HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20151117
AGENDA
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
REGULAR MEETING
November 17, 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 20, 2015 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 October 20, 2015
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
A. RDS code amendment check-in
B. Elevator overrun code amendment check-in
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 20, 2015
1
Mr. Walterscheid and Mr. Goode were not present so Mr. Skippy Mesirow served as the Acting Chair.
Mr. Mesirow called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with
members Jason Elliott, Spencer McKnight, Skippy Mesirow, Kelly McNicholas Kury and Jasmine Tygre.
Mr. Brian McNellis and Mr. Jesse Morris were not present for the meeting.
Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan, Sara Adams and Linda Manning.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Ms. Tygre wanted to bring up a matter involving interior lighting. At a meeting with Ms. Jessica Garrow,
Community Development, regarding prioritizing items for Council, Ms. Garrow stated a Council member
had brought the issue of interior lighting spilling outside of buildings. Ms. Tygre wanted to ask it would
be possible to have the buildings turn off or dim the green exit signs she finds are glaring outside of the
building after regular office hours. Ms. Tygre wanted to know if it was a safety requirement for the lights
to remain on. Ms. Phelan thought it may be a building code requirement. Ms. Tygre suggested code
changes could be made for the sign or the windows in the building to minimize the glare. Mr. Elliot
thought dimming the lights would not be an option because the signs must be bright enough to read in
smoke.
Mr. McKnight stated he met Ms. Michele Holden with the City’s Citizens Academy and she had asked to
be before the P&Z to introduce the academy and obtain feedback from the commission. Mr. McKnight
asked Ms. Phelan if she has heard from Ms. Holden. Ms. Phelan stated they both work at City Hall and
she is available if she wants to discuss getting on an agenda. Mr. Mesirow stated he would reach out to
Ms. Holden.
Mr. Mesirow wanted to let everyone know several groups in town NexGen, Aspen Young Professionals
Association (AYPA), Spring Board Aspen and others are teaming up on Wednesday, October 21 to host
an event starting at 5:30 pm at Ryno’s with free food and drinks with the intent to educate the public on
election issues. He encouraged everyone to attend and bring other folks with them.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Ms. Quinn informed P&Z the commission was named in a lawsuit filed by the Chateau Chaumont
Condominium Association as it relates to the Sky Hotel. She added none of the P&Z commission
members were named individually but the City is defending the case and filing motions to dismiss. She
added she is available if anyone has questions.
Ms. Manning, City Clerk, informed the commissioners as part of the Clerk’s 2015 Canary Goal to reduce
paper usage, the Clerk will be providing iPads to each commissioner for packet review. She noted the
Clerk’s office provides packets to City Council, P&Z, Historic Preservation and the Local Licensing
Authority and last year the office produced over 70,000 sheets of paper for the packets. The Clerk’s goal
is to reduce paper and eliminate greenhouse gases by the production and destruction of the paper by
reducing car trips through Aspen. The savings will amount to 350 car trips through Aspen per year. The
office will continue to provide oversized documents when provided by the applicant or requested by a
commissioner, but the packets will be on the iPad. She distributed user agreements to P&Z for them to
complete and return to the Clerk.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
P1
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2015
2
MINUTES
Mr. Mesirow asked for a correction to the 6th sentence on p 5, paragraph 5. Ms. Tygre moved to approve
the minutes for October 6th with the correction requested. The motion was seconded by Jason Elliott. All
in favor, motion passed.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There were no declarations.
200 S Aspen St (Hotel Lenado) – Commercial Design Review – Continued
Public Hearing
Mr. Mesirow opened the continued public hearing and turned the floor over to staff.
Ms. Sara Adams, Community Development Sr. Planner, reviewed the application standing in for Ms.
Jennifer Phelan during her absence. She noted the review had been continued from September
15th.meeting. The current application contains basically the same components including four lodge units,
nine keys, two onsite affordable housing units, and two free market residential units on the upper floor.
The project meets the required parking spaces and actually provides two extra spaces onsite.
The project meets the underlying zone district requirements so she will not review any dimensions.
Instead, she will focus on the design in her discussion. There are no variances requested but she will go
over the requested height increase from 28 ft to 32 ft which is allowed in the underlying zone district
through commercial design review.
The two reviews for the application are:
1) Conceptual Commercial Design Review
2) Growth Management Review
Ms. Adams stated Staff appreciate the movement in the architecture including the addition of gables
and trying to address a challenging site where the topography and trees are very complicated. Staff is
still concerned whether the design meets the neighborhood character and fits into this transitional
location going from Shadow Mountain residential area into a more commercial area. In reading the P&Z
minutes from the September, 2015 hearing, the discussion centered on the neighborhood character.
The location of the gables as part of the vertical towers added really increase the perception of the
building height as noted on p 9 of Staff’s memo. Staff is not sure if the roof form is total resolved at this
point and recommends the applicant and design team continue to strengthen the relationship of the
gables to the neighborhood.
Staff still has concerns with the Hopkins façade. She included an image on p 10 of the agenda packet
which shows a three story wall of windows doesn’t connect with the pedestrian experience or the
residences across the street on Hopkins Ave. Staff suggests adding an entry to the sidewalk or balconies
similar to the current building would contribute to the streetscape.
On p 10 of the agenda packet, Staff noted they are still concerned with the mass of the building. Ms.
Phelan had raised this concern at the September hearing questioning the need for over parking onsite
which adds mass. Placing the garage on the corner for the additional parking is visible and disconnects
the building from the pedestrian experience.
P2
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2015
3
In regards to the topography, Staff stated the Sky Hotel recently had similar topography issues and were
able to resolve the issues using ramps and retaining walls in the interior. Ms. Adams stated one of the
height increases is at the corner of Aspen and Hopkins. Staff suggests the applicant could meet the 28 ft
height limit by improving the relationship with the natural grade using internal ramping similar to the
design used for the Sky Hotel. On p 12 of the agenda packet, Ms. Adams noted she had highlighted some
of the retaining walls and grade changes Staff had a reaction to in regards to the height. The mixed use
zone district restricts height to 28 ft and applicants are allowed to request an increase up to 32 ft. Ms.
Adams included the review criteria to allow an increase to be granted on p 14 of Staff’s memo. Staff
feels 28 ft is appropriate and does not feel the criteria to support the request for increase to 32 ft have
been met. She noted the highlights on the drawing on p 13 of the areas over 28 ft. She stated the roof
undulates in areas and a lot of the building meets the 28 ft height limit. The circulation corridor to
access the roof top deck is part of the height increase. She noted there are height exceptions for stairs
and elevators, but Staff feels that by dropping the building, everything will come down in height. Staff
feels this is important for fitting in with the neighborhood context.
Ms. Adams noted Staff’s questions on p 14 of the packet regarding the intent of the floor plans and the
ability for the free market units to be combined into one large penthouse which would not meet the
zone district regulations. Staff does not question the integrity of the applicant or the application with
the paragraph on p 14, but they have an obligation to have a conversation and to offer the applicant an
opportunity to explain to P&Z and the community how they are not going to combine the two units into
one unit. She stated Staff feels obliged to discuss this matter especially when there are two units on one
floor.
In regards to growth management, she updated the numbers based on the changes from September to
the net livable calculations for the residential portion of the application. The floor plans provided in the
packet meet the growth management requirements even though the memo states the application is
about 20 sf short. The 20 sf shortage has been resolved and the requirement has been met. She added
she would need to make a couple of adjustments to the draft resolution if adopted at the meeting to
reflect the accurate numbers.
In conclusion, Staff recommends a continuation with points summarized on p 15 and 16 of the memo.
Staff feels the project is on the right path, but feels it could meet the criteria with just a little more work.
Mr. Mesirow asked if there were any questions of Staff.
Ms. McNicholas Kury asked what was served by the 35 ft height. Ms. Adams replied the architect may be
in a better position to answer her question.
Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if there are similar buildings along Hopkins Ave moving into the residential
area where they are oriented similar to the current and proposed Hotel Lenado building. Ms. Adams
stated there are none on that block or across the street which have the front of the building on the
shorter street portion of the lot. Ms. Adams noted across the street there are a number of landmarks
facing Hopkins which gave her the idea an entrance facing Hopkins side for the application may help
strengthen the relationship between the building and neighboring buildings across the street. Ms.
Adams stated similar instance do exist within Aspen, but she could not think of any in this area.
Ms. McNicholas Kury asked Ms. Adams how the height of the building could be lowered. Ms. Adams and
Ms. Phelan replied lowing the ceiling height could be one solution. Ms. Phelan stated the third floor has
higher floor to ceiling heights than some of the other floors in the building. Ms. Adams added the
proposed windows on the third floor along Hopkins starts to make the building look a bit top heavy.
P3
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2015
4
Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the changes would not compromise the above grade sf required for
growth management. Ms. Adams responded it should not and if the garages were eliminated, there
would be more sf to work with.
Mr. McNight asked what language could be built into the resolution to ensure the free market
residential units would not be combined in the future. Ms. Phelan replied that right now they are asking
the applicant for clarity and confirmation on the record regarding the expectations of how the units will
be operated. Ms. Phelan added there have been issues in the past where properties are being used
differently than how they are being approved. Ms. Adams stated getting the expectations on record is
important for now and then using enforcement if necessary in the future.
Mr. Mesirow asked if the placement of a door in this area requires an action or approval from the City at
which Ms. Phelan replied it would require a building permit.
Ms. Tygre asked if there was a way to apply a deed restriction as a condition of approval that the two
units could never be combined. Ms. Adams and Ms. Phelan stated it is inherent in the zoning because of
the caps for the size. Ms. Phelan stated the approvals do state they are two individual units. Ms. Quinn
added the deed restrictions would not add anything that the approvals do not already state.
Mr. Mesirow then turned the floor over to the applicant.
Mr. Steev Wilson, Forum Phi, represented the applicant. Mr. Wilson felt they have come a long way and
doing their best to respond to the commission’s comments from the last hearing.
The application replaces an existing lodge with a new one including
• two free market units,
• bringing it up to ANSI, IBC and ADA standards,
• replacing 17 units with 9 units,
• two affordable housing units,
• new sidewalks along Aspen St and Hopkins St
• a community lounge
• increased the public amenity space
• reduction in parking
The project is under on the floor area ratio by about 7,000 sf.
Mr. Wilson then pointed out where the project was located using a slide and discussed the surrounding
park and landmarks and noted it is in a transitional neighborhood.
Using slides of floor plans, Mr. Wilson then described what would be located on each level of the new
hotel.
Mr. Wilson provided slides of residential transitional gable elements, while keeping with a contemporary
look for the building. They also looked for materials providing more of a residential character.
He then provided slides of the overall building. They added a little sf to the entry and added a gable
form to create a more formal entry to the building. They also have cross gable elements, a smaller one
and one half, two story façade on the corners and then building up on the interior portion of the lot to
make up for the grade change.
P4
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2015
5
The new design reflects a mix of styles to break up the façade. He noted they depressed the corners of
the building which the public requested at the last meeting. They added gables on each side of the
building crossing toward the center of the building with low slope elements connecting through the
building. Mr. Wilson feels the community is used to seeing this type of design.
Mr. Wilson then discussed the rear of the building. The deep overhangs have been pulled back quite a
ways rather than have an empty parking lot along the alley. A walk out deck area has been added for
vibrancy.
Mr. Wilson next discussed the tricky grade transfer from the street up to the alley. They brought down
the corner of the building to respect the residential scale and then working the building up.
He then provided examples of nearby properties to demonstrate the neighborhood context. One
example was a two and on half story building with a historic single plate façade and a roof line
protruding over the second story.
Another example across the street includes a two and a quarter story building with a slight amount of
increase to the gable form on the second story. The center portions of the building have darker material
and is punched out.
Directly across the street from the entrance of the hotel, there is a single story entry element under a
gable. The proposed hotel entry mirrors this design. Mr. Wilson feels it would be very adhoc to
shoehorn the entry element into the diagonal parking on the other side of the building. The design team
feels it is natural to keep the entrance on the side of the building where it currently exists.
Mr. Wilson then discussed the rear side of the building on the alley using slides. The neighboring
buildings are large three story with flat roofs.
Mr. Wilson then provided an image depicting the points of the building where it is below the 28 ft height
limit. They are trying to keep the perimeter of the building below the height limit.
He then displayed the street facing façade of the building on Aspen St. He pointed out the planters and
walls noting they are all within 30 in of grade. They tried to minimize the number of retaining walls and
tried to make them benches and planters to bring vibrancy to the façade. The front façade is below 28
ft. The balconies have been changed from glass to traditional horizontal steel.
He then described the Hopkins facing façade. This façade is also under the height limit. They are trying
to keep the gable roof form as the predominate feature on each façade to play into the neighborhood
context. He said it is similar for the park side and the alley side.
Mr. Wilson then discussed how they wanted to break up the mass of the building. He stated the
traditional block structure of Aspen doesn’t run the direction of the building towards the park. The
design includes large elements that fall within the cadence. As you face Hopkins, they felt it was more
important to break up the façade into a 28 ft section on the far left, the center section which is nearly 30
ft repeating the gable and offset area, and then the Aspen side remains as it has always been. On the
park side, they break up the façade to bring more gables to make the building more pedestrian friendly.
Mr. Wilson then provide a slide comparing the height of the proposed building to the neighboring
structures and noting how the building steps down to match the topography.
P5
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2015
6
He also provided a slide comparing the proposed building to the existing building noting the corners
have been reduced in height. He noted this change was in response to the neighbor’s previous
comments to be able to keep their views.
Mr. Wilson stated they responded to Staff’s previous comments regarding parking and have eliminated
two parking spaces. The new design includes an ADA space, two affordable housing spaces and the
addition spaces for the hotel. A car lift will still be used which is ADA compliant.
