HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20151020
AGENDA
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
REGULAR MEETING
October 20, 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. October 6, 2015 Meeting Minutes
V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 200 S Aspen St (Hotel Lenado) - Commercial Design Review and Associated
Reviews - Continued Public Hearing from September 15, 2015
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
VIII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 20
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 October 6, 2015
1
Mr. Walterscheid and Mr. Goode were not present so Ms. Jasmine Tygre served as the Acting Chair. Ms.
Tygre called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Jason
Elliott, Spencer McKnight, Skippy Mesirow, Jasmine Tygre and Brian McNellis.
Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Chris Bendon, Jessica Garrow and Sara Nadolny.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
There were no comments.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Mr. Chris Bendon noted the City recently received an award from the State chapter of the American
Planning Association for their planning efforts regarding the transportation impact and analysis project.
He stated this was one of Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) items prioritized by Council to address.
The project identified the types of projects require a transportation impact analysis review. The free
review process is all online and informs the applicant the number of trips generated, items to mitigate,
and options for mitigation.
Ms. Jessica Garrow stated they are preparing to work with Council on one of their top ten goals which is
to better incorporate some of the policies identified in the AACP into the land use code. They are
meeting with Council in a work session in November and in advance they would like to have a check in
with P&Z to identify if any commissioners have ideas for the work session. She asked if P&Z would be
available for a lunch in October to review what is in the AACP and what has already been addressed. The
commissioners stated they are open to a lunch discussion. Ms. Garrow stated she would email some
potential dates to P&Z.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
MINUTES
Mr. Elliott requested his name be corrected on the first and last pages of the minutes. Mr. Elliott moved
to approve the minutes for September 15th with the requested changes. The motion was seconded by
Mr. McNight All in favor, motion passed.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There were no declarations.
267 McSkimming Rd – Special Review request –Public Hearing
Ms. Tygre opened the public hearing and asked if the public notice had been provided. Ms. Quinn
replied she had reviewed the public notice and found that although the caption address was incorrect,
the other references to the address were correct. Based on the majority of the references being correct,
she found the notice to be sufficient. The affidavits of public notice were submitted as Exhibit D.
Ms. Tygre turned the floor over to staff.
P1
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2015
2
Ms. Sara Nadolny, Planner Tech, reviewed the application. She first identified a correction in the memo
provided. Any reference in the memo to BOA should read P&Z. She noted P&Z is the final review
authority for this special review.
The property, located in the R-15B zone district, is a 19,800 sf lot in the Aspen Grove Subdivision with a
single family residence currently on the lot. The R-15B zone district has a 30 ft front setbacks and the
garage of the existing residence extends about 10.5 ft into the front yard setback. The applicant is
proposing a remodel of the residence and includes a minor addition to the residence requiring no review
and removal of the roof for the entire structure which triggers demolition. The definition of demolition
per the Code is provided on p 11 of the agenda packet. The structure is built into a slope so there is a
lesser amount of the structure above grade, therefore triggering the 40% demolition threshold quickly.
When demolition is triggered, all non-conformities are expected to be brought into compliance with the
redevelopment. The applicant is looking to keep the garage in its present location.
Staff looked at the application against the two sections of the special review criteria which must be met.
1. Dimensional requirements – Staff has found the application primarily meets the dimensional
requirements in all ways except for the front yard setback. The applicant has provided
documentation noting 11 other properties in the neighborhood with a similar condition of the
garage encroaching into the front setback. Ms. Nadolny displayed a slide from the applicant
identifying those neighboring properties. The applicant also notes the right of way between the
property line and the road. Ms. Nadolny provided a slide identifying the property line and the
road. Staff finds this criteria met.
2. Replacement of nonconforming structures – This criteria requires the site to have a unique
characteristic differentiating it from other properties in the same zone district. Ms. Nadolny
displayed a topography picture of the property and noted the slopes on the side and the rear.
When looked at as compared with other properties in the same R-15B zone district, other
properties have similar slope conditions. The properties within an R-15B zone district are
exempt from 8040 Greenline Reviews, which would prohibit a lot of development. The
properties are also exempt from residential design standards and the net lot area is not reduced
due to steep slopes. Staff is not aware of any other unique conditions of this site. In regards to
reasonable use, Staff finds that by denying the request, the applicant is not prevented from
pursuing reasonable use of the property.
Due to the inability to confirm all necessary criteria are met, Staff recommends denial of the request.
Ms. Tygre asked if there were any questions of Staff.
Mr. Mesirow asked if demolition had not been triggered, could the garage be rebuilt in the same spot.
Ms. Nadolny stated they would look at the features being changed and the amount being changed to
see if it would be necessary to pull it into compliance.
Mr. McNellis asked if the special review essentially allows for the creation of a legal non-conformity. Ms.
Nadolny replied it’s actually a replacement of a non-conformity and they view the garage as demolished
since the 40% threshold was met. With the special review standards, the applicant is asking to legalize a
non-conformity, but to do so, they can’t conflict with the standard as defined in section A.1 on p 17 of
the agenda packet. Ms. Nadolny stated they looked at the immediate context of the neighborhood to
identify what might state this is application is not a complete aberration of the neighborhood. She
stated the research performed by the applicant identifies a context. She also stated they also looked at
the intent of the setback within the R-15B zone district. The setback should provide some relief between
the street and development providing transition. Mr. Bendon stated the purpose of zone district is
P2
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2015
3
broader than just the dimensional requirements. He gave an example of if the applicant was attempting
to replace a gas station in this zone district. The dimensions of the replacement may not be a big deal,
but the project would be completely out of compliance with the zone district. Mr. McNellis
acknowledged Mr. Benson, but feels to legalize a non-conformity, the standards state no portion of the
building can be non-conforming making it a catch-22. He further stated he understands how Staff is
looking at this as a replacement. Mr. Benson went on to say there are questions regarding compatibility
and consistency with the purpose of the zone district. He added the replacement of the non-conforming
building meets those two criteria although it may not meet every dimensional limitation of the zone
district.
Mr. Mesirow asked if the criteria item B.2 on p 18 of the agenda packet refers to the underlying land or
the structure. Ms. Nadolny stated it refers to the property.
Mr. Mesirow asked when the memo refers to the special characteristics of the zone district, were those
considered in the contiguous district or property in any R-15B zone district. Ms. Nadolny reads this as
any property in an R-15B zone district.
Ms. Tygre turned the floor over to the applicant.
Mr. Dylan Johns, Zone 4 Architects, was present representing the applicant. Ms. Kristen Firman,
applicant, was also present.
Mr. Johns stated his head was spinning from Mr. Bendon’s explanation. He questioned Staff’s response
to criteria B.1. Ms. Nadolny acknowledged the use of the word “not” in the response was incorrect and
should not be in the response.
Mr. Johns discussed a few points regarding this project. He showed extensive elevations is to point out
how much of the existing structure above ground consists of the roof itself. He also presented slides and
noted where the finished grade was located as compared to the building and the roof lines. He stated
they have previously worked on projects on Eastwood Drive and ran into similar setback issues. The
code was actually changed in those instances to reflect the conditions.
There is the 30 ft setback where approximately 10.5-11 ft of the garage is in the setback. He pointed out
on a diagram the corner of the garage is 31.5 ft away from the edge of the pavement. He also pointed
out how the road moves in and out within the right of way depending on the topography. A lot of the
houses follow a similar situation where a portion of the structure is infringing upon the front yard
setback.
In regards to the 40% demolition threshold, he noted when a wall is buried the wall area is taken out of
the equation. Only the portion of the wall above grade and roof are considered in the calculation. If you
look at the existing house, it is mostly roof. He further described how many stories of the existing
structure are above grade for each aspect of the existing house. Once you remove any supporting
structure for a roof, that portion is considered demolished. For this structure, once they considered
moving interior partition walls, the demolition threshold was met without any visible changes to the
exterior of the home.
Part of the rationale put forth against the application considers the reasonable use of the property and if
it is reasonable to keep the garage in its current location or move it. Mr. Johns feels they do not have
many options in regards to moving the garage. The house has been there for 35 years in the same
configuration and at least half the neighborhood is just like it. He wondered to what extent the code
requires a much more extensive reconfiguration of drainage, foundation work, and driveway than what
was intended to be changed.
P3
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2015
4
Ms. Firman stated the interior is dated to 1980. There is limited space in both of the bedrooms on the
second floor. In the master bedroom, the shower and sink are open to the room. Without changing the
roofline, they cannot create a space to separate the shower and sink from the rest of the bedroom.
Mr. Johns described and pointed out the layout of the second floor including the bedrooms, stairways
and open space. He also described the proposed changes including the only change to the footprint to
the home. They are proposing filling in the space between the house and garage to fit in new bathroom.
He stated there is a hardship in moving the garage and changing the entry to the home. Moving the
garage is not impossible to do, but it would change the entry to the building and involve excavation of
the slope near a neighbor.
He added the owner of 229 McSkimming called with his approval of the project. He does not have
anything in writing to enter as an exhibit.
Ms. Tygre asked if there were questions of the applicant.
Mr. Elliott asked for the total demolition percentage of the project. Mr. Johns responded if the entire
roof was removed, it would be 60%. This does not include any walls or doors which would add to the
total.
Ms. Tygre then asked if there were any members of the public who wanted to comment on the
application. None appeared and she closed this portion of the hearing.
Ms. Tygre then opened for commissioner’s discussion.
Mr. McNellis stated he feels caught up on the code. Mr. Mesirow asked him to further identify where he
questions the code. Mr. McNellis stated he questions the portion of A.1 (p 17) stating “and is consistent
with the purposes of the underlying zone district”. Mr. Bendon stated it was key to focus on the
purposes of the district in that particular portion of the criteria. He reiterated the purposes of the zone
district is broader than the dimensional requirements.
