CategoryTr a n s i t S y s t e m I m p r o v e m e n t s St r a t e g i e s Instructions TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context of project location and future use. P109 VI.A. DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION: NAME, COMPANY, ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL Peak Hour Max Trips Generated MMLOS TDM Total Trips Mitigated PM 1.6 45 0.10 45.10 0.00 Click on the "Generate Narrative" Button to the right. Respond to each of the following prompts in the space provided. Each response should cover the following: 1. Explain the selected measure. 2. Call out where the measure is located. 3. Demonstrate how the selected measure is appropriate to enhance the project site and reduce traffic impacts. 4. Explain the Enforcement and Financing Plan for the selected measure. 5. Explain the scheduling and implementation responsibility of the mitigation measure. 6. Attach any additional information and a site map to the narrative report. Ryan Walterscheid Forum Phi 715 W. Main St. #204, Aspen, CO 81611 970-274-9598 rwalterscheid@forumphi.com Summary and Narrative: Narrative: 9/2/2015 Hotel Lenado Redevelopment 200 S. Aspen St., Aspen CO 81611 Trip Generation SUMMARY Trip Mitigation NET TRIPS TO BE MITIGATED P110 VI.A. P 1 1 1 V I . A . P 1 1 2 V I . A .