They also widened the entrance to the hotel. He reiterated they want to keep the entrance on the
Aspen St side of the building.
He then discussed the pedestrian elements and used slides depicting the existing elements and the
proposed elements. The design brings the walkway and green space out to meet the sidewalk and
drastically improves it from the existing entrance. A bike rack is proposed along with benches on each
side of the entrance.
Mr. Mesirow asked what the orange lines on the displayed image of the existing building. Mr. Wilson
stated they depict where the floors of the building exist.
Mr. Wilson then discussed the pedestrian amenity along Hopkins again comparing the proposed building
with the existing building. They want to work with the Parks department to place a sidewalk. They also
modulated the façade along this side of the building. He also showed a slide looking up Hopkins from
the corner with Aspen St to emphasize the elements used to break up the façade.
Mr. Wilson then described the alley side of the building including two spaces for the free market units,
the trash/dumpster/utility area, and the access to the car lift. He doesn’t feel the alley side is out of
character.
Mr. Wilson next described the park side of the building using an image comparing the existing building
with the proposed design. The proposed design allows for exterior access, including the lounge. A
pocket sidewalk would be provided and the existing moat would be removed.
Mr. Wilson stated the latest design pulls the storage space for the affordable housing units out of the
basement and places them above grade to integrate with the new math from Staff. He stated they are
frustrated with the math from Staff and feels it has been a moving target for the design team.
Mr. Wilson then discussed dividing the two free market units. In the past presentation, the design
included a single wall dividing the two units. The latest design includes a chase space including at least
two walls and used for a dumb waiter. The design team feels they have gone a long way to create more
separation, not less. Mr. Wilson does not understand why they are being asked now to deal with the
issue when it is the third time in front of P&Z. He feels questions are being brought up to promote
continuation. He stated there is a three ft differential in sections. Using a displayed image of the floor
plan, he demonstrated where units A and B are located upstairs and where there is a three foot step up
between the units, which he feels is a pretty good separation. He stated this design was in the previous
and current application. In addition, there is a horizontal plenum space created by a need for the
elevator to have enough head space. The ADUs will have the ability to exhaust and ventilate along with
the flue vents up through the building. The vents may not stack vertically but because of the horizontal
plenum, they are making a sectional to move the ventilation pipes through the building. The dumb
elevator will be available as an amenity for the roof deck. He feels the design is above and beyond
separation. He then stated they understand these are not intended to be used as a single unit. The
owner of the building has met with Staff previously. He feels their integrity has been insulted and were
chasing the ghost of the Mother Lode a bit.
P6
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2015
7
Mr. Wilson moved on to state there is a massive decrease to the size of the roof deck with the
application for this hearing. He noted there is a stair overrun allowance for the stairs which he believes
is 10 ft for mixed use buildings. Even if held to the 28 ft limit, they are only using 35 ft. They have utilized
cross gables to conceal the roof deck as much as possible from the public eye. The ridge elements are
under the height limits.
He then displayed a slide depicting how they calculated the free markets vs ADUs. The information
shows the corrections made for this application.
He then pointed out the two stairs required for egress. He referred to Ms. Phelan’s statement regarding
having separate egresses for each of the units and no central hallway. He said he cannot do this because
he would have four stairways and it would be obtrusive to the building. He noted the ADUs are on a
level with the entries to the above grade space. The private free market users will have to address the
green areas (hallways) to get to their spaces. The hotel users are coming in off the park or off the alley.
He feels they will be walking through the park to access the building and this is where they plan to mix
the public as the walk past the main entry to the ADUs. He stated this is one of the Aspen Area
Community Plan (AACP) ideals. He then stated the lounge walks out to the park, the ADUs walking out to
the park and the hotel users walking in from the park.
He then displayed images walking around the building. He noted materials came up at the previous
meeting and they wanted to address it as more of a residential character. He discussed the design
having crossing gables with pieces in between. He mentioned the vertical siding would be an expresso
color, coupled with a plaster above. He feels they have gone a long way to increase the residential feel
and character of the building.
He noted at the end of the last meeting there were questions regarding the mass and scale and
neighborhood context. He stated Mr. Goode reminded him the commission did not speak on issues of
the 32 ft height limit. Rather, Mr. Goode reiterated the issue pointed out was the neighborhood context.
Mr. Wilson feels they have done this and feels the range of 28 to 32 ft in height is allowed within this
area.
He closed stating he feels they have gone above and beyond at this point to achieve the goals of the
community.
Mr. Mesirow stated he wanted to clarify an item with Staff prior to opening it up to the commissioners.
Mr. Mesirow asked Staff to clarify if what was presented in the three ft height differential in the chase
changed since Staff made their recommendation at which Ms. Adams responded no and stated it was
just a platform to have a discussion.
Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the entry way presented in the slides the same than what was received in
the packet. She noted there were some walls that had been moved. Ms. Phelan responded there had
been some slight changes since the packet had been published. Ms. Adams stated she had provided the
preliminary design comments two weeks before the packet deadline. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated on p
12 of the packet it shows some retaining walls along the entry but the slide showed the plantings are
right at the sidewalk. Mr. Wilson stated she was correct and the walls had been minimized and sloped to
match the sidewalk. He added they will be 18 in high.
Mr. Mesirow asked if the commissioners had any questions.
Mr. Wilson asked to enter some support letters (Exhibit R).
P7
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2015
8
Ms. McNicholas Kury asked why the applicant wants to retain the garage recommended to be used as
other space. Mr. Wilson stated it has been recommended to eliminate the garage to decrease the mass
of the building. He added the applicant feels the space is more useful as a garage than nothing. He
added the real reason the applicant feels the two free market units are better served by a garage. It is
unlikely they will be occupied all the time and the idea would be they could be used for hotel users. The
car elevator will be difficult to use. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the garage is proposed as a universal
entity. Mr. Wilson stated they will be deeded to the free market use and it would be hoped the free
market individuals would allow for that use. Ms. Phelan asked if there is a loading zone for one or two
vehicles on Aspen St and Mr. Wilson responded it would depend on if they had to move the entry or
not.
Ms. McNicholas Kury asked Staff for any clarifications and comments regarding the height allowance for
the stairs or other areas mentioned. Ms. Phelan stated the bigger issue is to determine the appropriate
scale for this building in its context. Staff feels when the predominant flat roof form reaches 32 ft, you
are creating quite a bit of mass. She added the only feature allowed up to 35 ft is an elevator or stair
tower. Ms. Adams stated by allowing private roof decks for two penthouses you start to add bulk in
mass. She added it is permissible as an exemption to height and P&Z determines if it is allowed or not.
Mr. McNight asked Staff to confirm if the penthouse part of the structure is where the building exceeds
the 28 ft. Ms. Adams stated there is specific review criteria on p 12 & 13 for P&Z to consider. She the
reviewed the following criteria and stated P&Z may allow the additional height for one or more of the
criteria.
• In order to achieve at least a two ft height variation in height with an adjacent building (they are
next to a park).
• The primary function of the building is civic.
• 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 (if
you are required to step down onto a landmark, you can up to 32 ft somewhere else to make up
the sf).
• To benefit the livability of affordable housing units.
• To make a demonstrable contribution to the building’s overall energy efficiency, for instance by
providing improved day lighting.
Mr. Wilson wanted to note they are providing the same size ceiling height or greater in the lodging units
as they are in the ADUs and that is likely where the height would be reduced if the overall height needed
to be dropped. Mr. Mesirow asked what the proposed ceiling heights were in the two units and what
are the proposed ceiling heights in the two free market units. Mr. Wilson responded the heights in the
two free market units range from 12 ft to 14 ft. In the current design the lodge and ADUs have nine ft six
in ceiling heights.
Mr. McNight asked about the differences between APCHA and Staff’s recommendations for the
employee housing units being both rental vs one rental and one sale unit. Ms. Phelan stated the
mitigation for the lodging component would be encouraged for the rental unit and the free market
mitigation is the second unit. Typically they require units to be for sale unless they are for lodging or
commercial projects. Ms. Adams stated she spoke with Cindy Christensen, APCHA, for clarification on
their position for rentals and found it comes down to conflicts with HOA documents and infrastructure
that APCHA has not figured out how to make for sale, free market and for sale affordable housing units
play nice together regarding assessments and similar areas.
P8
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2015
9
Mr. Wilson stated the HOA dues would be quite large on this building. He mentioned there are instances
where the HOA dues are larger than mortgages. Ms. Phelan and Ms. Adams added there are parameters
around this to apply ratios of the value for the dues. Mr. Wilson stated they are going above and beyond
providing additional housing versus taking the fractional credits and buying fee-in-lieu or credits. Mr.
Wilson stated they are going over by 0.15 when Mr. McNight asked for the amount.
Mr. Elliott asked if the Hopkins side was still at the 28 ft and the gable at 30 ft. Mr. Wilson confirmed this
was correct. He pointed out the heights as identified on p 13 of the agenda packet. Mr. Wilson noted
points 3 and 2 comply at 28 ft or lower. Point 1 is the stair overrun. He added only the highlighted points
are over the 28 ft.
Mr. Mesirow thanked the applicant for their efforts on the application. He then asked for clarification
regarding which parts of the building not including the mechanical, stairs and elevators are over the 28
ft limit as measured by the code. Mr. Wilson displayed a series of elevation images and described where
those points are located. He added it is hard to measuring grade because there is a line cut at the edge
of your building and project the line for the finished grade. On grades sloping up, you do not get the
benefit of the slope until it goes back at least 15 ft.
Mr. Mesirow asked if making the height is as simple as reducing the ceiling heights to comply with the
height limit. Mr. Wilson stated three out of the seven could be mitigated this way.
Mr. Mesirow asked Mr. Wilson to make a convincing case as to which one of the criteria applies to this
application. Mr. Wilson feels they have made a pretty strong case for how the limit relates to the height
of the neighboring buildings. Mr. Wilson stated this relates directly to the buildings across on Hopkins St
and the proposed building steps up to correlate with the buildings.
Mr. Mesirow asked for the final number of hotel rooms available. Mr. Wilson stated there are nine
rooms and they can be locked into four separate configurations. Ms. Phelan stated there are four units
with the largest configuration would be nine keys. Mr. Wilson stated they understand the AACP asking
for a diverse set of lodges and they see this more as a family style allowing for groups of rooms to be
locked off.
Mr. Elliott asked how many on the high points marked allow the good floor to ceiling ratios in the
affordable housing units. Mr. Wilson pointed out on an image where one of the free market units is
located directly above the affordable housing units.
Mr. Mesirow then opened for public comment.
Ruth Carver lives in the home on the corner of Aspen and Hopkins. She strongly recommends allowing
only 28 ft. She sees it as a residential neighborhood and even the newest house matches the
neighborhood. She noted the comparisons were only to one home. Her concerns include the
appearance on Hopkins St and the ceiling height. She feels the project has come a long ways on the
Aspen St façade, but doesn’t feel the Hopkins St façade matches the homes at all. She doesn’t like the
big gray square part in the middle. She also recommends sound proof windows on Aspen St because it is
noisy.
Mr. Mesirow opened for commissioner’s discussion.
Mr. McNight feels they have come a long way since the last meeting and thinks it honors the look and
feel of the other structures in the neighborhood. He is still tripping up on the height and does not
believe he can get behind any of the criteria for the additional height at this time although there may be
an argument for benefitting the affordable housing units. He agrees with Staff regarding the mass along
P9
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2015
10
Hopkins St. He also agrees with Staff regarding classifying one unit for sale and one for rent. He is
satisfied with the separation of the units based on the earlier discussion.
Ms. McNicholas Kury also believes the design has much improved from the initial application with
improved variation and the addition of gabled roofs to add context. She does not agree with the
comments regarding the gable roof form being the most predominant and thinks there could be
improvement in this area. While appreciating the varying materials on the Hopkins façade, she feels this
is the most pedestrian facing and should have additional variation to it. She stated it looks like a flat
surface and the addition of the all the windows and glass make it look less residential than the existing
hotel. This is her biggest sticking point for the application. In regards to the height issues, she has some
concerns about the additional massing and believes the roof decks and railings increase the interpreted
mass. She feels the applicant could argue the second criteria in section 2.14 of the memo. She is still
concerned about the joining of the two private units. While understating the applicant’s frustration at
the subject being raised, she believes it doesn’t render it any less of P&Z’s consideration. Saying the
addition of the dumb waiter makes it less likely than a wall to join the units does not provide her with
the confidence she would like to hear concerning the units will not be joined at some point in the future.
She stated she would like to hear from the applicant there is no intention for the units to ever be joined
and therefore be out of code at which Mr. Wilson responded there is no intention to join the units. She
stated it is not a house and believes there is an elevated review because it is a community resource and
these redevelopments rarely happen.
Mr. Elliott is satisfied with the changes but he is still struggling to allow the height variance. He can
support the additional height for the affordable housing units. He feels the applicant is taking a bit of a
hit for adding the gables as asked. Ms. Phelan stated gables are measured differently than a flat roof, a
flat roof is measure to the top and gables may not be. Mr. Wilson clarified the point measured is where
the flat roof meets the gable. Mr. Elliott is fine with the Hopkins side as proposed because the road
creates enough of a barrier and views the term adjacent as next door, not across the street. He likes the
design and feels it looks like a hotel. The garage on the alley does not bother him. He is still struggling to
work with the applicant on the height variance. He does not feel there is much more to be done to
prevent the two units being joined at this time. He does not support having an entrance on Hopkins St
believing it would create more traffic on Hopkins St.