Ms. Tygre feels there are two parts to consider. One is the dimensional requirements and the other
being the replacement of a nonconforming structure which is where the problem begins for her. She
feels the demolition threshold was put in place in part to cover non-conformities. The code states once
you trigger demolition, you cannot continue to be non-conforming.
Mr. McNellis asked Staff if the only non-conformity is the setback issue at which Ms. Nadolny confirmed
it was the only one. He feels based on the criteria, he cannot approve the application and added it is
unfortunate and wishes he had a vehicle to approve it.
Mr. Bendon offered that he does not see any issues on criteria A.1. It intentionally utilizes the terms to
address compatibility with the neighborhood and consistency with the purposes of the zone district as
viewed in a broader sense. He wanted to reinforce the purposes of the zone district is a much broader
concept than the individual, discreet dimensional requirements. An application could be out of
compliance with a dimensional requirement, yet meet the purposes of the district. The purpose of this
zone district provides for medium density, residential construction.
Ms. Tygre asked the commissioners if they are having any issues with what the applicant wants to
accomplish. Mr. McKnight, Mr. Mesirow and Mr. Elliott answered they do not have an issue. She senses
the commissioners do not want to do anything contrary to the code. Ms. Quinn reminded the
commissioners it is up to them to interpret how the code applies to this situation to determine
P4
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2015
5
reasonable use. The avenue used by the commissioners to determine whether or not the proposed use
may or may not make the minimum variance required is a reasonable use of the property. Mr. Bendon
added Staff’s approach to reasonable use is much stricter from a legal perspective than what the
applicant is suggesting as a reasonable use. The applicant is suggesting it is unreasonable to not allow
the property to evolve in order to allow them to live in it under the original conditions for which it was
developed including the existing issues regarding the slope and existing location of the structure.
Ms. Tygre stated the commission could determine criteria item B.4 (p 18) would provide P&Z a
justification for approving the application yet still conform to the code. Mr. Mesirow stated based on the
applicant’s comments and presentation, he finds criteria B.3 and B.4 met.
Mr. Mesirow continued that he agrees with Staff’s findings on criteria A.1 and A.2 (p17) which leads him
to agree with B.1 as well. He asked the other commissioners if they agree or disagree and why. Mr.
McNellis stated he does not disagree and feels it comes down criteria B.2, B.3 and B.4. Ms. Tygre asked
Mr. McKnight and Mr. Elliott if they agreed they could interpret criteria B.2, B.3 and B.4 as being met at
which they both confirmed. Mr. Mesirow and Mr. McNellis also agreed with her question.
Mr. Mesirow asked Staff for their input on criteria B.2 Mr. Bendon stated this item is a little tough
because it deals with the land and not the building. He noted this criteria deals with the property itself.
He provided a couple of examples of a lot having unique conditions that would require a structure to be
pushed into the front setback. Mr. Mesirow feels Staff’s response does not identify the applicant’s lot as
unique or that it stands out from the existing lots. Mr. Bendon stated this lot is just like all the other lots
in the subdivision. Mr. Johns added the uniqueness of this subdivision area is that so many of properties
have the same constraints. He feels the language as he reads it in the code provision looks at it from a
very micro-oriented level. In this zone district, if one lot has a unique condition, many of the other lots
will have the same condition.
Mr. Mesirow asked the applicant their response to criteria B.2. Mr. Johns read his response to the
criteria as noted on p 21 of the agenda packet. He added the intent of the front setback dimension was
honored by its relationship with the road. Mr. Mesirow replied this may be a criteria which may or may
not be able to be found in compliance with additional information. He added all the homes back up to a
hill but the angulation or shaping of the hill may be different than other properties. He feels he does not
have any information to determine if the property is unique. He asked the applicant if they have any
information specific to the slope of the lot. Mr. Johns stated they have not done a geological analysis
yet, but he pointed out where the steep slopes exist on the property. He added if you push the building
closer to the slope, the more likely you will have instability. Work has been done below the property to
widen the road on the back of the property. He was not sure pushing the house towards the back of the
property would be compatible with the widening of the road. Mr. Elliott asked him about a statement in
his presentation where he stated they could move the garage up the slope into an available pocket
without moving the house. Mr. Johns replied moving it would require a complete redesign of the entire
structure.
Mr. Johns stated one of the hiccups with the code provision is that the reasonable use seems to be
detached from this particular standard of this criteria. He knows the review standard says all criteria
have to be met but he does not have an answer how reasonable use applies to standard number 2. At
the same time, he sees this as weakness in the code more than he sees it as something that should be
considered. The house has been this way for 35 years. They are not proposing any changes to the
configuration or use of the property. He feels whatever they do will provide a positive impact to the
neighborhood. Mr. Johns added the lot is more compressed than the other lots as it is pinched between
the roads in the front and back of the property.
P5
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2015
6
Mr. McNellis asked about the slope in the back yard. Mr. Johns stated it is near vertical and added the
topography bows out in the front of the structure so there may be concerns regarding the house above
if they excavated the slope.
Mr. McNellis asked Staff is this was the only area zoned as R-15B. Ms. Nadolny stated she is not aware of
the exact boundary but the zone district is focused in this area and consists of two subdivisions.
Mr. Mesirow asked the commissioners if they feel the shallowness of the lot is sufficient to meet the
criteria. Ms. Tygre asked if in fact the lot is shallower than the other lots on the displayed map to which
no one could answer. Mr. Mesirow felt based on the available map, the lot is shallower.
Ms. Tygre asked if someone wanted to make a motion. Mr. Mesirow stated he wanted to hear from
other commissioners. Mr. McKnight stated based on the discussion to this point, he feels comfortable
finding the criteria to be met.
Mr. Elliott stated he could also find the criteria to be met, but he does not feel the hardship stated by
the applicant is valid because they should have known and understood the layout of the home before
purchasing it. He understands digging into the slope could unveil issues unknown at this time and could
bring hardship. He also feels the setback is visually met. He could support the application, but stated he
had to wander to get there.
Mr. McNellis agrees with Mr. Elliott in regards to meeting the criteria. He feels requiring them to move
the garage would potentially place hardship on the owner as well as the community. He feels the
existing garage meets the purpose of the code as well as the characteristics of the neighborhood. He is
frustrated with the code but feels he could find a way to approve it.
Mr. Elliott motioned to approve Resolution number 19, Series 2015 as presented in the agenda packet
on p 14. Mr. Mesirow seconded the motion. Ms. Tygre asked for a roll call: Mr. McKnight, yes; Mr.
Mesirow, yes; Mr. Elliott, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Ms. Tygre, no. The motion passed with a four to one (4-
1) vote.
Ms. Tygre closed the public hearing.
Ms. Tygre then turned the floor over to Mr. Bendon for discussion regarding miscellaneous code
amendments.
Mr. Bendon stated miscellaneous code amendments are generally housekeeping updates to the code to
include a missed citation or update to provide more clarity. Sometimes updates are the result of a
formal interpretations of the code.
Dwelling Units: This basically will not allow internal connections to other units or other uses to ensure a
dwelling unit is a standalone item.
Measurements from Grade: When the height of building is measured, it is measured from the finished
grade. The department is starting to see a planted area or planter box pushed up against the building to
be used as the measurable grade. The update attempts to eliminate the attempts to utilize planter
boxes as the finished grade.
Internal Skylights: Update to clarify the skylights do not count when measuring subgrade portions of the
structure.
Net Leasable and Net Livable Area: There have been a couple of recent examples where a commercial
building spans a property line. To date, Staff has assumed the structures or portions of a structure on a
P6
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2015
7
property belong to the property owner even if the majority of a structure is on a neighboring property.
The update clarifies if the structure crosses a property line, the floor area is associated only with the
property where it resides.
Building Envelopes: The surveying community has had a tendency to describe setbacks as a building
envelope. The department catches this now, but there are older surveys from the 1980’s and 1990’s as
well as property annexed into the City which incorrectly describe setback as the building envelope on
plats. If there is no actual requirement for a building envelope, the department will treat those as
setbacks. There are several subdivisions where they did intend to treat it as a building envelope. The
code amendment allows Staff to make the differentiation. Mr. McNellis asked if the differentiation
allows for pristine conditions to identify setbacks appropriately and Mr. Bendon agreed.
Development in Setbacks: There have been more and more issues with items being placed in setbacks.
The most recent occurrences have been hot tubs in the setbacks. Houses tend to take up all the lot
except the front yard. This includes the packaged portable hot tubs. The updates would clarify these
items cannot be located in yards facing a street. They can exist in yards visible by the street if they are
properly screened by a fence or landscaping. He pointed to a diagram provided (p 33) in the packet and
noted it becomes an issue particularly on corner lots because more of the property is visible. He clarified
forward of the front façade, fences are limited to 42 inches in height. In back of the façade, they may be
six ft in height. He also noted the list of items includes air conditioning units, utility pedestals, grills, built
in furniture, and waterfalls. Mr. McNellis asked if the prohibited area was double the setback as
depicted on the diagram. Mr. Bendon was not certain how the department determined the prohibited
area and it may be double the setback.
The commissioners stated they felt all the proposed changes looked good.
Ms. Tygre asked Mr. Bendon to confirm the updates relating to skylights would not change any of the
calculations such as FAR or sf at which he confirmed she was correct. He added they are technically the
roof of the basement level. She stated she has seen a lot of skylights over rooms that are not really
supposed to be bedrooms because they don’t have access, but there are beds in them.
Mr. Mesirow asked for the size requirements of an egress for a subgrade bedrooms. Mr. Bendon
thought it was 30 in X 30 in or 36 in X 36 in.
Mr. Bendon stated he would summarize that he reviewed the proposed amendments with P&Z and they
were fine with them.
Ms. Tygre then adjourned the meeting.