Ms. Tygre agrees the height should follow the criteria and she cannot find anything in the criteria to
allow the height up to 32 ft. She feels the Hopkins façade is greatly improved and likes how the mass has
been broken up, but agrees with Ms. McNicholas Kury in that the amount of glass is out of context. She
is concerned about light from buildings ruining the night sky vision and sees it as a detriment to the
streetscape. She believes minor modifications to reduce the amount of glass or break it up would be
more fitting with the neighborhood context while retaining the modern look. She also feels the drawings
make the darker facades look gloomy and scary although she realizes it does not represent the actual
material. She reiterated that asking the questions regarding joining the units does not imply the
applicant is being bad, but it is necessary to guard against what may happen in the future.
Mr. Mesirow stated he sensed Mr. Wilson’s frustration, but noted the modification made the application
significantly better than the previous version. He also want to reiterate even with the improvements, it
does not necessarily meet the code that ultimately the P&Z must legally abide by in their decision. Mr.
Mesirow appreciates the reduction in parking and sees the possibility of the units being joined an
enforcement issue. He also feels there has been progress with the materiality and setbacks. He
appreciates the single entrance and the significance it holds in the AACP. He noted the reduction from
17 units to four luxury units in a town that is more than supplied with big, expensive units; buts
appreciates their focus on the incremental step forward. He agrees having an entrance on Hopkins St
P10
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2015
11
would be detrimental to the neighbors. He stated it is important to remember there is an LP overlay and
there are both physical requirements as well as intended use for the building. He stated it is very
difficult for him to find for either 26.412.050 subsection A or 26.412.060 subsection A.1 as described on
p32 and 33 of the packet. In terms of the lodging character, he stated a hallway is not acceptable for the
small lodge character area object as noted in number two of a list of four on p 37. He understands Mr.
Goode made a comment regarding height, but he feels he has been consistent on the issue of height
since the first hearing for the application. He doesn’t believe any of the criteria have been met to allow
for the height increase.
Mr. Mesirow felt the commissioners should identify constructive items for the applicant to prevent
additional hearings.
Mr. McNight stated the height and employee housing are issues keeping him from letting the
application going forward. He would like to see changes to the Hopkins façade, but is not one of his
major issues. In regards to the employee housing, he would like to follow Staff’s recommendations
regarding rent vs for sale.
Ms. Tygre stated except for Mr. Elliott, all were on the same page regarding the height. She also stated
she and Ms. McNicholas Kury are adamant about the Hopkins St façade. She prefers to leave the
employee housing unit determination up to APCHA.
Ms. McNicholas stated she finds Guideline 5.7 on p 41 of the agenda packet not met. She would like to
see a bit more context with the neighborhood.
Mr. Mesirow asked Mr. Wilson if he wanted to come back with the alterations that ultimately could
allow P&Z to constructively approve the project or would he prefer a vote. Mr. Wilson stated this is
nearly the same commentary he had at the previous hearing and at the end they are left short. He feels
this time the discussion has been about the height of the building and last time it was about context. He
felt the leaving comments previously were that most of the people didn’t necessarily care about the
height and their goalposts keep moving. It is extremely frustrating to him and his client who is doing his
best to retain any lodging in Aspen as a primary goal of the AACP. He stated it would be all too easy to
put two residences on the property and then they would have zero of these issues. They are doing their
level best to keep two residences on top of this and keep any lodge component. It is very difficult for
him to go back stating they had the minutes, what they had from last time and they made a herculean
effort to try and update the building to comply with all of this and then the goalposts move. He would
really like very specific criteria to be able to bring back.
Mr. McNight replied he understands Mr. Wilson’s frustrations.
Mr. Mesirow stated he has two primary issues: one is the height and the other stems from the use and
intent with LP Overlay. He stated he would be able to find in the affirmative if the height issue was dealt
with.
Mr. Elliot stated he is fine with the height but does not feel he has a reason to apply any of the criteria
for the additional height.
Ms. McNicholas Kury stated she is fine with the entry way. Her main issue is the Hopkins façade and
trying to see it meet the neighborhood context better. Mr. Mesirow asked if the Hopkins façade was
fixed and the building was still over 28 ft she would approve it and she confirmed she would.
Ms. Tygre noted because P&Z members do not agree on the issues, it will be difficult for the design
team.
P11
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2015
12
Mr. McNight state the height is his primary issue.
Ms. Tygre agreed height is her main issue and she would like to see further refinement of the Hopkins
façade.
Ms. Phelan stated November 17th is the next available date.
Ms. Tygre moved to continue the public hearing for the Hotel Lenado to November 17, 2015. The
motion was seconded by Ms. McNicholas Kury. All in favor, motion carried.
Mr. Mesirow then closed the public hearing.
Mr. Mesirow then adjourned the meeting.
Cindy Klob
City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager
P12
IV.A.
200 S. Aspen St.
11/17/2015
Page 1 of 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
RE: Hotel Lenado (200 South Aspen Street) – Commercial Design Review-Conceptual
Review, Growth Management Reviews, Resolution No. , Series 2015 – Public
Hearing
MEETING
DATE: November 17, 2015
Since the October 20th hearing, the applicant has updated the design of the building based on
comments from the hearing. At the last hearing it appeared that the bulk of comments were
related to height and the Hopkins Avenue façade.
Certain changes have occurred since the last meeting and are discussed by topic. The conceptual
design has continued to be refined and is improving. Specific Staff concerns and
recommendations related to the update are outlined below, with a number of options for a
motion.
Hopkins Façade:
At the last hearing staff voiced concern over the compatibility of the design with the
neighborhood, in particular the residential building across the street. Gable roof forms had been
added to the design of the building in some areas, providing a complementary reference to the
transitional area the project is located within. The glazing along Hopkins has been reduced,
providing a better relationship to the residential buildings that have limited glazing along their
facades. Additionally, the northeast corner of the building has been modified by pulling back the
façade along the park level of the building, adding a deck along that level of the building and
removing the balcony on the upper level. These changes assist in reducing the mass along a
portion of the Hopkins façade and creating a distinct module.
Figure 1: Changes to the northeast corner along Hopkins
P13
VI.A.
200 S. Aspen St.
11/17/2015
Page 2 of 6
Additional refinement of the façade should occur to promote “sensitive contextual design” of the
building. Additional modulation of the building height, building elements, façade composition,
and modulation in form can assist in successfully meeting guidelines 5.5 and 5.7:
5.5 Within an established residential context, a lodge building should reflect traditional
lot widths in more than one of the following ways:
5.7 A building should respect the traditional lot width and scale of the context in the
form, modulation and variation of the roofscape.
Figure 2: Amended Hopkins façade (arrow indicates area for further refinement)
Height:
The Mixed Use Zone District restricts height to 28’ with the ability to increase height to 32’
when certain criteria are met. According to the submission, the current design meets the height
allowance of 28 feet or lower, with the exception of the rooftop elevator and stairwell which are
within the allowed height exception for these two features.
The overall height of the building has been modified and the some floor to ceiling heights have
been changed to lower the building height. Both the entry and park level are close to the same
height of nine feet, while the upper floor ranges from about ten to eleven and a half feet
depending on location. Floor to ceiling heights affect the perceived height of the building as well
as how a story is located on the site. Although the third story is stepped back in most locations
assisting in reducing the perceived scale at the street edge, the floor to ceiling heights do not
comport with traditional design, where the first floor, particularly on a commercial building, is
designed to be the tallest. The current design still promotes a top heavy building.
P14
VI.A.
200 S. Aspen St.
11/17/2015
Page 3 of 6
Figure 3: Height over topography
Figure 4: Floor to ceiling sections (south elevation)
Aspen St.
Hopkins Ave.
P15
VI.A.
200 S. Aspen St.
11/17/2015
Page 4 of 6
Overall design:
A number improvements have occurred on the site including changes to the Hopkins façade,
better entry and public amenity space relationship with grade, and the pulling back of a portion
of the upper level story from the façade.
In Staff’s opinion, the design of the lodge, although greatly improved, still 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. 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.”
Overall, the guidelines note that a small lodge’s “dimensions and character should respect their
surroundings.” Staff’s opinion is the building should still be reduced in mass and scale to relate
better to the neighborhood.
Growth Management update:
The current proposal includes four lodge units with a lock-off combination that includes 9 keys.
The average size of a unit is 980 sq. ft. while an individual key is 435 sq. ft.. Two free-market
units average1,800 sq. ft. in size and the two affordable housing units average 911 sq. ft. each.
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;
• 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.
P16
VI.A.
200 S. Aspen St.
11/17/2015
Page 5 of 6
Provide 30% of free-market residential square feet as affordable housing above grade.
3,600 sq ft * 30% = 1,080 sf net livable area required above grade as affordable housing or 2.7
FTEs
1.62 FTEs + 2.7 FTEs = 4.32 FTEs
The applicant proposes two 2-bedroom units that equal 4.5 FTEs. The onsite FTE requirement is
met.
There is combined 1,049 sf of Affordable Housing net livable area proposed above grade. 1,080
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 the applicant
restudy the design as described above to meet the above grade requirement for affordable
housing. As previously noted in past memos, Staff recommends one affordable housing unit be
for sale.
RECOMMENDATION: The Commission has reviewed this application and the design
changes associated with it over four meetings, Staff recommends that the Commission take
action this evening.
Although substantive changes have occurred, Staff believes additional changes need to happen
including restudy of the height, mass and scale. Specifically staff believes the building should be
amended to incorporate the following:
• The height of the upper level should be reduced to be in line with the height of the entry
and park levels.
• 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. Reduce the size of the building to better
relate to the neighborhood.
• Meet the growth management requirements for above grade net livable space for the AH
units. One affordable housing unit be for sale.
• Verify dimensional requirements are met, specifically Floor Area calculations.
At this point Staff recommends denial of the application as the lodge does not “appear related to
the context” enough to feel part of the neighborhood and that the massing does not meet
guideline 5.5: “within an established residential context, a lodge building should reflect
traditional lot widths.”
In the alternative, if the Commission prefers to grant approval, staff recommends that the
suggestions bulleted above be included as part of the motion and required to be incorporated into
the Final Commercial Design application.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to deny to the Hotel Lenado application.”
P17
VI.A.
200 S. Aspen St.
11/17/2015
Page 6 of 6
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
Exhibit R - Amended Growth Management Review Criteria
Exhibit S – Amended Commercial Design Review Criteria
Exhibit T- Amended application – drawings
P18
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 Forum Phi 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,
P19
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, and continued again to November 17 the Planning and Zoning Commission
reviewed the amended application and 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 of the project shall
meet the dimensional requirements of the underlying Mixed Use Zone District, and will be
verified during building permit review.
The lodge units shall operate under the rules and regulations of the City of Aspen as well as any
covenants that the City of Aspen is a party to, which affect certain lodge operations on the site.
The two free-market units are not permitted to be combined or used as one dwelling unit.
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.
P20
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No. __, Series 2015
Page 3 of 5
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:
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. 3,600 sq ft * 30% = 1,080 sf net livable area required above grade as
affordable housing or 2.7 FTEs
1.62 FTEs + 2.7 FTEs = 4.32 FTEs
The proposed affordable housing units provide housing for 4.5 FTEs, exceeding the
mitigation requirement. A total of 1,080 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. They 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
P21
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No. __, Series 2015
Page 4 of 5
site, or a combination of both, pursuant to Chapter 13.20 of the City Municipal Code. Additional
materials shall be submitted as part of the Planned Development Detailed Review application
inclusive of, but not limited to, a detailed plan for existing tree protection and sidewalk
development for the property.
A tree protection plan indicating the drip lines of each individual tree or groupings of trees
remaining on site shall be included in the building permit application for any demolition or
significant site work. The plan shall indicate the location of protective zones for approval by the
City Forester and prohibit excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill,
storage of equipment, and access over or through the zone by foot or vehicle.
Section 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.
P22
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No. __, Series 2015
Page 5 of 5
Section 12:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation
presented before the Community Development Department, the Planning and Zoning
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 Keith Goode, Vice-Chair
Attest:
_______________________________
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
P23
VI.A.
Exhibit R – 11.17.15
Growth Management Reviews
Page 1 of 5
Exhibit R - Growth Management Reviews
[updated 11/17/2015]
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 underlying zone district
allowances; however, residential uses are also 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.
P24
VI.A.
Exhibit R – 11.17.15
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.
3,600 sq ft * 30% = 1,080 sf net livable area required above grade as affordable housing.
There is combined 1,049 sf of Affordable Housing net livable area proposed above grade.
1,080 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.
P25
VI.A.
Exhibit R – 11.17.15
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 982.25 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 4.26 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,
P26
VI.A.
Exhibit R – 11.17.15
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:
P27
VI.A.
Exhibit R – 11.17.15
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 3,600 sq. ft of net livable area for
mitigation purposes. The following calculation shows that 1,080 sq. ft. sq. ft. or 2.7
employees are generated by the new residential development.
3,600 sq. ft. x .3 = 1,080 sq. ft.
1 FTE = 400 sq. ft.
1,080sq. ft. / 400 = 2.7 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 4.32 FTEs, so the on-site units will exceed the required mitigation.
Staff finds this criterion met.
P28
VI.A.
Exhibit S – 11.17.15
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
P29
VI.A.
Exhibit S – 11.17.15
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 currently only shows some
seating. The grade changes have been minimized between the amenity space and the right-of-
way with additional design work and the space can be programmed at final design review.
Staff finds this criterion 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. Staff finds this criterion 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 and the grade change between the sidewalk and the
amenity space along Aspen Street, has been minimized. Staff finds this criterion is met.
4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls,
sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian
environment.
Staff Findings: The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing amenity space in the
vicinity. 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.