Cindy Klob
City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager
P7
IV.A.
200 S. Aspen St.
Staff memo
10/20/2015
Page 1 of 9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner
RE: Hotel Lenado (200 South Aspen Street) – Commercial Design Review-Conceptual
Review, Growth Management Reviews, Resolution No. , Series 2015 – Public
Hearing
MEETING
DATE: October 20, 2015
The applicant has updated the drawings based on comments from the September 15th P&Z
hearing. Minutes from the September meeting and the Staff memo from September are attached
as reference. The dimensions represented by the applicant meet the underlying Mixed Use Zone
District (all dimensions and calculations are required to be verified by the Zoning Officer during
building permit review). Variances are not requested; however a height increase of 32 ft.
through Commercial Design Review is still requested. Because the applicant meets the
underlying zone district, the updated Staff memo addresses conceptual design and site planning
issues and growth management.
The property is significantly sloped in two directions – along Aspen Street and Hopkins Avenue
– which creates a challenging project site. The applicant made some design revisions, mainly
adding a gable roof form, in order to relate to neighborhood context. According to the applicant’s
representation, the overall size of the building is about 700 sf larger than the September 15th
iteration (from 10,167 sf to 10,855 sf currently proposed).
Staff appreciates the nod toward a more traditional roof form and recommends that the applicant
continue to refine the conceptual design to reduce the mass, respond to the topography and to
relate to the neighborhood context. Specific Staff concerns and recommendations related to the
update are outlined below:
Overall design:
The primary discussion point for the Commission and for Staff during the past public hearings
has been whether the proposed architecture fits into the existing context as required by the
Design Guidelines. The Small Lodge Character Area Design Objectives in the Commercial,
Lodging and Historic District Objectives and Guidelines state the following:
“Create a distinctive experience for lodging with a sense of being in a 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.”
In Staff’s opinion, the design of the lodge does not successfully respond to its location within a
transition area between the commercial forms of the downtown core and the Shadow Mountain
residential area.
P8
VI.A.
200 S. Aspen St.
Staff memo
10/20/2015
Page 2 of 9
Figure 1: Aspen Street elevation. The arrow points to one of the vertical towers with a gable roof.
The applicant has added a few gable roof elements to better relate to the neighboring landmarks
across Hopkins Avenue; however the gable elements are applied atop vertical towers that
increase the perception of building height and they are subordinate to the predominately flat roof
f on the building. The Design Objectives also state:
“New development should be compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located.
Many lodge sites are located in residential areas, where the single family character
should be respected.” And, “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.”
The project does not express traditional lot widths as indicated in Guidelines 5.5 and 5.7 below.
This may be a product of orienting the building to face Aspen Street rather than Hopkins Avenue
which is the traditional front yard. The building façade along Hopkins Avenue does not provide
a beneficial pedestrian experience. The proposed 3 ½ story wall of windows does not contribute
to the street experience or relate to the surrounding residential character (see image below).
There is no entry point located along Hopkins, and important east/west corridor through town.
P9
VI.A.
200 S. Aspen St.
Staff memo
10/20/2015
Page 3 of 9
Figure 2: The wall of windows along Hopkins Avenue.
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 façade heights.
• The street façade composition.
• The variation in design and materials to emphasize the building module.
5.7 A building should respect the traditional lot width and scale of the context in the
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.
Mass:
The applicant proposes 11 parking spaces – 2 at grade along the alley and 9 in a subgrade garage.
8.5 spaces are required. While at grade parking is convenient, there is an opportunity to reduce
mass and scale by reprogramming the garage and shifting upper floor space inot that area. Over-
parking a mixed use building, that in Staff’s opinion needs to reduce mass and scale to relate to
the neighborhood, is counterintuitive. Staff strongly recommends that the garage be removed
and that the parking requirement be met subgrade.
Hopkins Ave. facade
P10
VI.A.
200 S. Aspen St.
Staff memo
10/20/2015
Page 4 of 9
Figure 3: The two stall garage (500 sf) along the alley and Aspen Street. Removing the garage could enable the applicant
to shift square footage to the rear and reduce the mass on the site while maintaining the proposed program.
Topography:
Staff recommends that the applicant continue to work on the relationship of the building to
grade. The topography is challenging but not impossible. The large cut-out entry area does not
“enhance the character of the street edge” as described in the Design Objectives with “visual
delight…that invites pedestrian activity in the neighborhood.” The proposed entrance erodes the
street corner necessitating ramps and handrails that block the area from being inviting to a
pedestrian. Creating a building that compliments and works with the topography on the exterior
and uses the interior to reconcile floor levels and accessibility requirements may be more
successful in this location rather than utilizing the exterior to address these important elements
(images are below). The placement of the first floor should be more closely related to natural
grade and subgrade areas should be less exposed to view.
P11
VI.A.
200 S. Aspen St.
Staff memo
10/20/2015
Page 5 of 9
Figure 4 & 5: The arrows show proposed retaining walls and their impact on the pedestrian experience.
Height:
The Mixed Use Zone District restricts height to 28’ with the ability to increase height to 32’
when the following criteria are met:
2.14 A new building or addition should reflect the existing range of two and three stories.
• Refer to zone district regulations to determine the maximum height on the subject
property.
• Step back upper levels to reduce the perceived scale at the street edge.
P12
VI.A.
200 S. Aspen St.
Staff memo
10/20/2015
Page 6 of 9
• Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the
following reasons:
o In order to achieve at least a two-foot variation in height with an adjacent
building.
o The primary function of the building is civic.
o Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its
proximity to a historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief
in another area may be appropriate.
o To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units.
o To make a demonstrable contribution to the building’s overall energy efficiency,
for instance by providing improved day-lighting.
Staff finds that the review criteria to allow 32 ft. in height are not met and recommends that the
applicant meet current zoning requirements of 28 ft. Much of the building meets the 28 ft. height
limit; however requesting up to 32 ft. for the purpose of a large private roof deck and its
associated elements adds more height and does not relate to the neighboring structures across
Hopkins Ave. which measure below 32 ft. (the application measures to the apex of the Victorians
which is not how height is calculated for that roof form). A height increase further disconnects
the building from its context. The image below highlights the areas that exceed the 28 ft. height
limit.
Hopkins Ave.
Aspen St.
Figure 6: Roof plan showing areas that need a height increase above 28 ft.
P13
VI.A.
200 S. Aspen St.
Staff memo
10/20/2015
Page 7 of 9
Free Market Residential:
According to the application, both free market residential units are within the 2,000 sf net livable
cap for the zone district. The third floor plans show a dumb waiter that goes into the
hallway/housekeeping of the second level and a mechanical chase that does not serve any other
floors. Staff questions the intent of the floor plans and the ability for the free market units to be
combined into one large penthouse that does not meet zone district regulations. Typically, shared
walls between free market units are solid, not mechanical chases or dumb waiters that do not link
to any other aspects of the project. The floor plans must be revised to align with the requirement
that the two dwelling units are fully separated by an unpierced wall.
Figure 7: The red circle indicates the dumbwaiter and mechanical chase location between Unit 301 and 302.
Growth Management update:
The following calculations reflect the updated proposal:
The lodge development includes:
• 9 lodge bedrooms requiring eighteen 18 lodge pillow allotments (2 pillows per bedroom).
As the existing lodge has 19 lodge bedrooms no additional allotments are required;
• 2 affordable housing units requiring two 2 affordable housing allotments. As the existing
lodge has two units no additional allotments are required;
P14
VI.A.
200 S. Aspen St.
Staff memo
10/20/2015
Page 8 of 9
• 2 new free-market residential units requiring two 2 residential allotments.
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 above grade.
3,584.25 sq ft * 30% = 1,075.28 sf net livable area required above grade as affordable
housing or 2.69 FTEs
1.62 FTEs + 2.69 FTEs = 4.31 FTEs
The applicant proposes two 2-bedroom units that equal 4.5 FTEs. The onsite FTE
requirement is met.
There is combined 1,052.25 sf of Affordable Housing net livable area proposed above
grade. 1,075.28 sf is required to meet the above grade requirement for free market
residential mitigation.
Staff finds that Growth Management requirements are not met and recommends a
continuation to restudy the design as described above and to meet the above grade
requirement for affordable housing.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the applicant continue to revise the plans before
returning to the Commission. The height, mass and scale, and relationship to grade 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, specifically the
entry and the public amenity space. Consider moving the ramps and circulation from the
exterior to the interior of the building to create a more harmonious response to the
topography.
• 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.
P15
VI.A.
200 S. Aspen St.
Staff memo
10/20/2015
Page 9 of 9
• 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 as described above.
• Meet the growth management requirements for above grade net livable space for the AH
units.
• Propose a solid wall between the two free market residential units, better explain the
current proposal, and/or revise the current proposal.
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 [from 9/15/15]
EXHIBIT L –Development Review Committee Comments [from 9/15/15]
EXHIBIT M – Amended application - summary
EXHIBIT N – Amended application – drawings
EXHIBIT O – Amended Growth Management Review Criteria
Exhibit P - Amended application – drawings
Exhibit Q – P&Z meeting minutes dated 9/15/15
P16
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No. __, Series 2015
Page 1 of 5
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,
P17
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No. __, Series 2015
Page 2 of 5
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 September 15, 2015 continued to
October 20, 2015, 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 shall meet the
dimensional requirements of the underlying Mixed Use Zone District, and will be verified during
building permit review.
Section 2: Growth Management Allotments
2.1 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. All other lodge pillow credits are hereby vacated.
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.
2.2 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
3.1 Mitigation Requirements. The project includes two (2) two-bedroom affordable housing
units. The mitigation required for the project is as follows:
P18
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No. __, Series 2015
Page 3 of 5
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) 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.
Mitigation for 30% of the free-market residential square feet provided as above grade
affordable housing.3,584.25 sq ft * 30% = 1,075.28 sf net livable area required above
grade as affordable housing or 2.69 FTEs
1.62 FTEs + 2.69 FTEs = 4.31 FTEs
The proposed affordable housing units provide housing for 4.5 FTEs, exceeding the
mitigation requirement by 0.17 FTEs. A total of 1,052.25 sq ft of affordable housing must be
located above grade.
3.2 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.
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.
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
P19
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No. __, Series 2015
Page 4 of 5
inclusive of, but not limited to, a detailed plan for existing tree protection and sidewalk
development for the property.
A tree protection plan indicating the drip lines of each individual tree or groupings of trees
remaining on site shall be included in the building permit application for any demolition or
significant site work. The plan shall indicate the location of protective zones for approval by the
City Forester and prohibit excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill,
storage of equipment, and access over or through the zone by foot or vehicle.
Section 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 2,215.5 sq ft 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:
P20
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No. __, Series 2015
Page 5 of 5
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation
presented before the Community Development Department, the Planning and Zoning
Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development
approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by
other specific conditions or an authorized authority.
Section 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
P21
VI.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
P22
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
P23
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
P24
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.
P25
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
P26
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
P27
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.
P28
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
P29
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.
P30
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
P31
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
P32
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.
P33
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.
P34
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.
P35
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.
P36
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
P37
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
P38
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
P39
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.
P40
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.
P41
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.
P42
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
P43
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.
P44
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%.
P45
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.
P46
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.
P47
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.
P48
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.
P49
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
P50
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.
P51
VI.A.
Exhibit O – 10.20.15
Growth Management Reviews
Page 1 of 5
Exhibit J - Growth Management Reviews
[updated 10/20/2015]
26.470.050 General Requirements.
B. General requirements: All development applications for growth management review
shall comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with
conditions or deny an application for growth management review based on the following
generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of
development:
1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi-year
development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet
this standard.
Staff Response: Sufficient allotments are available:
o 9 lodge bedrooms requiring eighteen 18 lodge pillow allotments (2 pillows per
bedroom). As the existing lodge has 19 lodge bedrooms no additional allotments
are required;
o 2 affordable housing units requiring two 2 affordable housing allotments. As the
existing lodge has two units no additional allotments are required;
o 2 new free-market residential units requiring two 2 residential allotments.
2. The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as well
as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan.
Staff Response: Staff has concerns about the compatibility of the architecture with the
surrounding residential neighborhood as outlined in the staff memo. Staff finds this review
criterion is not met. The proposed lodge use is consistent with the existing lodge use. Residential
uses are prevalent in this area.
3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district.
Staff Response: The applicant represents that the project meets the Mixed Use Zone District.
4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation
Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the
Planned Development – Project Review approval, as applicable.
Staff Response: Commercial Design Review is concurrent with Growth Management
Review.
P52
VI.A.
Exhibit O – 10.20.15
Growth Management Reviews
Page 2 of 5
5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees
generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection
26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of
affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant
to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may
choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant
chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to
Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90
Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate.
Staff Response: See discussion below.
6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above
natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at
least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area, for
which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is
higher.
Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable
housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide
mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being
provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of
affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate
of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate
shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative
Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100
Employee/Square Footage Conversion.
Staff Response: Provide 30% of free-market residential square feet as affordable housing above
grade.
3,584.25 sq ft * 30% = 1,075.28 sf net livable area required above grade as affordable
housing.
There is combined 1,052.25 sf of Affordable Housing net livable area proposed above
grade. 1,075.28 sf is required to meet the above grade requirement for free market
residential mitigation.
Staff finds that Growth Management requirements are not met
7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such
additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project.
Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment,
energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid
waste disposal, parking and road and transit services.
P53
VI.A.
Exhibit O – 10.20.15
Growth Management Reviews
Page 3 of 5
Staff Response: The proposal replaces an existing building that meets these requirements.
26.470.070.4 Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in
accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved,
approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the
following criteria:
a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be
required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to
hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors.
Staff 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 meet the minimum
requirement (976.75 and 985.5 sq. ft.). The board’s recommendation is included in the DRC
comments (Exhibit L). 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.
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 4.31 employees. With two 2-bedroom units 4.5 employees are housed on-site.
Staff finds this criterion met.
c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent
(50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade,
P54
VI.A.
Exhibit O – 10.20.15
Growth Management Reviews
Page 4 of 5
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 and storage 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. The resolution is written to approve rental
units for the lodge.
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.
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:
P55
VI.A.
Exhibit O – 10.20.15
Growth Management Reviews
Page 5 of 5
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 3,584.25 sq. ft of net livable area for
mitigation purposes. The following calculation shows that 1,075.28 sq. ft. sq. ft. or 2.69
employees are generated by the new residential development.
3,587.25 sq. ft. x .3 = 1,075.28 sq. ft.
1 FTE = 400 sq. ft.
1,075.28 sq. ft. / 400 = 2.69 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
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 4.31 FTEs, so the on-site units will exceed the required mitigation.
Staff finds this criterion met.
P56
VI.A.
200 S ASPEN
RENDERINGS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.01
P
5
7
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
RENDERINGS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.02
P
5
8
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
RENDERINGS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.03
P
5
9
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
RENDERINGS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.04
P
6
0
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
EXTERIOR
PERSPECTIVE
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.05
P
6
1
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
EXTERIOR
PERSPECTIVE
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.06
P
6
2
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
EXTERIOR
PERSPECTIVE
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.07
P
6
3
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
EXTERIOR
PERSPECTIVE
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.08
P
6
4
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
EXISTING
OVERLAY
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.09
P
6
5
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
LOWER LEVEL
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.10
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
STAIR 2
ELEVATOR
MECH.
LODGE STORAGE
STAIR 1
PARKING GARAGE
CAR LIFT
LODGE MECHANICAL
ELEVATOR
EMPLOYEE R/R
LU.20
LU.17
LU.18
LU.19
F
EMPLOYEE
LOUNGE
LU.23
LU.23
LU.21LU.21
LU.22
LU.22
P
6
6
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
MAIN LEVEL
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.11
F F F F
F UP
U
P
W
W
W W
LU.20
LU.17
LU.18
LU.19
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
WETBAR WETBAR
UNIT 103
MGMNT
VALET
BATH
UNIT 102
BATH
UNIT 107
LIBRARY
BATH
UNIT 203
UNIT 204
HOUSE
KEEPING
WETBAR WETBAR
WETBAR
STAIR 2
BATH
BATH
BATH
BATH
BATH
F
F
LU.23
LU.23
OPEN TO BELOW
OPEN TO
STAIR BELOW
OPEN TO
STAIR BELOW
DN
D
N
UNIT 101
WETBAR
WETBAR
LU.21LU.21
LU.22
LU.22
P
6
7
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
PARK LEVEL
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.12
OPEN TO
STAIR BELOW
OPEN TO
STAIR BELOW
UP
DW
RG DW
R
G
W
W
W
LU.20
LU.17
LU.18
LU.19
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
UNIT 204
STORAGE
UNIT 203
STORAGE
F F
F
OPEN TO
STAIR BELOW
LU.23
LU.23
DW
F
LU.21LU.21
LU.22
LU.22
GAS
OPEN TO BELOW
HOUSE-
KEEPING
P
6
8
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
UPPER LEVEL