P30
VI.A.
Exhibit S – 11.17.15
Commercial Design Review
Page 3 of 10
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.
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
P31
VI.A.
Exhibit S – 11.17.15
Commercial Design Review
Page 4 of 10
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.
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.
P32
VI.A.
Exhibit S – 11.17.15
Commercial Design Review
Page 5 of 10
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.
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.
P33
VI.A.
Exhibit S – 11.17.15
Commercial Design Review
Page 6 of 10
C. Lighting. Well-lit (meaning quality, not quantity) display windows along the first floor
create pedestrian interest after business hours. Dynamic lighting methods designed to catch
attention can cheapen the quality of the downtown retail environment. Illuminating certain
important building elements can provide an interesting effect. Significant light trespass should
be avoided. Illuminating the entire building should be avoided. Compliance with the City's
Outdoor lighting code, Section 26.575.150 of this Title, is mandatory.
Staff Findings: The project will comply with all lighting requirements. Staff finds this criterion
is met.
Commercial Design Guidelines – Conceptual Design Review Guidelines for the Small
Lodge Character Area
The Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Objectives and Guidelines assign the Small
Lodge Character Area to this parcel. Aspen’s small lodges are “dispersed throughout residential
and mixed-use neighborhoods” and the guidelines further state that “each of these buildings is
individual and the setting of every site is unique.” A lodge’s “dimensions and character should
respect their surroundings.” The main objectives for the character area are described as:
1. New development should be compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located.
2. Create a distinctive experience for lodging with a sense of being in a neighborhood.
3. Enhance the character of the street edge.
4. Minimize the visual impacts of cars.
Lodges with the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay are typically located in residential areas. The
Small Lodge Character Area Design Guidelines focus primarily on ensuring that lodge
redevelopments fit into the surrounding neighborhood: “Lodge overlay sites offer a special
opportunity to experience the community more closely, and to feel a part of a neighborhood.
Therefore, these lodges should appear related to the context in their design, while also conveying
the unique character of an exciting accommodations facility.” Building mass, scale and height
needs to address the surrounding character through height modulation, breaking up the building
into separate modules, and through roof form. As stated in the Guidelines “roof forms also
should be a central consideration, directly informed by the immediate setting. The pitched roof
form of residential type buildings provide a medium which can create a perceived reduction in
scale and an interesting and varied profile where the building is modulated.”
Conceptual Review includes the following guidelines:
Street & Alley System
Staff Findings: The proposed project will not affect the existing alley with regard to access or
circulation. Staff finds the Street & Alley System portion of the Guidelines met.
Staff finds the following Guideline is met:
5.1 The network of streets and alleys should be retained as public circulation space and for
maximum public access.
P34
VI.A.
Exhibit S – 11.17.15
Commercial Design Review
Page 7 of 10
• 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 nine parking spaces: two are in a garage along the alley
while the balance, seven 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
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
P35
VI.A.
Exhibit S – 11.17.15
Commercial Design Review
Page 8 of 10
storage at the corner. The objective for these areas includes “the creation of well designed
public gathering space adjacent to the street edge.” The relationship of the amenity space with
grade is improving.
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
for final review. At this time staff finds 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
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
P36
VI.A.
Exhibit S – 11.17.15
Commercial Design Review
Page 9 of 10
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 predominately 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 making the building feel top heavy. The building although improved, 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 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.
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
P37
VI.A.
Exhibit S – 11.17.15
Commercial Design Review
Page 10 of 10
• 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.
P38
VI.A.
200 S ASPEN
RENDERINGS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
LU.01
P
3
9
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
RENDERINGS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
LU.02
P
4
0
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
RENDERINGS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
LU.03
P
4
1
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
RENDERINGS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
LU.04
P
4
2
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
RENDERINGS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
LU.05
P
4
3
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
EXTERIOR
PERSPECTIVE
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
LU.06
P
4
4
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
EXTERIOR
PERSPECTIVE
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
LU.07
P
4
5
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
EXTERIOR
PERSPECTIVE
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
LU.08
P
4
6
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
EXTERIOR
PERSPECTIVE
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
LU.09
P
4
7
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
LOWER LEVEL
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
LU.10
F
UP
RG
RG
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
PARKING GARAGE
CAR LIFT LODGE MECHANICAL
STAIR 2
LODGE STORAGE
STAIR 1ELEVATOR
CATERING KITCHEN
LOBBY ELEV.
MECH.
LU.20
LU.17
LU.18
LU.19
F
F
F
EMPLOYEE
LOUNGE
EMPLOYEE
R/R
LU.23
LU.23
LU.21LU.21
LU.22
LU.22
P
4
8
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
MAIN LEVEL
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 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
UNIT 101
WETBAR
WETBAR
LU.21LU.21
LU.22
LU.22
P
4
9
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
PARK LEVEL
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
LU.12
OPEN TO
STAIR BELOW
OPEN TO
STAIR BELOW
UP
DW
RG DW
RG
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
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
DECK
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
5
0
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
UPPER LEVEL
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 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
5
1
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
ROOFTOP
LEVEL
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
LU.14
F
OPEN TO
STAIR BELOW
U
P
UP
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
ELEVATOR
DECK
DECK DECK
STAIR 1
MECHANICAL
LU.23
LU.23
LU.21LU.21
LU.22
LU.22
P
5
2
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
ROOF PLAN
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
LU.15
F
U
P
UP
U
P
UP
U
P
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
I
D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
I
D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
OUTLINE OF PERIMETER
WALL BELOW ROOF
DECK BELOW
0:12
0:120:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12 8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
0:12 0:12
8:12
0:12
0:12
P
5
3
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
PROPOSED SITE
PLAN
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
LU.16
F
U
P
UP
U
P
5'-0"
1
0
'
-
0
"
5'-0"
5
'
-
0
"
SS LINE
GAS LINE
W LINE
SETBACK LINE
PROPERTY LINE
790679057904
7
9
0
3
7
9
0
2
79
0
1
79
0
7
7900
7899
78
9
8
7897
7896 OUTLINE OF PERIMETER
WALL BELOW ROOF
S
.
A
S
P
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
E. HOPKINS AVENUE
ALLEY
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
W
H
I
T
A
K
E
R
P
A
R
K
S
I
D
E
Y
A
R
D
FRONT
YARD
REAR
YARD
S
I
D
E
Y
A
R
D
N
P
5
4
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
WEST
ELEVATION
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
LU.17
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINE
MIXED WEATHERED WOOD
WIRE RAILING
GLASS
WOOD SIDING
WIRE RAILING
PLASTER FINISH
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
133'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
133'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
134'-8"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
134'-8"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
131'-6"
T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK
131'-6"
T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK
122'-0"
T.O. F.F. SOUTH PENTHOUSE
122'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
HISTORIC GRADE
FINISH GRADE
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
P
5
5
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
NORTH
ELEVATION
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
LU.18
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINE
MIXED WEATHERED WOOD
WIRE RAILING
GLASS
WOOD SIDING
PLASTER FINISH
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
133'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
133'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
134'-8"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
134'-8"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
131'-6"
T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK
131'-6"
T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK
122'-0"
T.O. F.F. SOUTH PENTHOUSE
122'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE
FINISH GRADE
HISTORIC GRADE
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
P
5
6
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
EAST
ELEVATION
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
LU.19
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINE
WOOD SIDING
WIRE RAILING
GLASS
MIXED WEATHERED WOOD
WIRE RAILING
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
133'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
133'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
134'-8"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
134'-8"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
131'-6"
T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK
131'-6"
T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK
122'-0"
T.O. F.F. SOUTH PENTHOUSE
122'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE
HISTORIC GRADE
FINISH GRADE
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
P
5
7
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
SOUTH
ELEVATION
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
LU.20
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINE
MIXED WEATHERED WOOD
WIRE RAILING
GLASS
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
133'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
133'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
WIRE RAILING
PLASTER FINISH
WOOD SIDING
134'-8"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
134'-8"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
131'-6"
T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK
131'-6"
T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK
122'-0"
T.O. F.F. SOUTH PENTHOUSE
122'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE
FINISH GRADE
HISTORIC GRADE
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
P
5
8
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
SECTIONS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
LU.21
9
'
-
1
"
1
1
'
-
7
"
9
'
-
1
"
9
'
-
3
"
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
133'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
133'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
134'-8"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
134'-8"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
131'-6"
T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK
131'-6"
T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK
122'-0"
T.O. F.F. SOUTH PENTHOUSE
122'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE
PARKING GARAGE CATERING KITCHENLOBBY
FINISH GRADE
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
MAIN ENTRY HALL HOUSE-
KEEPING
UNIT 202 LOUNGE LOBBY ENTRY
UNIT 301 HALL UNIT 301
RESTROOM
MANAGEMENT
VALET
LU.21 NORTH SECTION
P
5
9
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
SECTIONS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
LU.22
1
1
'
-
7
"
9
'
-
1
"
1
0
'
-
3
"
9
'
-
9
"
1
0
'
-
1
"
1
1
'
-
5
"
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
133'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
133'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
134'-8"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
134'-8"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
131'-6"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
131'-6"
T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK
131'-6"
T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK
122'-0"
T.O. F.F. SOUTH PENTHOUSE
122'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE
PARKING GARAGE
FINISH GRADE
FINISH GRADE
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
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
UNIT 302 UNIT 302STAIR
STAIR HALL
LIBRARY UNIT 204
UNIT 204
UNIT 102
LU.22 SOUTH SECTION
P
6
0
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
SECTIONS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
LU.23
1
1
'
-
7
"
9
'
-
1
"
9
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
1
"
1
0
'
-
3
"
1
1
'
-
7
"
9
'
-
1
"
9
'
-
1
"
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
133'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
133'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
134'-8"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
134'-8"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
131'-6"
T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK
131'-6"
T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK
122'-0"
T.O. F.F. SOUTH PENTHOUSE
122'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE
FINISH GRADE
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
LODGE STORAGE PARKING GARAGE
CAR LIFTUNIT 105 HALL
HALL
HALL
GAME LOUNGE / BAR HOUSEKEEPING
UNIT 302
UNIT 301 CLOSET
LIBRARY
REST
ROOM
LU.23 EAST SECTION
P
6
1
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
WEST HEIGHT
COMPARISON
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
LU.24
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINE
PARK CENTRAL WEST
PEAK @ 7938'-10" (32' -0")208 HOPKINS PEAK @ 7932'-5" (32'-6")
116 ASPEN ST. PEAK @ 7929'-8" (32'-8")
214 HOPKINS PEAK @ 7935'-10" (32'-0")
200 SOUTH ASPEN
PEAK @ 7931'-1" (27'-8")
200 SOUTH ASPEN
PEAK @ 7934'-8" (28'-9")
SIDEWALK @ 7897'-0"
ALLEY @ 7904'-0"
ALLEY @ 7906'-6"
P
6
2
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
EAST HEIGHT
COMPARISON
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
LU.25
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINE
PARK CENTRAL WEST
PEAK @ 7938'-10" (32' -0")
208 HOPKINS PEAK @ 7932'-5" (32'-6")
116 ASPEN ST. PEAK @ 7929'-8" (32'-8")
214 HOPKINS PEAK @ 7935'-10" (32'-0")200 SOUTH ASPEN
PEAK @ 7934'-8" (28'-9")200 SOUTH ASPEN
PEAK @ 7931'-1" (27'-8")
SIDEWALK @ 7903'-8"SIDEWALK @ 7904'-6"
ALLEY @ 7907'-6"
P
6
3
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
HEIGHTS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
LU.26
F
U
P
UP
U
P
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
I
D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
I
D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
79
0
0
7906
79
0
5
7904
79
0
2
79
0
1
7899
7898
78
9
7
8
1
1312
5
4
3
2
6
1718
16
15
23
22
21
14
8
20
10
9
19
7
11
BUILDING OUTLINE