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.13
OPEN TO
STAIR BELOW
OPEN TO
STAIR BELOW
U
P
LU.20
LU.17
LU.18
LU.19
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 1
ELEVATOR
HALL
UNIT 301
STAIR
BATH
BATH
DECK
DECK
DECK
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
F
W
DW
W
LU.23
LU.23
LU.21LU.21
LU.22
LU.22
F
DW
FP
P
6
9
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
ROOFTOP
LEVEL
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.14
F
OPEN TO
STAIR BELOW
U
P
UP
LU.20
LU.17
LU.18
LU.19
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
STAIR 1
LU.23
LU.23
LU.21LU.21
LU.22
LU.22
P
7
0
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
ROOF PLAN
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.15
F
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
WALL BELOW
DECK BELOW
0:12
0:12
0:120:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12 8:12
0:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
0:12
0:12
8:12
P
7
1
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
PROPOSED SITE
PLAN
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.16
F
U
P
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
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
N
P
7
2
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
WEST
ELEVATION
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.17
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINE
MIXED WEATHERED WOOD
WIRE RAILING
GLASS 132'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
132'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
137'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
137'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
138'-6"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
WOOD SIDING
WIRE RAILING
PLASTER FINISH
124'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE
124'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE
138'-6"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
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
3
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
NORTH
ELEVATION
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.18
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINE
132'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
132'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK
121'-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
137'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
137'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
MIXED WEATHERED WOOD
WIRE RAILING
GLASS
WOOD SIDING
WIRE RAILING
PLASTER FINISH
124'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE
124'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE
138'-6"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
138'-6"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
100'-0" = 7896'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
HISTORIC GRADE
FINISH GRADE
P
7
4
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
EAST
ELEVATION
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.19
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINE
132'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
132'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
137'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
137'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
WOOD SIDING
WIRE RAILING
GLASS
MIXED WEATHERED WOOD
WIRE RAILING
PLASTER FINISH
124'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE
124'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE
138'-6"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
138'-6"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
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
5
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
SOUTH
ELEVATION
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.20
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINE
MIXED WEATHERED WOOD
WIRE RAILING
GLASS
132'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
132'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK
121'-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
137'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
137'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
WIRE RAILING
PLASTER FINISH
WOOD SIDING
124'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE
124'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE
138'-6"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
138'-6"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
FINISH GRADE
HISTORIC GRADE
100'-0" = 7896'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
P
7
6
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
SECTIONS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.21
132'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
132'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK
121'-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
124'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE
124'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE
137'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
137'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
138'-6"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
138'-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
MAIN ENTRY/VALET HALL HOUSE-
KEEPING
UNIT 202 LOUNGE LOBBY ENTRY
UNIT 301 HALL UNIT 301
RESTROOM
LU.21 NORTH SECTION
P
7
7
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
SECTIONS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.22
132'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
132'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK
121'-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
137'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
137'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
124'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE
124'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE
138'-6"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
138'-6"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
PARKING GARAGE
100'-0" = 7896'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
FINISH GRADE
FINISH GRADE
UNIT 302
UNIT 302
STAIR
STAIR HALL
LIBRARY UNIT 204
UNIT 204
UNIT 102
LU.23 SOUTH SECTION
P
7
8
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
SECTIONS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.23
132'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
132'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK
121'-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
137'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
137'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
124'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE
124'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE
138'-6"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
138'-6"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
100'-0" = 7896'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
FINISH GRADE
LODGE STORAGE PARKING GARAGE
CAR LIFTUNIT 105 HALL
HALL
HALL
GAME LOUNGE / BAR HOUSEKEEPING
UNIT 302
UNIT 301 CLOSET
LIBRARY
REST
ROOM
LU.24 EAST SECTION
P
7
9
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
WEST HEIGHT
COMPARISON
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.24
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINE
PARK CENTRAL WEST
PEAK @ 7933'-8" (32' -0")
208 HOPKINS PEAK @ 7932'-5" (32'-6")
116 ASPEN ST. PEAK @ 7929'-8" (32'-8")
214 HOPKINS PEAK @ 7935'-10" (32'-0")
SIDEWALK @ 7897'-0"
ENTRY @ 7897'-0"
ALLEY @ 7904'-0"
SIDEWALK @ 7897'-0"
ALLEY @ 7906'-6"
P
8
0
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
EAST HEIGHT
COMPARISON
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.25
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINE
PARK CENTRAL WEST
PEAK @ 7933'-8" (32'-0")
208 HOPKINS PEAK @ 7932'-5" (32'-6")
116 ASPEN ST. PEAK @ 7929'-8" (32'-8")
214 HOPKINS PEAK @ 7935'-10" (32'-0")
SIDEWALK @ 7903'-8"SIDEWALK @ 7905'-0"
ALLEY @ 7907'-6"
P
8
1
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
HEIGHTS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.26
F
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
1
1615
12
11
6 5 4
3
2
7
2021
19
18
23
14
22
13
10
17
9
8
BUILDING OUTLINE
AT GRADE
15' OFFSET
OUTLINE OF PERIMETER
WALL BELOW ROOF
Elevation Label Elevation of Historic Grade Elevation of Proposed Grade Most Restrictive Roof Height over
Topography
Actual Roof Height over
Most Restrictive
1 7906'-9 1/2"7906'-6"PROPOSED 7926-'9 1/4"20'-3 1/4"
2 7906'-6"7906'-6"HISTORIC 7928'-2 1/8"21'-8 1/8"
3 7906'-2 1/2"7906'-6"HISTORIC 7928'-2 1/4"21'-11 3/4"
4 7901-10 1/2"7901'-6"PROPOSED 7926'-9 1/4"25'-3 1/4"
5 7901'-8"7901'-6"HISTORIC 7928'-6 1/2"26'-10 1/2"
6 7900'-8"7901'-2 3/8"PROPOSED 7928'-11 3/8"27'-9"
7 7899'-9 1/2"7900'-4 1/2"PROPOSED 7930'-4 1/2"30'-0"
8 7900'-8"N/A HISTORIC 7924'-10"24'-2"
9 7901'-6"N/A HISTORIC 7933'-0"31'-6"
10 7900'-10 1/2"7900'-10 1/2"HISTORIC 7927'-1/2"26'-2"
11 7901'-1"7901'-1"HISTORIC 7928'-7 3/4"27'-6 3/4"
12 7901'-10 1/8"7901'-10 1/8"HISTORIC 7928'-8 1/8"26'-10"
13 7901'-8"7901'-8"HISTORIC 7929'-11 3/4"28'-3 3/4"
14 7903'-4"N/A PROPOSED 7933'-0"29'-8"
15 7905'-2"7905'-2 1/8"HISTORIC 7932'-0"26'-10"
16 7922'-4"7921'-6"HISTORIC 7948'-8 1/2"26'-4 1/2"
17 7906'-0"7906'-6"PROPOSED 7934'-6"28'-6"
18 7896'-11"7906'-6"PROPOSED 7931'-9"25'-3"
19 7896'-11"7906'-6"PROPOSED 7931'-6 3/8"25'- 3/8"
20 7896'-10"7906'-11"PROPOSED 7939'-3"32'-4" (OVERRUN)
21 7902'-6"N/A HISTORIC 7941'-9"35'-3" (OVERRUN)
22 7902'-6"N/A HISTORIC 7928'-6"26'-0"
23 7903'-3"N/A HISTORIC 7934'-6"31'-3"
Height Over Topography (Proposed)
200 S. Aspen Street
HEIGHTS OVER TOPOGRAPHY
P
8
2
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN EXISTING
SUBGRADE
WALL CALCS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.27
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 4,410.91
AHU (2:1) 17,940 895.88 1,381.10
Free Market (.50:1) 4,485 ------4,341.15
Cumulative (2:1) 17940 10,901.91 10,133.16
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
3
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN EXISTING
FLOOR AREA
CALCS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.28
Allowable Limit (Sq Ft)Existing (Sq Ft)Proposed (Sq Ft)
Lodge (.75:1) 8,970 10,006.03 4,732.72
AHU (2:1) 17,940 895.88 1,637.43
Free Market (.50:1) 4,485 ------4,484.78
Cumulative (2:1) 17940 10,901.91 10,854.93
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
867.00 sq ft
491.25 sq ft
565.25 sq ft
355.00 sq ft
186.75 sq ft
2,336.50 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
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
4
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN EXISTING NET
LEASABLE
PLANS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.29
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
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
2,254.75 sq ft
532.25 sq ft
458.75 sq ft
180.00 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
Allowable Limit (Sq Ft)Existing (Sq Ft)Proposed (Sq Ft)
Lodge ------10,888.93 11,040.65
AHU ------1,195.07 2,826.30
Free Market ------------5,555.55
Cumulative ------12,084.00 19,422.50
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 & Net Livable Summary
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
5
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN PROPOSED
GROSS AREA
CALCS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.30
45.50 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
4,192.75 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 TOSTAIR BELOW
2,760.75 sq ft
143.00 sq ft
73.75 sq ft
990.25 sq ft170.50 sq ft
184.75 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
STAIR BELOW
2,150.75 sq ft
1,902.00 sq ft
1,064.50 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 TOSTAIR BELOW
OPEN TO BELOW
OPEN TO
STAIR BELOW
1,723.75 sq ft
566.50 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
1,723.75 ------------
566.50 ------------
------------------
Total Subgrade Level Unit Area by use 2,290.25 0.00 0.00
Lodge AHU Free Market
1,902.00 1,064.50 ------
2,150.75 ------------
------------------
Total Entry Level Unit Area by use 4,052.75 1,064.50 0.00
Lodge AHU Free Market
2,760.75 990.25 143.00
170.50 184.75 73.75
Total Second Level Unit Area by use 2,931.25 1,175.00 216.75
Lodge AHU Free Market
------------4,192.75
Total Third Level Unit Area by use 0.00 0.00 4,192.75
Lodge AHU Free Market
------------45.50
Total Roof Level Unit Area by use 0.00 0.00 45.50
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)
Total Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Gross Area (Sq Ft)
UPPER LEVEL
ROOF DECK LEVEL
4,455.00
Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category
Gross Summary
9,274.25
2,239.50
4,455.00
9,274.25
2,239.50
Gross Unit Area (Proposed)
200 S. Aspen Street
22,232.75
Percentage (%)
58.08%
14.02%
27.90%
100.00%
n/a
n/a
Square Feet (Sq Ft)
MAIN LEVEL
LOWER LEVEL
PARK LEVEL
15,968.75
6,264.00
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
8
6
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN PROPOSED
SUBGRADE
WALL CALCS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.31
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Lower Level unit area totals by use 2,249.75 ------------3,886.00
Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed -2,249.75 -------------3,886.00
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 3,953.00 1,063.25 ------913.75
Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed -2,723.32 -732.50 -------629.50
Main Level FAR totals by use 1,229.68 330.75 0.00 284.25
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Park Level unit area totals by use 2,892.50 1,159.25 225.50 767.00
Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed ------------------------
Park Level FAR totals by use 2,892.50 1,159.25 225.50 767.00
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Upper Level unit area totals by use ------------3,920.75 ------
Upper Level FAR totals by use 0.00 0.00 3,920.75 0.00
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Roof Deck Level unit area totals by use ------------45.25 ------
Roof Deck Level FAR totals by use 0.00 0.00 45.25 0.00
Square Feet (Sq Ft)
Gross Lodge (Sq Ft)9,274.25
Gross AHU (Sq Ft)2,239.50
Gross Free Market (Sq Ft)4,455.00
Total Unit Floor Area (Sq Ft) excludes non-unit area 15,968.75
Non-Unit Area Subgrade Exemption Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)3,886.00 -3,886.00 0.00
Main Level (Sq Ft)913.75 -629.50 284.25
Park Level (Sq Ft)767.00 0.00 767.00
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Roof Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
-4,515.50
1,051.25
Lodge Floor Area Non-Unit @ 58.08%Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Main Level (Sq Ft)1,229.68 165.08 1,394.76
Park Level (Sq Ft)2,892.50 445.45 3,337.95
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Roof Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
610.54
Total Lodge FAR (Sq Ft)4,732.72
AHU Floor Area Non-Unit @14.02%Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Main Level (Sq Ft)330.75 39.86 370.61
Park Level (Sq Ft)1,159.25 107.57 1,266.82
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Roof Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
147.43
Total Affordable Housing Unit FAR (Sq Ft)1,637.43
Free Market Floor Area Non-Unit @ 27.9%Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Main Level (Sq Ft)0.00 79.30 79.30
Park Level (Sq Ft)225.50 213.98 439.48
Upper Level (Sq Ft)3,920.75 0.00 3,920.75
Roof Level (Sq Ft)45.25 0.00 45.25
293.28
Total Free Market FAR (Sq Ft)4,484.78
Total FAR (Sq Ft)10,854.93
Allowable Limit (Sq Ft)Existing (Sq Ft)Proposed (Sq Ft)
Lodge (.75:1) 8,970 9,081.60 4,732.72
AHU (2:1) 17,940 342.86 1,637.43
Free Market (.50:1) 4,485 0.00 4,484.78
Cumulative (2:1) 17,940 9,424.46 10,854.93
200 S. Aspen Street
FAR (Proposed)
UPPER LEVEL
ROOF DECK LEVEL
PARK LEVEL
MAIN LEVEL
LOWER LEVEL
58.08%
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)
100.00%
14.02%
27.90%
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)
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)
1 841.75 0.00 841.75
2 961.50 0.00 961.50
3 841.75 0.00 841.75
4 961.50 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
5 403.00 135.25 267.75
6 7.00 2.75 4.25
7 86.25 35.50 50.75
8 7.00 3.25 3.75
9 163.00 97.50 65.50
10 134.25 119.50 14.75
11 40.00 35.50 4.50
12 161.50 143.75 17.75
13 40.00 35.50 4.50
14 72.50 57.75 14.75
15 7.00 4.00 3.00
16 113.25 57.75 55.50
17 7.00 3.25 3.75
18 289.75 88.00 201.75
19 662.00 0.00 662.00
20 768.00 102.00 666.00
Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft)2,961.50
Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)921.25
% of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)31.11%
Unexposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)2,040.25
% of Unexposed Wall (Unexposed / Total)68.89%
14.75 sq ft
119.50 sq ft
55.50 sq ft
57.75 sq ft
267.75 sq ft
135.25 sq ft 35.50 sq ft
50.75 sq ft
97.50 sq ft
65.50 sq ft4.25 sq ft
2.75 sq ft
3.75 sq ft
3.25 sq ft 88.00 sq ft
201.75 sq ft
3.00 sq ft
4.00 sq ft
3.75 sq ft
3.25 sq ft19.75 sq ft
14.75 sq ft
11
'
-
7
"
72'-8"83'-0"
72'-8"83'-0"
4'-45/8"17'-93/8"4'-45/8"14'-93/8"
11
'
-
7
"
9'
-
1
"
9'
-
3
"
44'-43/8"
71'-361/64"82'-813/32"
91/4"9'-6"91/4"17'-93/4"3'-95/8"91/4"12'-5"91/4"31'-1025/32"
841.75 sq ft 961.50 sq ft
841.75 sq ft 961.50 sq ft
35.50 sq ft 143.75 sq ft 35.50 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
019 020
001 002
003 004
011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018
4.50 sq ft 17.75 sq ft 4.50 sq ft
PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL AND MAIN LEVEL SUBGRADE WALL CALCULATIONS
P
8
7
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN PROPOSED
FLOOR AREA
CALCS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.32
45.25 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
3,920.75 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 TOSTAIR BELOW
2,724.00 sq ft
146.50 sq ft
79.00 sq ft
500.00 sq ft
978.25 sq ft168.50 sq ft
767.00 sq ft
181.00 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 TO BELOW
005
020
019
018
013
012
011
010
015
014
016
017
006
007
008
009
2,083.25 sq ft
1,869.75 sq ft
1,063.25 sq ft
913.75 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
STAIR BELOW
OPEN TO BELOW
3,886.00 sq ft
1,683.25 sq ft
566.50 sq ft
004
001
003
002
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
8
8
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN PROPOSED NET
LEASABLE
PLANS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.33
40.00 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
529.00 sq ft1,673.50 sq ft
1,687.75 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 TOSTAIR BELOW
401.00 sq ft 455.00 sq ft
457.25 sq ft
659.25 sq ft
79.00 sq ft
152.50 sq ft
758.00 sq ft
71.25 sq ft
68.75 sq ft
1,521.75 sq ft
144.00 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
348.00 sq ft
453.00 sq ft
457.00 sq ft
342.00 sq ft 345.00 sq ft 338.50 sq ft
123.75 sq ft
542.25 sq ft
350.25 sq ft
555.00 sq ft
389.25 sq ft
79.25 sq ft70.75 sq ft888.00 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
OPEN TO BELOW
1,554.50 sq ft
488.75 sq ft
153.50 sq ft
275.75 sq ft
246.00 sq ft
3,149.50 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
Net Leasable & Net Livable (Proposed)
200 S. Aspen Street
Lodge (Livable)AHU (Livable)Free Market (Livable)Non-Unit
1554.50 ------------153.50
488.75 ------------275.75
------------------246.00
------------------3,149.50
Lower Level area totals by use 2,043.25 0.00 0.00 3,824.75
Lodge (Livable)AHU (Livable)Free Market (Livable)Non-Unit
123.75 453.00 ------888.00
70.75 457.00 ------------
342.00 ------------------
345.00 ------------------
338.50 ------------------
348.00 ------------------
79.25 ------------------
542.25 ------------------
389.25 ------------------
555.00 ------------------
350.25 ------------------
Main Level area totals by use 3,484.00 910.00 0.00 888.00
Lodge (Livable)AHU (Livable)Free Market (Livable)Non-Unit
1,521.75 455.00 144.00 758.50
659.25 457.25 79.00 ------
401.00 71.25 ------------
152.50 68.75 ------------
Park Level area totals by use 2,734.50 1,052.25 223.00 758.50
Lodge (Livable)AHU (Livable)Free Market (Livable)Non-Unit
------------1,673.50 ------
------------1,687.75 ------
------------529.00 ------
Upper Level area totals by use 0.00 0.00 3,890.25 0.00
Lodge (Livable)AHU (Livable)Free Market (Livable)Non-Unit
------------40.00 ------
Roof Deck Level area totals by use 0.00 0.00 40.00 0.00
Area totals by use 8,261.75 1,962.25 4,153.25 5,471.25
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 @ 0.5808 Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)2,221.32 4,264.57
Main Level (Sq Ft)515.73 3,999.73
Park Level (Sq Ft)440.52 3,175.02
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00
Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00
Total Lodge Net Livable (Sq Ft)11,439.31
Non-Unit @ 0.1402 Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)536.39 536.39
Main Level (Sq Ft)124.54 1,034.54
Park Level (Sq Ft)106.37 1,158.62
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00
Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00
Total ADU Net Livable (Sq Ft)2,729.55
Non-Unit @ 0.279 Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)1,067.04 1,067.04
Main Level (Sq Ft)247.74 247.74
Park Level (Sq Ft)211.61 434.61
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 3,890.25
Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)0.00 40.00
Total ADU Net Livable (Sq Ft)5,679.63
100.00%15,968.75
ROOF DECK LEVEL
UPPER LEVEL
14.02%2,239.50
58.08%9,274.25
Percentage (%)Gross Square Feet (Sq Ft)
Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category (referenced from “Gross Unit Area” chart)
4,455.00 27.90%
0.00
AHU (Livable)
AHU Net Livable
Lodge Net Livable
0.00
2,734.50
0.00
Free Market (Livable)
0.00
0.00
1,052.25
910.00
PARK LEVEL
MAIN LEVEL
LOWER LEVEL
Free Market Net Livable
40.00
3,890.25
223.00
0.00
0.00
Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Non-Unit Floor Area per Level
Lodge (Livable)
2,043.25
3,484.00
0.00
0.00
758.50
888.00
3,824.75
5,471.25
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
8
9
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
AHU MITIGATION
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.34
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 908.00 2.25
2-BD Unit 914.25 2.25
Total Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,822.25
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 3,543.50 30%1,063.05 1.00 2.66
Employees Generated 2.66
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 4.28
Total Mitigation Credit Calculation
Employees Generated
Total Employees Mitigated 4.50
Total Employees Generated 4.28
Additional Credits Required -0.22
P
9
0
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
PUBLIC
AMENITY PLANS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
LU.35
PROPOSED PUBLIC AMENITY SPACE =
2,215.5 SF
24.7% OF LOT AREA
EXISTING SITE AMENITY PLAN PROPOSED SITE AMENITY PLAN
P
9
1
V
I
.
A
.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission September 15, 2015
Mr. Ryan Walterscheid, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30
PM with members Keith Goode, Jason Elliott, Skippy Mesirow, Jasmine Tygre, Brian McNellis, Jesse
Morris and Spencer McKnight.
Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn and Jennifer Phelan.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Mr. Goode commended Mr. Stan Gibbs for his service with P&Z and presented Mr. Gibbs with a
resolution #18, Series 2015, commending his service to the City of Aspen.
STAFF COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
MINUTES
Mr. Goode requested his name be corrected on the last page. Ms. Tygre moved to approve the minutes
for August 18th with the requested change. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mesirow. All in favor,
motion passed.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Walterscheid stated he will be recusing himself for the public hearing at tonight’s meeting because
he is the architect for the application.
200 S Aspen St – Hotel Lenado – Commercial Design Review – Continued
Public Hearing from April 7, 2015
Mr. Goode opened the continued public hearing for 200 S Aspen St – Hotel Lenado and asked if the
application had been properly noticed. Ms. Quinn replied she had reviewed the public notice and finds it
had been properly provided.