AT GRADE
OUTLINE OF PERIMETER
WALL BELOW ROOF
15' OFFSET
0:12
0:120:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12 8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
0:12 0:12
8:12
0:12
8:12
0:12
79
0
3
Elevation Label Elevation of Historic Grade Elevation of Proposed Grade Most Restrictive Roof Height over
Topography
Actual Roof Height over
Most Restrictive
1 7905'-5"7906'-6"HISTORIC 7927'-0"21-'7"
2 7905'-6"7906'-6"HISTORIC 7927'-7 5/8"22'-1 5/8"
3 7905'-3"7906'-6"PROPOSED 7928'-11 1/4"22'-5 1/4"
4 7904'-4"7903'-5"PROPOSED 7927'-3 1/2"23'-10 1/2"
5 7901'-0"7901'-6"HISTORIC 7927'-0"26'-0"
6 7900'-8"7901'-6"HISTORIC 7927'-7"26'-11"
7 7899'-8"7901'-3"HISTORIC 7927'-8"28'-0"
8 7899'-3"7900'-6"HISTORIC 7927'-3"28'-0"
9 7900'-2"7901'-1"HISTORIC 7928'-2"28'-0"
10 7901'-0"7901'-10"HISTORIC 7928'-1"27'-1"
11 7902'-0"7902'-0"HISTORIC 7930'-0"28'-0"
12 7904'-1"7905'-2"HISTORIC 7931'-3"27'-2"
13 7904'-6"7906'-4"HISTORIC 7931'-2"26'-8"
14 7906'-3"7906'-6"HISTORIC 7931'-5"25'-2"
15 7906'-6"7906'-6"HISTORIC 7931-2 3/8"24'-8 3/8"
16 7906'-3"7906'-6"HISTORIC 7930-11 3/8"24'-8 3/8"
17 7903'-9"N/A HISTORIC 7937'-10"34'-1" (OVERRUN)
18 7902'-8"N/A HISTORIC 7939'-7" 36'-11" (OVERRUN)
19 7901'-9"N/A HISTORIC 7928'-0"26'-3"
20 7900'-11"N/A HISTORIC 7928'-7"27'-8"
21 7901'-11"N/A HISTORIC 7929'-11"28'-0"
22 7903'-3"7904'-1'HISTORIC 7929'-7 1/2"25'-10"
23 7903'-6"N/A HISTORIC 7930'-8"27'-2"
Height Over Topography (Proposed)
200 S. Aspen Street
HEIGHTS OVER TOPOGRAPHY
P
6
4
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN EXISTING
SUBGRADE
WALL CALCS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 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 4,566.55
AHU (2:1) 17,940 895.88 1,438.86
Free Market (.50:1) 4,485 ------4,450.26
Cumulative (2:1) 17940 10,901.91 10,455.68
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
6
5
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN EXISTING
FLOOR AREA
CALCS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
LU.28
Allowable Limit (Sq Ft)Existing (Sq Ft)Proposed (Sq Ft)
Lodge (.75:1) 8,970 10,006.03 4,565.68
AHU (2:1) 17,940 895.88 1,438.58
Free Market (.50:1) 4,485 ------4,484.98
Cumulative (2:1) 17940 10,901.91 10,489.24
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
Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category
10,409.75
2,030.75
Square Feet (Sq Ft)
9,353.25
1,056.50
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
6
6
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN EXISTING NET
LEASABLE
PLANS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 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
REAR PROPERTY LINE
REAR 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 11,415.61
AHU ------1,195.07 2,667.50
Free Market ------------5,537.14
Cumulative ------12,084.00 19,620.25
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
6
7
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN PROPOSED
GROSS AREA
CALCS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
LU.30
45.50 sq ft
UP
UP
UP
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
4,205.50 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
OPEN TOSTAIR BELOW
2,649.00 sq ft
143.00 sq ft
73.75 sq ft
990.25 sq ft170.50 sq ft
89.25 sq ft
89.25 sq ft
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
OPEN TO
STAIR BELOW
OPEN TO
STAIR BELOW
2,150.75 sq ft
1,939.25 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
1,951.50 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
1,951.50 ------------
566.50 ------------
------------------
Total Subgrade Level Unit Area by use 2,518.00 0.00 0.00
Lodge AHU Free Market
1,939.25 1,064.50 ------
2,150.75 ------------
------------------
Total Entry Level Unit Area by use 4,090.00 1,064.50 0.00
Lodge AHU Free Market
2,649.00 990.25 143.00
170.50 178.50 73.75
Total Second Level Unit Area by use 2,819.50 1,168.75 216.75
Lodge AHU Free Market
------------4,205.50
Total Third Level Unit Area by use 0.00 0.00 4,205.50
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)
Gross Unit Area (Proposed)
200 S. Aspen Street
22,392.50
Percentage (%)
58.45%
13.85%
27.70%
100.00%
n/a
n/a
Square Feet (Sq Ft)
MAIN LEVEL
LOWER LEVEL
PARK LEVEL
16,128.50
6,264.00
UPPER LEVEL
ROOF DECK LEVEL
4,467.75
Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category
Gross Summary
9,427.50
2,233.25
4,467.75
9,427.50
2,233.25
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
6
8
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN PROPOSED
SUBGRADE
WALL CALCS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
LU.31
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Lower Level unit area totals by use 2,488.25 ------------3,649.50
Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed -2,488.25 -------------3,649.50
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 3,987.50 1,063.25 ------857.75
Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed -2,747.09 -732.50 -------590.93
Main Level FAR totals by use 1,240.41 330.75 0.00 266.82
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Park Level unit area totals by use 2,610.25 978.25 146.50 669.00
Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed 168.00 162.00 79.00 ------
Park Level FAR totals by use 2,778.25 978.25 225.50 669.00
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Upper Level unit area totals by use ------------3,955.00 ------
Upper Level FAR totals by use 0.00 0.00 3,955.00 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)9,427.50
Gross AHU (Sq Ft)2,233.25
Gross Free Market (Sq Ft)4,467.75
Total Unit Floor Area (Sq Ft) excludes non-unit area 16,128.50
Non-Unit Area Subgrade Exemption Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)3,649.50 -3,649.50 0.00
Main Level (Sq Ft)857.75 -590.93 266.82
Park Level (Sq Ft)669.00 0.00 669.00
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Roof Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
-4,240.43
935.82
Lodge Floor Area Non-Unit @ 58.45%Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Main Level (Sq Ft)1,240.41 155.97 1,396.38
Park Level (Sq Ft)2,778.25 391.05 3,169.30
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Roof Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
547.01
Total Lodge FAR (Sq Ft)4,565.68
AHU Floor Area Non-Unit @13.85%Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Main Level (Sq Ft)330.75 36.95 367.70
Park Level (Sq Ft)978.25 92.63 1,070.88
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Roof Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
129.58
Total Affordable Housing Unit FAR (Sq Ft)1,438.58
Free Market Floor Area Non-Unit @ 27.7%Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Main Level (Sq Ft)0.00 73.91 73.91
Park Level (Sq Ft)225.50 185.32 410.82
Upper Level (Sq Ft)3,955.00 0.00 3,955.00
Roof Level (Sq Ft)45.25 0.00 45.25
259.23
Total Free Market FAR (Sq Ft)4,484.98
Total FAR (Sq Ft)10,489.24
Allowable Limit (Sq Ft)Existing (Sq Ft)Proposed (Sq Ft)
Lodge (.75:1) 8,970 9,081.60 4,565.68
AHU (2:1) 17,940 342.86 1,438.58
Free Market (.50:1) 4,485 0.00 4,484.98
Cumulative (2:1) 17,940 9,424.46 10,489.24
100.00%
13.85%
27.70%
Applied Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Affordable Housing Unit FAR
Lodge FAR
Application of Use Category Percentages to Non-Unit Floor Area
Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Total Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Applied Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
200 S. Aspen Street
FAR (Proposed)
UPPER LEVEL
ROOF DECK LEVEL
PARK LEVEL
MAIN LEVEL
LOWER LEVEL
58.45%
Percentage (%)
Total Lodge FAR Summary
Free Market FAR
Applied Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Applied Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category (referenced from “Gross Unit Area” chart)
EXPOSED WALL AREA
UNEXPOSED WALL AREA
SUBGRADE WALL AREA
Subgrade Wall Area (Proposed)
200 S. Aspen Street
Existing Lower Level Wall Calculations
Lower Level Wall Label Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)Unex. Wall Area (Sq Ft)
1 841.75 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
6
9
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN PROPOSED
FLOOR AREA
CALCS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
LU.32
45.25 sq ft
UP
UP
UP
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
3,955.00 sq ft
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
OPEN TOSTAIR BELOW
OPEN TOSTAIR BELOW
2,610.25 sq ft
146.50 sq ft
79.00 sq ft
500.00 sq ft
978.25 sq ft168.00 sq ft
669.00 sq ft
81.00 sq ft
81.00 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
1,904.25 sq ft
1,063.25 sq ft
857.75 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
3,649.50 sq ft
1,921.75 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
7
0
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN PROPOSED NET
LEASABLE
PLANS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
LU.33
UP
UP
UP
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
481.50 sq ft1,646.25 sq ft
1,730.75 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
152.25 sq ft
663.25 sq ft
68.75 sq ft
68.00 sq ft
1,410.75 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
341.75 sq ft 345.00 sq ft 338.50 sq ft
168.50 sq ft
542.25 sq ft
350.25 sq ft
555.00 sq ft
389.25 sq ft
79.25 sq ft70.75 sq ft856.50 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
OPEN TO
STAIR BELOW
OPEN TO BELOW
1,784.25 sq ft
488.75 sq ft
153.50 sq ft
275.75 sq ft
246.00 sq ft
2,921.75 sq ft
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
Net Leasable & Net Livable (Proposed)
200 S. Aspen Street
Lodge (Livable)AHU (Livable)Free Market (Livable)Non-Unit
1784.25 ------------153.50
488.75 ------------275.75
------------------246.00
------------------2,921.75
Lower Level area totals by use 2,273.00 0.00 0.00 3,597.00
Lodge (Livable)AHU (Livable)Free Market (Livable)Non-Unit
168.50 453.00 ------856.50
70.75 457.00 ------------
341.75 ------------------
345.00 ------------------
338.50 ------------------
348.00 ------------------
79.25 ------------------
542.25 ------------------
389.25 ------------------
555.00 ------------------
350.25 ------------------
Main Level area totals by use 3,528.50 910.00 0.00 856.50
Lodge (Livable)AHU (Livable)Free Market (Livable)Non-Unit
1,410.75 455.00 144.00 663.25
659.25 457.25 79.00 ------
401.00 68.75 ------------
152.25 68.00 ------------
Park Level area totals by use 2,623.25 1,049.00 223.00 663.25
Lodge (Livable)AHU (Livable)Free Market (Livable)Non-Unit
------------1,646.25 ------
------------1,730.75 ------
------------481.50 ------
Upper Level area totals by use 0.00 0.00 3,858.50 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 8,424.75 1,959.00 4,121.50 5,116.75
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 @ 0.5845 Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)2,102.53 4,375.53
Main Level (Sq Ft)500.65 4,029.15
Park Level (Sq Ft)387.69 3,010.94
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00
Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00
Total Lodge Net Livable (Sq Ft)11,415.61
Non-Unit @ 0.1385 Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)498.06 498.06
Main Level (Sq Ft)118.60 1,028.60
Park Level (Sq Ft)91.84 1,140.84
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00
Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00
Total ADU Net Livable (Sq Ft)2,667.50
Non-Unit @ 0.277 Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)996.40 996.40
Main Level (Sq Ft)237.26 237.26
Park Level (Sq Ft)183.73 406.73
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 3,858.50
Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)0.00 40.00
Total ADU Net Livable (Sq Ft)5,538.89
Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Non-Unit Floor Area per Level
Lodge (Livable)
2,273.00
3,528.50
0.00
0.00
663.25
856.50
3,597.00
5,116.75
PARK LEVEL
MAIN LEVEL
LOWER LEVEL
Free Market Net Livable
40.00
3,858.50
223.00
0.00
0.00
Free Market (Livable)
0.00
0.00
1,049.00
910.00
0.00
AHU (Livable)
AHU Net Livable
Lodge Net Livable
0.00
2,623.25
0.00
100.00%16,128.50
ROOF DECK LEVEL
UPPER LEVEL
13.85%2,233.25
58.45%9,427.50
Percentage (%)Gross Square Feet (Sq Ft)
Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category (referenced from “Gross Unit Area” chart)
4,467.75 27.70%
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
7
1
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
AHU MITIGATION
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 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 3,478.25 30%1,043.48 1.00 2.61
Employees Generated 2.61
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 4.23
Total Mitigation Credit Calculation
Employees Generated
Total Employees Mitigated 4.50
Total Employees Generated 4.23
Additional Credits Required -0.27
P
7
2
V
I
.
A
.
200 S ASPEN
PUBLIC
AMENITY PLANS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
LU.35
PROPOSED PUBLIC AMENITY SPACE =
2,113.25 SF
23.56% OF LOT AREA
EXISTING SITE AMENITY PLAN PROPOSED SITE AMENITY PLAN
P
7
3
V
I
.
A
.
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Justin Barker, Senior Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
MEETING DATE: November 17, 2015
RE: Residential Design Standards Code Amendment
SUMMARY:
The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide feedback on potential code
amendments to the City’s Residential Design Standards (RDS).
BACKGROUND:
The City of Aspen Residential Design Standards were first adopted in 1995 as a way to maintain
design quality and compatibility with historic features of the community. Since then, minor
amendments have been processed to add additional standards and create a variance process.
Earlier this year, staff selected a consultant (Winter & Co.) through an RFP process to assist with
the updates. The purpose of the updates are to improve the review process, better organize the
standards, and general cleanup for loopholes and confusion for individual standards in order to
better serve the community and provide attractive, compatible development. This is not a
complete re-write.
DISCUSSION:
Staff and Winter & Co. have been working with an advisory committee comprised of six local
architects from various firms around town. The role of the committee is to represent the design
community by providing input on current issues, reviewing draft updates, and participating in
focused group discussions with staff and the consultant. The most common issues with the
current standards as identified by the committee were:
• Lack of clarity in the administrative review process
• Lack of flexibility in the existing standards
These are discussed in more detail below.
Administrative Review:
The current administrative review process has proven to be challenging. A project is only
required to submit an application if a variation is required. This is typically determined by the
planner of the day or staff collectively. This process can often lead to a substantial amount of
time spent discussing a required variation, or some needed variations being missed because they
P74
VII.A.
Page 2 of 3
are not discussed. This often leads to projects that do not meet the RDS getting delayed in the
building permit review so they can submit an application for a variation. This can place a
building permit on hold for several months.
Under the proposed changes, all residential development would be required an “administrative
compliance review”, unless otherwise exempted. In administrative compliance review, staff will
review each project for standard applicability and the project’s compliance with the flexible and
non-flexible standards (see below). The application will either be granted approval or denial for
compliance with the RDS.
If the applicant receives denial, they may amend the application to comply. If the applicant
chooses not to amend the application, they would have the opportunity to have P&Z review the
application. Any decision made by P&Z is final unless appealed under the regular city appeal
procedures.
Standard Flexibility:
Currently, a residential project must meet all of the standards as written (with some exceptions
depending on the location or specific site constraints). Staff recognizes that some standards are
not always of critical importance or are difficult to meet, even if they apply to a certain project.