Ms. Phelan, Deputy Planning Director, opened with a review of the application. She stated the
application includes demolishing the hotel and replacing it with a mixed use building containing lodge
units, affordable housing units and free market residential units. The application had been tabled in
April to allow the applicant to adjust the design based on comments from Staff and P&Z. The applicant
provided notice to let the public know about tonight’s hearing.
Tonight’s modified proposal includes a four level building containing four lodge units and nine keys, two
free market residential units, two affordable housing units and 11 off street parking spaces. Two parking
spaces are provided off the alley and there is a lift providing access to the nine parking spaces in the
basement.
1
P92
VI.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission September 15, 2015
Overall, setbacks have increased and the building has been reduced in size. Due to the changes there
two reviews for P&Z to consider including a conceptual commercial design review for the design of the
building and a growth management review for the construction of the lodge units, affordable housing
and the free market.
In regards to the growth management review, the current application includes nine keys down from the
19 keys offered by the existing hotel. With the new configuration, the lodge mitigation is 1.62 Full Time
Employees (FTEs). The mitigation associated with the free market residential units is 2.53 FTEs based on
the sf of the proposed units on the top floor. The total requirement totals 4.15 FTEs. The application
proposes two affordable housing units, each with two bedrooms. These two units will mitigate 4.5 FTEs
which meets the mitigation requirements onsite. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA)
recommends the affordable housing units be rental units at a category two. Staff reports the size of the
units are a bit small for category four units as required by the land use code for mitigation and the units
are larger than what is required for category two units. Staff recommends one unit be designated as a
for sale unit because it is not part of the mitigation associated with the lodge.
Next, she discussed the conceptual commercial design review for the application. The property is
located in the Small Lodge Character Area. The key objectives for the area include:
1. Compatibility with neighborhood context
2. Creating a distinctive lodge experience for a sense of being in a neighborhood and to relate to
the context with the design of the building
3. Enhancing the street edge
4. Minimizing the visual impact of cars
With regard to the street and alley system, the changes minimize the presence of any type of parking.
All the parking is along the alley and enclosed. Staff is a bit concerned regarding the wall of garage doors
created by the garages along the alley.
With regard to public amenity space, Staff realizes the slope of the lot makes it tricky for development.
There have been improvements connecting with the natural grade to the building. There are fewer
retaining walls on the site. The public amenity space is located along the park as a walkway along
Hopkins and also along Aspen St. Staff feels there have been improvements with the topography in the
latest design and they would like to see a bit more work to create amenity space connected to the
sidewalk and work with the topography more. The entry is still sunken and there could be more work
focused on the corner of Hopkins and Aspen to create a more inviting, animated public amenity space.
One of the conceptual reviews includes the building height, mass and scale. This includes the building,
how it placed on the site and the form it takes. Although the building is smaller in the most recent
application, Staff is still concerned the design has an office feel to the design and the height of 32 ft
being requested would be granted through the commercial design review. Staff feels the height should
remain at 28 ft in height because of the residential character in the neighborhood. Staff also feels the
massing and façade along Hopkins does not relate well to the historic structures and residential
character across the street.
Ms. Phelan then identified the neighborhood context being more residential in character by describing
the neighboring buildings by moving around the project along Hopkins, Aspen and the alley which
2
P93
VI.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission September 15, 2015
include Victorian residences, the Hearthstone lodge, and multi-family buildings. In regards to
neighborhood context, there are residences directly across on Hopkins.
Mr. Goode asked if there were any questions of Staff.
Ms. Tygre asked if the zoned district allowances described on p 14 of the packet reflect the Lodge
Preservation (LP) Overlay or only the Mixed Use (MU) zone district. Ms. Phelan confirmed only the MU
zone district is considered for the application. Ms. Phelan stated the LP overlay is utilized through the
Planned Development process to ask for something beyond.
Mr. Morris asked how the maximum height of the existing building relates to the maximum height of the
proposed building. Ms. Phelan stated she does not have the information for the existing building. She
also stated measurements are different based on the type of roof line.
Mr. Mesirow asked what the maximum amount of floor area is allowed for the project. Ms. Phelan
replied it is calculated at a 2:1 ratio and for the 9,000 sf lot, 18,000 sf of floor area would be allowed.
Mr. Mesirow asked if Staff has any comment regarding the nine parking spaces which is more than what
is required. Ms. Phelan stated the parking requirements are met with the underground parking, so the
two spaces at the alley level could be a reduction in mass or repurposed for something else. Staff does
not have strong feelings regarding the parking, but does feel there is an opportunity to reduce the mass.
Mr. Goode turned the floor over to the applicant.
Mr. Steev Wilson, Forum Phi, is representing the applicant.
Mr. Wilson stated they had visited owners of some of the adjacent properties to obtain support of the
redevelopment application. He presented a petition signed by some owners which was accepted as
Exhibit O.
Mr. Wilson stated the application proposes to replace the existing lodge with a new one having nine
units averaging 437 sf per unit which he said relates to the clicker sessions in which people requested
larger, more luxurious units not offered in the current hotel.
He then reviewed the changes between the previous and current applications. The current application
includes two free market residences, down from the previous application. The onsite affordable housing
is increased in the current application. The current application adds a new sidewalk along Aspen St and
Hopkins Ave respecting the existing cottonwoods based on conversations with the Parks department.
The public amenity space has been enhanced from 1,332 sf (about 14%) to 2,319 sf (about 26%). The
minimum requirement is 25% or with a nonconformity greater than 10%, can be maintained. A
community lounge which walks out to the park is included to encourage mingling between the lodge
unit guests and the residential components. The current application also includes nine subgrade parking
spaces with the additional two spaces above. They are no longer requesting any variances.
He then reviewed the floor area ratios. The lodge component has been reduced, the affordable housing
has been increased and the free market is all above grade. He added the total FAR is pretty far under
what is allowed. The FAR amounts are documented on page 90 of the agenda packet.
3
P94
VI.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission September 15, 2015
In regards to the zone district, Mr. Wilson showed slides depicting the zone district of the property and
surrounding neighbors, the elevation of the existing Hotel Lenado, elevations of the proposed new
hotel. He then showed floor plans of the proposed hotel as described below.
Lower level
Parking
Lodge Storage (beds, change outs, etc.)
Employee lounge
Storage for the employee housing units
Mechanical
Main level
Main entry – traditionally a sunken entry and is now within a foot to grade
Lower level of employee housing units
Management valet
Library
Lodge units
Park level – adjacent to the park
Public amenity space
Main level of the employee housing units
Two free market garages – may also be used for shuffling spaces for lower garage
Car lift
Trash enclosure – no variance requested
Game lounge / bar
Upper level
Two free market units under 2,000 sf limit with perimeter decks
Rooftop level
Shared deck available to free market units only
Mr. Wilson stated each of employee housing units will have two bedrooms. The applicant would prefer
to keep these as for rent units. He also noted they are going over on their employee housing unit
requirements. The project requires 4.51 units and they do not plan to take cash-in-lieu for the extra .35
units of FTE. The applicant feels it is important to have the employees living onsite.
Mr. Wilson remarked the changes to the parking from the previous application which had six spaces.
The current application includes 11 spaces. There are no impacts to the street with the current parking
plan.
Mr. Wilson displayed a slide outlining the minimum and proposed setbacks. The front yard has 10 ft plus
another 15 ft of right-of-way before you reach the pavement. This allows room for a sidewalk that
should not impact the trees too much.
4
P95
VI.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission September 15, 2015
Mr. Wilson stated the previous plan provided only 14.8 sf of public amenity space. The new application
plans for 26.25 sf even though the code only requires the plan to exceed 14.8%. He further discussed
how the area in front of the entry has been flattened out to create a public amenity space distinct from
the building. He feels the proposed space provides a nice inviting streetscape environment.
He then displayed a landscape plan showing the plans in relation to the topography.
Mr. Wilson then displayed an elevation slide of the front of the proposed hotel and discussed the 32 ft
height request for the building. The entry corner must be depressed in order to be at street level and
this is the portion of the building that reaches 32 ft.
From a slide of the elevation of the building facing Hopkins on p 81 of the packet, he also pointed out a
lower portion of the building respecting the traditional 60 ft width, then a large vertical element to
break up the building followed by another 30 ft width of building. The window patterns identify where
the rooms are located and give an idea of the width of the building.
Mr. Wilson then provided a slide to compare the proposed buildings to the roof lines of the neighboring
buildings. He feels the proposed building respects the neighborhood. Although P&Z previously asked the
applicant to consider gable roof lines, the applicant is interested in a contemporary building.
He then showed an overlay slide comparing the current hotel to the proposed hotel. The proposed hotel
is stepped in all the way around the building which makes the existing building look much larger on the
corners. The new design with dropped corners also respects the view planes from the neighboring
properties and provides a more residential look to the building.
He then showed slides of the neighboring buildings including those zoned mixed use, a small pocket of
Commercial (C-1), Lodge, Residential Multi-Family (RMF) and a sliver of Medium-Density Residential (R-
6). He noted the number of stories (1-3) and the general height of the neighboring buildings. He also
noted a transition in the neighborhood going from flat roofed buildings to Victorians.
He noted the geometric forms and primary colors of the proposed hotel provide something more linear
and will match anything in Aspen.
In closing he feels the current application addresses the previous comments from P&Z, Staff and the
public.
Mr. Goode asked if there were any questions for the applicant.
Ms. Tygre asked for a confirmation of the total sf of the allocated to the hotel units, which she
calculated at approximately 1,750 sf. Mr. Wilson responded the lodge FAR is 4,333 sf. Ms. Phelan asked
Ms. Tygre if she wanted the sf of the actual units themselves at which Ms. Tygre confirmed. Ms. Phelan
responded she had included a footnote on page 16 of the memo in the agenda packet stating there is
3,937 sf lodge net livable / 9 lodge units (keys) calculates to 437 sf net livable per unit. Ms. Tygre
believed there were only four units. Ms. Phelan stated the units have lock offs and could become nine
units or keys.
Mr. Mesirow believed the original proposal mentioned utilizing the guidelines or directions from the
Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) around lodging goals of the community. He asked how the proposal
5
P96
VI.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission September 15, 2015
upholds the goals and principles of the AACP. Mr. Wilson acknowledged the concerns regarding losing
lodge space in Aspen and that creating lodges with larger rooms including the amenities that people
desire to increase the overall Aspen experience. He said the team went back and forth regarding what
the new building should be including residential mixed-family (RMF), a single family home, or a duplex.
The team decided the site wants to have a small lodge built on it that is a boutique hotel with really nice
rooms with a mixed experience of free market, visitors and employees.
Mr. Mesirow stated he sees a move now for combinable rooms to be rented out a higher dollar and
higher floor area, penthouses moving to the top and being inaccessible. He asked if the intangibles of
the intent of the AACP and guidelines are being further met in the current iteration of the application.
Mr. Wilson stated they received input from P&Z and Staff and felt there was a reasonably large
believability issue that the lifestyle lodge presented in the previous application which included even
more mix and mingle to embrace Mr. Mesirow’s concerns. They felt in order to overcome the beliefs,
they needed to adopt more of a standard Aspen model.
Mr. McNellis asked Mr. Wilson to speak to the material being considered even though he realizes the
application is only seeking conceptual approval at this time. Mr. Wilson replied they are considering a
painted metal or stone, vertical barn board with residential character, and a durable finish around the
edge which may be a tile that is a negative cast of a barn board. They are also consider plaster on the
top sections and using glass railings to visually minimize the height of the building.
Mr. Mesirow asked about the change in materials from the previous application. Mr. Wilson stated
there was a bit of community feedback and felt they were pretty monolithic in their material palette and
they wanted to modulate the façade so the larger core section would be stone or metal to help
modulate façade component. He felt the current materials are more appropriate for the area.
Mr. Morris asked why the applicant wants two rental units vs one rental and one for sale unit. Mr.
Wilson stated the applicant would like to keep both units as rentals for their staff.
Mr. Morris stated he personally likes to see innovating applications eliminating parking, but understands
it is not feasible. He asked if they were to drop down to nine spaces from eleven spaces, where would
they drop the two spaces. Mr. Wilson stated lodges and hotels are never at a loss for storage areas. He
stated the two spaces would probably become storage spaces.
Mr. Morris asked to see the elevation slide depicting Ajax Mountain in the background. In Staff’s memo,
he felt this was the façade not treated with the character of the neighborhood. He said he wanted to
flag this for the other P&Z members.
Mr. Goode then closed the questions for the applicant and opened for public comment.
Ms. Ruth Carver lives directly across the street on the corner of Aspen and Hopkins. She questions the
use of the building with so few units. They are asking for commercial zoning, but they only have seven
hotel rooms which is less than half than what is allowed. She does not see this a viable hotel. She really
cares about the height and exterior of the building. Particularly on the Hopkins St side, her house was
built in 1976 and the other houses built there have a nod to Victorian design. She doesn’t feel the
building matches with the context of the neighborhood. She would prefer a lower height part on the
park side. She does not feel this area is residential and not commercial.
6
P97
VI.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission September 15, 2015
Ms. Barbara Young lives across the alley on the south side in Park Central West Condominiums. She is
happy the parking spaces have been redesigned. She does not feel the roof top deck needs to be as
large as it is for so many people (approximately 30). She also asked what would happen to the property
when it is sold. Could it be reconfigured?
Mr. Ernie Fyrwald has lived in Aspen for 35 years and was in the ski and tourism business for 28 years.
He stated there is no secret Aspen needs lodging. He feels this is an incredibly great location for a lodge
and implored P&Z to get it passed as quickly as possible. He feels it is walkable location so there should
not be any cars going in and out. The public amenity is wonderful and the Limelight has proven to be a
really nice resource for those staying there. The garage doors look a bit stark but feels they can be dealt
with from a design perspective. He also agrees the elevation from Hopkins is not too exciting and will
draw attention at night with all the windows and lights. Overall, he feels it is a great concept and
endorses the project.
Mr. Goode then closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Mr. Goode asked the applicant for any rebuttal.
In regards to reducing the corner of the building towards the park, Mr. Wilson stated they tried to move
the mass as much as possible from the sides to the middle of the building.
In regards to the capacity of the upper floor roof deck, Mr. Wilson stated the initial application had a
capacity near 80. With it adjusted to residential only space, the capacity was lowered to approximately
30.
Mr. Wilson stated they could address the garage doors with materials to make it disappear.
Mr. Goode then opened for commissioner comments and discussion.
Mr. McNellis likes the improvements on the application, especially the parking. He wonders if it would
be possible to raise the public amenity space to address Staff’s concerns. The sunken space privatizes it
and was wondering if it could be raised to the height of the retaining wall. He likes the corner space
across from the park. He does not feel the need to micro design the proposal and recognizes it is a
transitional area. He feels it is most important the building is a product of its time. He does not care for
buildings that are not old, but made to look old. He likes the mass in the middle of the building as well as
the modern contemporary design of this day and age. He generally approves the project.
Ms. Tygre feels the application has been greatly improved from the previous application. She does like
the additional parking and feels the garage doors are a minor thing that could be addressed. In regards
to the four principles of the design guidelines, she has problems with items one and two as listed on p
18 of the packet:
1. New development should be compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located. She feels
additional modifications to the application could make this happen.
2. Create a distinctive experience for lodging with a sense of being in a neighborhood. She feels it
will be challenging to have a contemporary design in a neighborhood with non-contemporary
designed buildings.
7
P98
VI.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission September 15, 2015
She feels the Hopkins side presents a monolithic experience and is not compatible with the
neighborhood context. Her major concern is the entrance on Aspen. It looks like a medical clinic with a
modern look associated with hi-tech medical clinics and does not provide a hotel experience. She
doesn’t feel they are major issues but cannot approve a project that is supposed to be a hotel that
doesn’t say hotel.
Mr. Mesirow appreciates the changes made with the new proposal. In regards to guidelines, he finds a
lot of difficulty with same guidelines identified by Ms. Tygre. He struggles with the mass and scale of the
building as well as the interaction within the building. He also feels this iteration of the building is a
significant step back in regards to providing lodge units. He also wanted to note the wood materials
from the previous application softened the touch and gave the building more of a mountain feel. He also
agrees with Mr. Morris in regards to the parking and would like to see the two extra spaces repurposed
as something of value to the lodge or a reduction in the mass.
Mr. Morris understands parking is a bigger issue than just this one building. He agrees with Ms. Tygre
and Mr. Mesirow and feels there is tension around the one façade of the building.
Mr. McKnight stated his thoughts follow along with the others. He understands the difficulty with the
site essentially on the line of the transitional area. Parking is not as big of a deal, but would like to see
creative solutions for the two extra spaces. He feels the building is beautifully designed and unique, but
so unique that it does not match the other buildings in the area. He also agrees with Ms. Tygre that it
looks a bit like an office building and doesn’t see it as a lodge.
Mr. Goode asked Staff if they had any rebuttal.
Mr. McKnight asked if Staff could respond regarding the differences between the options for the two
affordable units.
Ms. Phelan wanted to respond to Ms. Young’s comments. If someone wanted to do something different
in regards to the use of the building in the future, they may need to apply and be granted approval for
change to the use. For example, if they wanted to change it into duplex which has a much lower floor
area allowance, they would need to have the land use approval amended.
In regards to uses of the affordable housing unit, Ms. Phelan stated she would not speak for APCHA, but
Staff’s interpretation of the land use code includes a provision for design, location and housing units
being for sale units unless it is for a lodge. Lodges are encouraged to use units as employee housing. In
the past, the units were always rentals. Staff has seen instances where owners of mixed use buildings
wanted to use the units for nannies or other hired help and therefore the unit is not utilized for the
purpose for which it was created. The code was changed to have more for sale units so the intent would
be the units would actually be used for local working residents. Because there was a reduction in the
number of lodging units, basically one unit mitigates for the lodging component and the other unit
mitigates for the free market component. Based on the mitigation split, Staff is taking the position the
unit mitigating the free market component should be a for sale unit.
Mr. Mesirow also wanted to commend the applicant for including the units on site with the
development.
8
P99
VI.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission September 15, 2015
Mr. Goode prefers gabled roof lines, but feels the context with the neighborhood is most important. He
echoes Ms. Tygre’s comments. He also commends the applicant for including the parking and affordable
housing onsite. He would like to see more work on the design.
Mr. Goode stated based on the commissioners’ comments, P&Z recommends continuing the
application. Mr. Wilson felt they came in with a reduction in mass and an overabundance of things
lacking in the first application and seemed disappointed they are being asked to shell it down further. He
feels they will not be able to come in with the same perks next time if being asked to reduce the mass
again. Mr. Wilson stated they would take the continuation over a denial. Mr. Goode wanted to make
sure Mr. Wilson heard that most of the commission did not speak of issues regarding the request for the
32 ft in height. Mr. Goode reiterated most pointed out issues with the neighborhood context and asked
Mr. Wilson to keep that in mind.
Ms. Phelan offered September 29th or October 26th as continuation dates. Mr. Wilson felt the October
26th date would be better.
Ms. Tygre moved to continue the application until October 26th, seconded by Mr. Elliott. Ms. Phelan
corrected the date available to October 20th. Ms. Tygre amended her motion to have the hearing
continued until October 20th, seconded by Mr. Elliott. All in favor, motion passed.
Mr. Goode then closed the public hearing.
Mr. Goode then adjourned the meeting.
Cindy Klob
City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager
9
P100
VI.A.