For example, building orientation on a curvy street is difficult to achieve and is not as important
as building orientation on a traditional townsite block. Similarly, prohibiting a lightwell on the
front of a building is less important for a building that is 100 feet from the street than one that is
10 feet from the street. In response to this, staff has identified three design features that are the
most important to maintaining compatible design. These are:
1. A visible and accessible front entrance. This standard would require a front porch or
other entry feature, include a front door, and a pedestrian path leading to the feature.
2. Reducing the appearance of garages from the street. This standard would require
garages to be accessed off the alley where one exists. Where an alley does not exist,
garages would be required to be set back from the front façade of the building.
3. Articulation of massing to reduce perceived scale. This standard would require a
secondary mass or other building articulation.
These are also the standards that staff least often grants administrative variations. Under the
proposed RDS update, all applicable residential development would be required to meet the letter
of these standards. If an applicant requested a variation from any of these standards no
administrative variance could be granted and a P&Z review would automatically be required.
In an effort to provide some flexibility, the remaining standards would be evaluated on a case-
by-case basis through the administrative compliance review. Projects would be required to meet
the letter of the standard, or provide “alternative compliance” meaning the project meets the
overall intent of the standard. This allows the architects and homeowners more flexibility for
varied design styles and the ability to more directly work with staff to create an agreeable design
without requiring constant variation applications. For example, a design may include an entry
door that is 11 feet back from the front-most wall of the building, but is highly visible from the
street and opens onto a front porch that meets the standard. The door does not technically meet
P75
VII.A.
Page 3 of 3
the standard (max. 10 feet from the front-most wall), but it meets the intent by providing street-
facing architectural details, enhancing the walking experience and reinforcing local building
traditions. This design feature would most likely be permitted under alternative compliance.
Other updates:
Staff has also been working with Winter & Co. and the advisory committee on other updates.
These include reorganization of the RDS chapter to make it easier to read and understand, adding
definitions for often used terms, and updating and improving graphics.
FEEDBACK:
The advisory committee has been involved in the process since the beginning and continues to
provide valuable feedback that has helped dictate the current proposed changes.
An open house was held September 29 to obtain feedback from the broader community of the
proposed updates. Over 20 people attended the open house. Information on the update has also
been provided through the Community Development newsletter, which reaches almost 600
professionals including contractors, architects, attorneys, and planners. All of the public
feedback received to date has been overwhelmingly positive. Both architects and property
owners have stated they like the simplified process and the added flexibility of the standards.
Attached are copies of the boards from the Open House, which explain the main changes to the
process and requirements.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff has scheduled policy resolution with City Council and an additional public open house on
December 1st. If policy resolution is approved, ordinance readings would occur in mid-
December/early January.
REQUEST OF P&Z:
The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide feedback on the proposed code
amendment. All comments will be passed on to City Council as part of their review of the code
amendment. Staff has included the proposed draft language in Exhibit B to provide P&Z with an
understanding of how it may work in the Code. Staff is not looking for specific comment
pertaining to the draft.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A - September 29 Open House Boards
Exhibit B - Proposed Draft Language
P76
VII.A.
R esidential d esign s tanda R ds U p dates
Administrative Review Process
Organization
Required Standards
General Cleanup
Currently, only projects that need RDS variations go through a review. Required RDS variations are often discovered in
the building permit review, which can delay the permit by several months. Under the proposed updates, all residential
exterior projects are either required to receive an administrative exemption approval or compliance review approval. An
applicant would be required to include one of these approvals as part of the building permit submission.
Currently, standards are organized based on physical features and technical topics typical of site planning and
development process, such as “site design” and “building elements”. The proposed updates organize standards based
on design intent and primary objective, such as “Connect to the Street”.
Currently, a residential project must meet all of the standards as written (with some exceptions depending on the
location or specific site constraints). Projects that do not meet a standard as written must receive an administrative of
Planning and Zoning Commission level variation. Under the proposed updates, three standards must be met and no
variations may be granted administratively. All other standards are flexible and reviewed on a case-by-case basis for
applicability and compliance. Projects do not have to meet one of these standards as written, as long as the proposed
design meets the intent. This would be determined through an administrative review.
Other updates to the Residential Design Standards include additional definitions for commonly used terms, updated
and additional graphics, the removal of fence requirements from this Chapter, more specific intent statements, and
general text cleanup.
The City of Aspen Community Development Department
Residential Design Standards Open House
September 29, 2015
P
7
7
V
I
I
.
A
.
PLANNER
OF THE
DAY
SUBMIT
APPLICATION
STAFF
REVIEW
STAFF
REVIEW
DESIGN
APPROVED
DESIGN
DENIED
MODIFY
APPLY FOR
PERMIT
ZONING
REVIEW
APPROVED
SUBMIT
APPLICATION
DESIGN
DENIED
R esidential d esign s tanda R ds
a dminist R ative R eview p R ocess
COMPLIANCE
REVIEW
APPROVED
MODIFY
APPLY FOR
PERMIT
APPROVED
E xisting R E vi E w P Roc E ss P Ro P os E d R E vi E w P Roc E ss
DESIGNDESIGN
Common issues identified with current administrative review process:
It can take a long time
It is hard to understand where you are in the process
Required variations are often not identified until building permit review
The goals of the proposed administrative review process are:
Eliminate unnecessary or repetitive steps
Define a clear path to approval
Simplify RDS review at building permit review
The City of Aspen Community Development Department
Residential Design Standards Open House
September 29, 2015
P
7
8
V
I
I
.
A
.
Site Design:
Building orientation, Build-to-requirement, Fence height
R esidential d esign s tanda R ds
o R ganization
Building Form:
Secondary mass
Parking & Access:
Access, Garage door design, placement, and dimensions
Building Elements:
Entry Orientation, Principal window placement, Entry
door setback, Entry door height, Covered entry porch
height, First story element dimensions, 9/12 window
placement, Nonorthogonal window limit
Context:
Materials, Inflection
Connect to Street:
Building orientation, Build-to-requirement, Entry
connection, Garage access and placement, Principal
window, Light well location, Garage door dimensions
and design, One-story element
Respond to Neighboring Properties:
Articulation of building mass
Reflect Traditional Building Scale:
Nonorthogonal window limit, Window placement, Door
height, Entry porch height, Materials
The current organization results in grouping of standards that are
intended to achieve very different objectives.
E xisting o R ganization P Ro P os E d o R ganization
The proposed organization will help provide a clear framework for
administration and use by applicants that is easier to determine if
objectives are being met.
The City of Aspen Community Development Department
Residential Design Standards Open House
September 29, 2015
P
7
9
V
I
I
.
A
.
R esidential d esign s tanda R ds
R eq U i R ed s tanda R ds
The City of Aspen Community Development Department
Residential Design Standards Open House
September 29, 2015
Design must meet:Design must meet:
Alternative Compliance Possible:
Building orientation
Build-to-requirement
Fence height
Secondary mass
Access
Garage door design, placement, and dimensions
Street-oriented entrance
Principal window
Entry door setback
Entry door height
Covered entry porch
First story element
9/12 window placement
Nonorthogonal window limit
Lightwells
Materials
Inflection
E xisting R E qui RE d s tanda R ds P Ro P os E d R E qui RE d s tanda R ds
Common issues identified with current application standards:
They can be hard to interpret
They do not always factor in site constraints
They are constraining or do not make sense for contemporary design
The goals of the proposed application of standards are:
Focus more on standard intent than specifics in review
Allow more flexibility based on site constraints
Allow flexibility for contemporary design
Garage access and placement
Entry feature/connection
Articulation of building mass
Orientation
Build-to-requirement
Principal window
Light well location
Garage door dimensions and design
One-story element
Nonorthogonal window limit
Window placement
Door height
Materials
P
8
0
V
I
I
.
A
.
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 1
EXHIBIT B
Chapter 26.410
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
Sections:
26.410.010 General
26.410.020 Procedures for review
26.410.030 Single-family & duplex standards
26.410.040 Multi-family standards
26.410.010. General
A. Intent. The residential design standards in this chapter are intended to ensure a strong connection
between private residences and public streets; ensure buildings provide articulation to break up bulk
and mass; and preserve traditional neighborhood scale and character. The standards do not prescribe
architectural style, but do require that each home, while serving the needs of its owner, contribute
positively to the streetscape. The residential design standards are at their core intended to achieve the
following objectives:
1. Connect to the Street. Establish a visual and/or physical connection between private
residences and public streets and other public areas. The area between the street and the front
of a residential building is a transition between the public realm of the neighborhood and the
private life of a dwelling. This transition can strongly impact the human experience of the
street. Improve the street experience for pedestrians and vehicles by establishing physical and
visual relationships between public streets and private residential buildings located along
public streets.
2. Respond to Neighboring Properties. Reduce perceived mass and bulk of residential buildings,
including at the front, sides and rear. Encourage relationship to adjacent development through
similar massing and scale. Create a sense of continuity through building form and setback
along the streetscape.
3. Reflect Traditional Building Scale. Retain scale and proportions in building design that are in
keeping with Aspen’s architectural tradition, while also encouraging contemporary design.
Reinforce the unique character of Aspen by drawing upon the City’s vernacular architecture
and neighborhood characteristics in the design of structures. Encourage creative and
contemporary architecture in keeping with Aspen’s history, but at a scale that respects modest
traditions. Ensure that residential structures respond to “human-scale,” or the scale that a
person relates to most easily, in their design. Ensure that residential structures do not visually
overwhelm or overshadow public streets.
B. Applicability. Except as outlined in Section 26.410.010.B, Exemptions, this chapter applies to all
residential development in the City, except for residential development within the R-15B Zone
District. Certain exceptions from specific standards are identified within each standard.
P81
VII.A.
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 2
C. Exemptions. No residential development shall be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter
unless the Community Development Director determines that the proposed development:
1. Is an addition or remodel for an existing structure that does not change the exterior of the
building; or
2. Is a remodel of a structure where alterations proposed change the exterior of the building, but
are not addressed by any of the residential design standards; or
3. Is a residential unit within a mixed-use building; or
4. Is a designated historic resource listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures. Non-historic additions and new buildings on a historic landmark lot are not
exempt.
D. Remodels. Where work is proposed on any element of an existing building that is addressed by
the Residential Design Standards and that is not in compliance with the Standards, the property
owner shall make a reasonable effort to bring that element into compliance. The Community
Development Director may grant exceptions for remodels that would require significant additional
work above and beyond the scope of the remodel in order to ensure that all features are brought into
compliance.
For example, consider a remodel involving modifications to a porch structure that is smaller than the
minimum square footage required by the Residential Design Standards. If the porch is being replaced
with a new porch, the new porch will be required to meet the minimum size requirements in the
Residential Design Standards. If only the porch posts are being replaced, the existing porch may
remain without needing a variation even though it does not meet the minimum size requirements in
the Residential Design Standards.
As a second example, consider a remodel involving modifications to a nonorthogonal window where
the maximum number of nonorthogonal windows allowed by the Residential Design Standards is
exceeded. If the window is being moved to a new location or the size or shape of the window is being
changed, the new window will be required to meet the nonorthogonal window limits as stipulated in
the Residential Design Standards. If the modifications to the window are being made in place and do
not expand or change the size or shape, the existing nonconforming nonorthogonal window may
remain without needing a variation even though it exceeds the number of nonorthogonal windows
allowed by the Residential Design Standards.
E. Application. An application for a variation shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.030,
Common Development Procedures.
F. Definitions. Unless otherwise indicated, the definitions of words used in these regulations shall
be the same as the definitions used in Chapter 26.104 of the Land Use Code. In addition, the
following definitions shall apply:
Berm. A human-made raised strip of land or ridge made of earthen materials.
P82
VII.A.
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 3
Curvilinear Lot. A lot in which a curve comprises 25% or more of the total length of the
front lot line.
Façade. An exterior face of a building. It can be applied to any side. The façade does not
include projections, such as open porches.
Front Façade. The street-facing exterior face of a building that contains the primary building
entry. The front façade may include multiple wall planes that make up the front face of the
building.
Street-Facing Façade. Any side of a building that faces a public street. A street-facing façade
may refer to multiple wall planes on a building face that face the street.
Front-Most Wall. The structural wall of the front façade of a building that is closest to the
street or right of way.
Front-Most Element. The front most building feature associated with a primary building or
garage. In many cases, this element may be located forward of the front façade, such as an
open front porch or projecting garage overhang.
Hedgerow. A row of closely spaced bushes, trees, or shrubs that create, or have the potential
through growth maturity to create, a largely opaque visual barrier.
Nonorthogonal Window. A window with an opening that is not rectangular in nature and
does not possess right angles at each of its four corners.
One Story. A portion of a building between the surface of one floor and the ceiling
immediately above; or the wall plate height where no additional stories are located above.
One story shall not exceed 10 feet for purposes of the Residential Design Standards.
Open Front Porch. A porch on the front façade of a building that is open on at least two (2)
sides.
Street. A way or thoroughfare, other than an alley, containing a public access easement and
used or intended for vehicular traffic. The term street shall include the entire area within a
right-of-way. For the purpose of Chapter 26.410, street shall also include private roads and
access easements serving more than one (1) parcel.
26.410.020. Procedures for Review
A. Determination of Applicability. The applicant may request a preliminary Residential Design
Standards pre-application conference with Community Development Department staff to determine
the applicability of the requirements of this chapter for the proposed development.
B. Administrative Review. Consistency with the Residential Design Standards shall be determined
administratively, unless a variation is requested. The Administrative Review process will result in a
determination of approval or denial for compliance with the Residential Design Standards.
All projects will be reviewed for compliance with the Flexible and Non-flexible Standards contained
within the Residential Design Standards. Flexible and Non-flexible Standards are defined as follows:
P83
VII.A.
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 4
1. Flexible Standards. Flexible Standards are standards for which additional flexibility around
the specific requirements of a standard may be granted administratively. If an application is
found to be inconsistent with any of the Flexible Standards, but meets the overall intent of the
standard, staff may administratively approve Alternative Compliance. If an application does
not meet the overall intent of the standard, the applicant must either amend their proposal or
seek a variation, as described in Section 26.410.020.C, Variations.
2. Non-flexible Standards. Non-flexible Standards are those standards that must be met by all
projects subject to the Residential Design Standards, with no Alternative Compliance
permitted, unless otherwise stated in this chapter. If an application is found to be inconsistent
with any of the Non-flexible Standards as written, the applicant must either amend their
proposal or seek a variation, as described in Section 26.410.020.C, Variations.
C. Variations. Any application that does not receive Administrative Review approval described
above may apply for a variation. An applicant may also choose to apply directly for a variation from
one or more Non-flexible Standards if desired. The Planning & Zoning Commission or Historic
Preservation Commission, during a duly noticed public hearing, shall approve, approve with
conditions, or deny an application for variation, based on the standards of review in Section
26.410.020.D, Variation Review Standards. The review process is as follows:
Step One – Public Hearing before Planning & Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation
Commission.
1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the review standards for Residential Design
Standard variation.
2. Process: The Community Development Director shall provide the Planning and Zoning
Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, with a recommendation to
approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application, based on the standards of review.
The Planning and Zoning Commission, or Historic Preservation Commission if the property is
designated or is located within a historic district, shall approve, approve with conditions, or
deny the application after considering the recommendation of the Community Development
Director and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing.
3. Standards of review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section
26.410.020.D.
4. Form of decision: The decision shall be by resolution.
5. Notice requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph
26.304.060.E.3.a), b) and c).
D. Variation Review Standards. An application requesting a variation from the Residential Design
Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variation, if granted would:
1. Provide an alternative design approach to the standard that meets the overall intent of the
standard as indicated in the intent statement for each section and the intent statement for each
P84
VII.A.
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 5
individual standard. The reviewing board shall consider the individual and collective design
features and building elements associated with a project to determine that the exception is
warranted; or
2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints.
26.410.030. Single-family & duplex standards
A. Applicability. Unless stated otherwise below, the design standards in this section shall apply to
all single-family and duplex development.
B. Location and Massing.
1. Articulation of Building Mass (Non-flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard shall not be required for lots with the following
characteristics:
(1) Lots outside of the Aspen Infill Area.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to reduce the overall perceived mass and bulk of buildings on a
property as viewed from all sides. Designs should promote light and air access between
adjacent properties. Designs should articulate building walls by utilizing multiple forms to
break up large monotonous wall planes. Buildings should include massing and articulation
that convey forms that are similar in massing to traditional Aspen residential buildings.
This standard is critical in the Infill Area where small lots, small side and front setbacks,
alleys and traditional Aspen architecture are prevalent. (Also see 26.410.010.A.2.
Respond to Neighboring Properties, 26.410.010.A.3. Reflect Traditional Building Scale)
c) Standard. A principal building shall articulate building mass to reduce bulk and mass and
create building forms that are similar in scale to those seen in traditional Aspen residential
architecture.
d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard:
(1) Maximum Sidewall Depth. This option seeks to reduce building mass by limiting the
depth of the primary building to a depth similar to traditional residential buildings in
Aspen. This standard is also intended to create a physical separation between the
primary building and a potential accessory structure at the rear of the lot. A principal
building shall be no greater than fifty (50) feet in depth, as measured from the front-
most wall of the front façade to the rear wall. An accessory building that is completely
separated from the main building is permitted. Garages, sheds and accessory dwelling
units are examples of appropriate uses for the accessory building.
(2) Offset with One-Story Ground Level Connector. This option seeks to reduce building
mass by limiting the depth of the front portion of a primary building to a depth similar
to traditional residential buildings in Aspen, yet still allow for a direct connection to a
potential secondary living area or accessory structure at the rear of the lot through a
one-story ground floor connecting element. A principal building shall provide a
portion of its mass as a subordinate one-story, ground floor connecting element. The
connecting element shall be at least ten (10) feet in length and shall be setback at least
P85
VII.A.
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 6
an additional five (5) feet from the sidewall on both sides of the building. The
connecting element shall occur at a maximum of forty-five (45) feet in depth, as
measured from the front-most wall of the front façade to the rear wall. The connecting
element shall be a maximum of fifteen (15) feet wide.
(3) Increased Side Setbacks at Rear and Step Down. This option seeks to reduce building
mass by limiting the depth of the front portion of a primary building to be similar in
depth of traditional residential buildings in Aspen, yet still allow for additional square
footage beyond the traditional depth in a one story building component. A principal
building shall provide increased side setbacks at the rear of the building. If the
principal building is two stories, it must step down to one story in the rear. The
increased side setbacks and one story step down shall occur at a maximum of forty-
five (45) feet, as measured from the front-most wall toward the rear wall. The
increased side setbacks must be at least five (5) feet greater than the side setbacks at
the front of the building.
2. Building Orientation (Flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard shall not be required for lots with the following
characteristics:
(1) No Street Frontage.
(2) A front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to establish a relationship between buildings and public streets
to create an engaging streetscape and discourage the isolation of homes from the
surrounding neighborhood. The placement of buildings should seek to frame street edges
physically or visually. Buildings should be oriented in a manner such that they are a
component of the streetscape, which consists of the street itself and the buildings that
surround it. Building orientation should provide a sense of interest and promote
interaction between buildings and passersby. Building orientation is important in all areas
of the city, but is particularly important in the Infill Area where there is a strong pattern of
buildings that are parallel to the street. (See also 26.410.010.A.1. Connect to the Street,
26.410.010.A.2. Respond to Neighboring Properties)
c) Standard. The front façade of a principal building shall be oriented to face the public
street on which it is located.
d) Options. Fulfilling one of the following options shall satisfy this standard:
(1) Strong Orientation Requirement. The front façade of the principal building shall be
parallel to the street. On a corner lot, both street-facing façades of the principal
building shall be parallel to the street.
(2) Moderate Orientation Requirement. The front façade of a principal building shall both
face the street. On a corner lot, one street facing façade must face each intersecting
street.
The availability of these options shall be determined according to the following lot
characteristics:
P86
VII.A.
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 7
3. Build-to Requirement (Flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard shall not be required for lots with the following
characteristics:
(1) A required front yard setback of 25 feet or greater
(2) Are curvilinear
(3) No street frontage
(4) A front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade
b) Intent. This standard seeks to establish a consistent physical pattern of front façades close
to and parallel to public streets in order to tightly frame the street and provide a sense of
enclosure for pedestrians and passersby. The placement of buildings should respond to the
street by framing street edges physically. Buildings should be constructed to provide a
strong physical presence and integration within the streetscape, which consists of the
street itself and the buildings that surround it. Buildings should seek to establish a
consistent pattern of vertical building forms close to the street edge to establish a “street
wall”. This standard is most important in the infill area where a strong pattern of smaller
front setbacks and consistent building orientation exists. (See also 26.410.010.A.1.
Connect to the Street, 26.410.010.A.2. Respond to Neighboring Properties)
c) Standard. At least sixty percent (60%) of the front façade of a principal building shall be
within five (5) feet of the minimum front yard setback line. On a corner lot, this standard
shall be met on at least one (1) of the two intersecting streets. A front porch may be used
to meet this requirement.
4. One-story Element (Flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard shall not be required for lots with the following
characteristics:
(1) No street frontage
(2) A front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade
b) Intent. This standard seeks to establish human scale building features as perceived from
the street and express lower and upper floors on front façades to reduce perceived mass.
Designs should utilize street-facing architectural elements that respect those of traditional
Aspen residential architecture. Buildings should provide visual evidence or demarcation
of the stories of a building to relate to pedestrians and other passersby. This standard is
r equired fr ont
setback 25 feet
or greater?
lot curvilinear?
Option 1
lot outside the
Infill
l
A r ea?
OR
YES YES YES
NO NO
Option 2
Option 1
Option 1
OR
Option 2
Option 1
OR
Option 2
Option 1:
Strong
orientation
requirement
Option 2:
Moderate
orientation
requirement
NO Is your...
P87
VII.A.
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 8
important in all areas of the city. (See also 26.410.010.A.2. Respond to Neighboring
Properties, 26.410.010.A.3. Reflect Traditional Building Scale)
c) Standard. A principal building shall incorporate a one-story element on the front façade.
Duplexes in a side-by-side configuration are required to have a one-story element per
dwelling unit.
d) Options.
(1) Projecting One-Story Element. The front façade of a building shall have a one-story
street-facing element that projects at least six (6) feet from the front façade and has a
width equivalent to at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's overall width. This
one story element may be enclosed living space or a front porch that is open on three
sides. No features may be cantilevered above this element. This one story element
must be a minimum of 50 square feet in area.
(2) Recessed Open Front Porch. The front façade of a building shall have an open one-
story porch that is recessed at least six (6) feet but no more than ten (10) feet from the
front façade, and has a width equivalent to at least twenty percent (20%) of the
building’s overall width. The porch shall be open on at least two (2) sides and face the
public street. This one story element must be a minimum of 50 square feet in area.
(3) One-Story Stepdown. A building shall include a one-story component on one side of
the building that remains one story from the front façade to the rear wall. The width of
the one-story portion shall be a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the building’s
overall width. The one-story portion may be fully enclosed and used as living area.
C. Garages.
5. Garage Access (Non-flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard is required for all properties that have vehicular access from
an alley or private road.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to minimize potential conflicts between pedestrians and
vehicles by concentrating parking along alleys and away from the public street where
pedestrian activity is highest. This standard also seeks to minimize the visibility of plain,
opaque and unarticulated garage doors from public streets by placing them in rear alleys
wherever possible. Properties with rear alleys shall utilize the alley as an opportunity to
place the garage in a location that is subordinate to the principal building, further
highlighting the primary building from the public street. This standard is important for any
property where a rear alley is available, which is most common in the Infill Area. (See
also 26.410.010.A.1. Connect to the Street)
c) Standard. A property that has access from an alley or private road shall be required to
access parking, garages and carports from the alley or private road. Where an alley is
accessible, no parking or vehicular access shall be allowed forward of the front façade.
6. Garage Placement (Non-flexible).
P88
VII.A.
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 9
a) Applicability. This standard is required for all properties that do not have vehicular access
from an alley or private road.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to prevent large expanses of unarticulated facades close to the
street and ensure garages are subordinate to the principal building for properties that
feature driveway and garage access directly from the public street. Buildings should seek
to locate garages behind principal buildings so that the front façade of the principal
building is highlighted. Where locating the garage behind the front façade of the principal
building is not feasible or required, designs should minimize the presence of garage doors
as viewed from the public street. This standard is important in all areas of the city where
alley access is not an option. (See also 26.410.010.A.1. Connect to the Street)
c) Standard. A garage or carport shall be placed in a way that reduces its prominence as
viewed from the public street. On a corner lot, this standard shall apply to both street-
facing façades.
d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard:
(1) Set Back Garage. The front-most element of the garage or carport shall be set back at
least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front-most wall of any street-facing
façade of the principal building.
(2) Side-Loaded Garage Forward of Street-Facing Façade. A garage or carport located
forward of a street-facing façade must be side-loaded. The garage or carport entry
shall be perpendicular to the street. For lots on curved streets, the garage door shall not
be placed on the street-facing façade of the garage.
The availability of these options shall be determined according to the following lot
characteristics:
7. Garage Dimensions (Flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard applies to all residential development in the city that is subject
to the Residential Design Standards.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to minimize the presence of wide garages as perceived from
public street and ensure that garages are subordinate to the principal building. Designs
should promote an active streetscape that is not dominated by wide expanses of garage
doors. Garage doors should either be hidden from public view or their width minimized.
This standard is important in all areas of the city. (See also 26.410.010.A.3. Reflect
Traditional Building Scale)
r equir ed fr ont
setback 25 feet
or greater?
Option 1
lot outside the
Infi ll
l
A rea?
OR
YES YES
NO
Option 2
Option 1
Option 1
OR
Option 2
NOIs your...
Option 1 :
Set back
garage
Option 2 :
Garage
forwar d of
the fr ont
facade
P89
VII.A.
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 10
c) Standards. The width of the living area on the first floor of a street facing façade on which
a garage is located shall be at least five (5) feet greater than the width of the garage or
carport.
The total width of all vehicular entrance(s) to garage(s) or carport(s) that are visible from
the street, whether on the same plane or offset from one another, shall not exceed twenty-
four (24) feet.
8. Garage Door Design (Flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard applies to all residential development in the city that is subject
to the Residential Design Standards.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to promote a streetscape that maximizes visual interest to
pedestrians and other passersby by minimizing unarticulated expanses of garage doors.
Garage doors that utilize increased articulation, changes in depth and profile of materials,
windows and other features to break up the monotony of the garage door should be
prioritized. This standard is critical for any property where garage doors are visible from
the public street. (See also 26.410.010.A.3. Reflect Traditional Building Scale)
c) Standard. A garage door that is visible from a public street shall utilize an articulation
technique to break up its façade.
d) Options. Fulfilling one of the following options shall satisfy this standard:
(1) Two Separate Doors. A two-car garage door shall be constructed as two separate
doors.
(2) Appearance of Two Separate Doors. A two-car garage door shall be constructed with
one door that is designed to appear as two separate doors by incorporating a vertical
separating element that is at least one (1) foot in width.
D. Entry Features.
9. Entry Connection (Non-flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard shall not be required for lots with the following
characteristics:
(1) No street frontage.
(2) A front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to promote visual and physical connections between private
buildings and the public street. Buildings should use architectural and site planning
features to establish a connection between these two elements. Buildings shall not use
features that create barriers or hide the entry features of the house such as fences,
hedgerows or walls. Buildings and site planning features should establish a sense that one
can directly enter a building from the street through the use of pathways, front porches,
front doors that face the street and other similar methods. This standard is critical in all
areas of the city. (See also 26.410.010.A.1. Connect to the Street)
P90
VII.A.
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 11
c) Standard. A building shall provide a visual and/or physical connection between a primary
home entry and the public street. On a corner lot, an entry connection shall be provided to
at least one (1) of the two intersecting streets. Duplexes in a side-by-side configuration are
required to have one (1) entry connection element per dwelling unit.
d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard:
(1) Street Oriented Entrance. At least one (1) entry door shall be provided on the front
façade, shall face the street, and shall not be set back more than ten (10) feet from the
front-most wall of the front façade of the principal building. Fencing, hedgerows,
walls or other permitted structures shall not obstruct visibility to the entire door.
(2) Open Front Porch. The front façade shall have a front porch that is open on at least
two (2) sides, a minimum of 50 square feet, and face the public street, and a
demarcated pathway shall be provided that connects the street to the front porch. The
front porch shall contain the primary entrance to the building. Fencing, hedgerows,
walls or other permitted structures shall not obstruct visibility to the porch or the
demarcated pathway.
The availability of these options shall be determined according to the following lot
characteristics:
10. Door Height (Flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard shall not be required for lots with the following
characteristics:
(1) No street frontage.
(2) A front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to retain traditional architectural character by ensuring
modestly scaled doors that are not out of scale when compared to traditional residential
architecture in Aspen. Large, oversized doors should be avoided so as not to overwhelm
front façades and adversely impact the sense of human scale as perceived from the public
street. This standard is important in all areas of the city. (See also 26.410.010.A.3. Reflect
Traditional Building Scale)
c) Standard. All doors facing a street shall not be taller than eight (8) feet. A transom
window above a door shall not be considered a part of the door for the purpose of this
standard.
11. Entry Porch Height (Flexible).
r equir ed fr ont
setback 25 feet
or greater?
Option 1
lot outside the
Infi ll
l
Area?
OR
YES YES
NO
Option 2
Option 1
Option 1
OR
Option 2
NOIs your...
Option 1 :
Street
oriented
entrance
Option 2 :
Open front
porch
P91
VII.A.
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 12
a) Applicability. This standard shall not be required for lots with the following
characteristics:
(1) No street frontage.
(2) A front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade.
b) Intent. This standard promotes porches that are built at a one-story human-scale that are
compatible with traditional development in Aspen. This standard prevents porches that are
out of scale with the street and traditional porches seen in the surrounding neighborhood.
Porch designs should reinforce the one-story scale and help reduce perceived mass as
viewed from the public street. This standard is critical for buildings in the Infill Area. (See
also 26.410.010.A.3. Reflect Traditional Building Scale)
c) Standard. An entry porch or canopy on the front façade of a principal building shall not be
more than one-story in height as defined by this chapter.
E. Fenestration and Materials.
12. Principle Window (Flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard shall not be required for lots with the following
characteristics:
(1) No street frontage.
(2) A front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to prevent large expanses of blank walls on the front façades of
principal buildings. A building should incorporate significant transparency on the front
façade. Designs should include prominent windows or groups of windows on the front
façade to help promote connection between the residence and street. This standard is
important in all areas of the city. (See also 26.410.010.A.1. Connect to the Street)
c) Standard. A principal building shall have at least one (1) street facing principal window or
grouping of smaller windows acting as a principal window on the front facade. Duplexes
in a side-by-side configuration are required to have one (1) principle window per dwelling
unit.
d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard:
(1) Street Facing Principal Window. The front façade shall have at least one (1) window
with dimensions of four (4) feet by four (4) feet or greater.
(2) Window Group. The front façade shall have at least one (1) group of windows that
when measured as a group has dimensions of four (4) feet by four (4) feet or greater.
13. Window Placement (Flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard shall not be required for lots with the following
characteristics:
(1) No street frontage.
(2) A front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade.
P92
VII.A.
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 13
b) Intent. This standard seeks to preserve the traditional architectural character of Aspen by
preventing large expanses of vertical glass windows that dominate front façades. Overly
tall expanses of glass on a front façade do not relate well to human scale. Designs should
utilize windows that do not span multiple stories and help to provide a sense of
demarcation between stories to better relate to pedestrians and other passersby. Where an
upper story window is located directly above a lower story window, a gap with no
window should be provided between them that is easily recognizable from the public
street and clearly differentiates lower and upper stories. This standard is important in all
areas of the city. (26.410.010.A.3. Reflect Traditional Building Scale)
c) Standard. A street-facing window on a principal building shall not vertically span more
than one story as defined by this chapter.
14. Nonorthogonal Window Limit (Flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard shall not be required for lots with the following
characteristics:
(1) Outside of the Aspen Infill Area.
(2) No street frontage.
(3) A front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to encourage traditional rectilinear window shapes seen in
Aspen’s traditional residential architecture and discourages the proliferation or overuse of
round or diagonal-oriented windows. Designs should minimize the use of nonorthogonal
windows that face the street in order to help preserve the traditional character of Aspen.
This standard is critical in the Infill Area where many of Aspen’s traditional residential
buildings are located. (See also 26.410.010.A.3. Reflect Traditional Building Scale)
c) Standard. A building shall have no more than one (1) nonorthogonal window on each
façade of the building that faces the street. A single nonorthogonal window in a gable end
may be divided with mullions and still be considered one (1) nonorthogonal window.
15. Lightwell/Stairwell Location (Flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard shall not be required for lots with the following
characteristics:
(1) No street frontage.
(2) A front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to minimize negative visual impacts to the public street and
discourage visual disconnection between buildings and public streets. Building designs
should avoid placing light wells, areaways, and stairwells between primary buildings and
public streets. These features should be located away from the front of buildings. Designs
should locate these elements at the sides or rear of a principal building. This standard is
most important in all areas of the city with smaller setbacks. (See also 26.410.010.A.1.
Connect to the Street)
P93
VII.A.
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 14
c) Standard. A below grade light well or stairwell shall not be located between the front-
most wall of a street-facing façade and any public street.
16. Materials (Flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard applies to all residential development in the city that is subject
to the Residential Design Standards.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to reinforce traditional architectural character by preventing
the use of materials on single-family and duplex buildings that is in sharp contrast with
use of materials seen in traditional Aspen architecture. Buildings should use materials
consistently on all sides of a building instead of simply applying a material on one façade
of a building. Buildings should seek to use heavier materials, such as brick or stone as a
base for lighter materials, such as wood or stucco. Buildings should use materials that are
similar in profile, texture and durability to those seen in traditional residential buildings in
the city. This standard is important in all areas of the city. (See also 26.410.010.A.3.
Reflect Traditional Building Scale)
c) Standards. The quality of the exterior materials and their application shall be consistent on
all sides of the single-family or duplex building.
Materials shall be used in ways that are true to their characteristics. For instance stucco,
which is a light or nonbearing material, shall not be used below a heavy material, such as
stone.
Highly reflective surfaces shall not be used as exterior materials.
26.410.040. Multi-family standards
A. Applicability. The following design standards shall apply to all multi-family development in the
City of Aspen. Applicability shall be determined prior to building permit submittal per Section I of
this document. The applicant may request a pre-application conference to determine if the proposed
project is exempt from the requirements of this chapter.
B. Design standards.
1. Garage Access (Non-flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard is required for all properties that have vehicular access from
an alley or private road.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to minimize potential conflicts between pedestrians and
vehicles by concentrating parking along alleys and away from the public street where
pedestrian activity is highest. This standard also seeks to minimize the visibility of plain,
opaque and unarticulated garage doors from public streets by placing them in rear alleys
wherever possible. Properties with rear alleys shall utilize the alley as an opportunity to
place the garage in a location that is subordinate to the principal building, further
highlighting the primary building from the public street. This standard is important for any
property where a rear alley is available, which is most common in the Infill Area. (See
also 26.410.010.A.1. Connect to the Street)
P94
VII.A.
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 15
c) Standard. A multi-family building that has access from an alley or private road shall be
required to access parking, garages and carports from the alley or private road.
2. Garage Placement (Non-flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard is required for all properties that do not have vehicular access
from an alley or private road.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to prevent large expanses of unarticulated facades close to the
street and ensure garages are subordinate to the principal building for properties that
feature driveway and garage access directly from the public street. Buildings should seek
to locate garages behind principal buildings so that the front façade of the principal
building is highlighted. Where locating the garage behind the front façade of the principal
building is not feasible or required, designs should minimize the presence of garage doors
as viewed from the public street. This standard is important in all areas of the city where
alley access is not an option. (See also 26.410.010.A.1. Connect to the Street)
c) Standard. The front of a garage or the front-most supporting column of a carport shall be
set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front façade of the principal
building.
3. Entry Connection (Non-flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard shall not be required for lots with the following
characteristics:
(1) No street frontage.
(2) A front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to promote visual and physical connections between private
buildings and the public street. Buildings should use architectural and site planning
features to establish a connection between these two elements. Buildings shall not use
features that create barriers or hide the entry features of the house such as fences,
hedgerows or walls. Buildings and site planning features should establish a sense that one
can directly enter a building from the street through the use of pathways, front porches,
front doors that face the street and other similar methods. This standard is critical in all
areas of the city. (See also 26.410.010.A.1. Connect to the Street)
c) Standard. A building shall provide a visual and/or physical connection between a primary
home entry and the public street. On a corner lot, an entry connection shall be provided to
at least one (1) of the two intersecting streets. Duplexes in a side-by-side configuration are
required to have one (1) entry connection element per dwelling unit.
d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard:
(1) Street Oriented Entrance. There shall be at least one (1) entry door that both faces the
public street and face the public street, for every four (4) street-facing, ground-level
units in a row. Fencing, hedgerows, walls or other permitted structures shall not
obstruct visibility to the entire door.
P95
VII.A.
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 16
(2) Open Front Porch. There shall be at least one (1) porch or ground-level balcony that
faces the public street for every street-facing, ground-level unit. Fencing, hedgerows,
walls or other permitted structures shall not obstruct visibility to the porch or the
demarcated pathway.
4. Principle Window (Flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard shall not be required for lots with the following
characteristics:
(1) No street frontage.
(2) A front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to prevent large expanses of blank walls on the front façades of
principal buildings. A building should incorporate significant transparency on the front
façade. Designs should include prominent windows or groups of windows on the front
façade to help promote connection between the residence and street. This standard is
important in all areas of the city. (See also 26.410.010.A.1. Connect to the Street)
c) Standard. At least one (1) street facing principal window or cluster of smaller windows
acting as a principal window shall be provided for each unit facing the street. On a corner
unit with street frontage on two streets, this standard shall apply to both street-facing
façades.
d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard:
(1) Street Facing Principal Window. The first floor of the front façade shall have at least
one (1) window with dimensions of three (3) feet by four (4) feet or greater for each
dwelling unit.
(2) Window Group. The first floor of the front façade shall have at least one (1) group of
windows that when measured as a group has dimensions of three (3) feet by four (4)
feet or greater for each dwelling unit.
P96
VII.A.
P&Z Check-In 11.17.2015
Elevator height exceptions
Page 1 of 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Justin Barker, Senior Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
MEETING DATE: November 17, 2015
RE: Elevator height exceptions
SUMMARY:
The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide feedback on a request to increase the
allowable height exception for elevator overruns.
DISCUSSION:
Current regulations allow for elevator enclosures to extend 5 feet (or 10 feet if set back 20 feet
from street facing facades) above the specified maximum height. Most commercial and lodging
buildings include elevator access to rooftops, particularly if there is usable space such as public
amenity. Community Development has heard from several local architects that meeting the
height requirement is difficult when many of today’s standard elevator enclosures can often be
over 10 feet tall.
Community Development has asked for documentation on heights for elevator enclosures from
local architects. From the information that has been provided to this point, the minimum height
that can be achieved with a standard elevator enclosure is 14’8”, while the maximum can be up
to 19’9”, depending on the assembly. The typical height for a standard elevator enclosure is ~16’
(Exhibit A). These heights are for prototypical elevator assemblies from companies that are
installed and serviced in this area (Thyssen Krupp & Otis) and assumes the elevator entrance/exit
is right at roof level.
Typical results of the current height regulation are either an elevator entrance/exit platform
located at least a half floor lower than the rooftop level, or a highly expensive or impractical
custom elevator design. Having the elevator platform landing below the roof height usually
results in a complicated set of ramping, which can require larger roof assemblies.
REQUEST OF P&Z:
Does P&Z support an increase in the allowable height exception for elevator overruns?
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A - Typical elevator construction
P97
VII.B.
' ' I' I'
I-=
0 I
I <!) co [ij I
<t: � w (") I c::: .9 w c:o 0 I c::: N <t: w
" "
'<t
' A
"-
4'
'"<1 ," -
_,,_
'-"
' ,...:l' - ' -"
' ' 4'
, A, -"
A
<t-
<!' '
, ;-
",'
" '"
[
'
ELEVATOR CAB
'
Ill II Ill II I
D
<1 " ,
-,,, ';
ASSUMED ROOF ASSEMBLY
HOIST BEAM
ELEVATOR SHAFT
-----ELEVATOR DOOR -e-------
co
-<t'
/
FINISHED SURFACE
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
A
P
9
8
V
I
I
.
B
.