Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20160202 AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING February 02, 2016 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. Draft of January 5, 2016 Meeting Minutes V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Lift One Lodge PD Amendment VII. OTHER BUSINESS A. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair for 2016 B. AACP / Land Use Code Coordination Update VIII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 001-2016 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 January 5, 2016 1 Mr. Goode, Vice Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Keith Goode, Jesse Morris, Kelly McNicholas Kury, and Spencer McNight. Ryan Walterscheid, Jasmine Tygre, Jason Elliott, Skippy Mesirow, and Brian McNellis were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan and Hillary Seminick. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Goode stated a member of the community approached him with an idea he wanted to ask how to proceed. She stated back in the day spaces on the ground floor of the mall were prohibited from being real estate offices. She proposed doing something similar with larger retail chains as well. He stated Nantucket and other communities have done something similar. Mr. Goode asked if this would be a zoning change or something else. Ms. Phelan stated during the moratorium in 2007 there was a lot of discussion regarding the types of businesses including luxury retail and chains, but Council never proceeded with anything. She stated it may come up again and asked if there was a particular chain at which Mr. Goode replied no. He added Nantucket had grandfathered in existing businesses. Ms. Quinn stated it would probably be a code amendment and would need to originate with Council. Ms. Phelan agreed with Ms. Quinn and stated the City has taken a look at this before and no action was taken. Ms. Phelan mentioned Ms. Jessica Garrow may be attending P&Z in the near future to provide a long range update and it may be a good time to discuss Council’s goals in regards to code amendments. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan stated there is nothing scheduled for the next meeting currently but Ms. Garrow may review the long range goals with the board. Ms. Klob mentioned the board would receive an email tomorrow requesting their availability to participate in interviews for the new Community Development Director. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES – December 15, 2015 Ms. McNicholas Kury moved to approve the minutes for December 15th and was seconded by Mr. McNight. All in favor, motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. PUBLIC HEARINGS Lot 2 Erdman Partnership Lot Split – Residential Design Standards Review – Public Hearing Mr. Goode opened the public hearing and asked if public notice was appropriately provided. P1 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2016 2 Ms. Quinn stated she had reviewed the affidavits of notice as presented in the agenda packet and found them appropriate. Ms. Seminick stated they are available in Exhibit D of the packet. Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to staff. Ms. Hillary Seminick, Community Development Planner, stated the application requests two residential design standard (RDS) variances at lot 2 of the Erdman Partnership Lot Split subdivision. The project is located in the west end on a flat lot on the corner of Gillespie and Lake St. Lot 1 at 360 Lake Ave is developed and located directly behind lot 2. There is a right of way easement providing shared egress to lots 1 and 2. The applicant is requesting a variance from the secondary mass and inflection in the RDS requirements. The criteria for a variance must consider the neighborhood context or an unusual site specific constraint. The secondary mass standard requires at least 10% of the total above grade sf of a new structure to be either completely detached from the principal building or linked by a subordinate linking element. The proposed design does not meet this standard. The second RDS variance would be needed for inflection. A single story residence at 340 Lake Ave is a property located directly south of the subject property. Inflection requires if a one story building adjacent to the subject site exists, the new structure must step down one story in height along the common lot line. Inflection is only met if the structure is one story along the front or street facing lot line and it also one story along the shared lot line for the length of the inflected structure. The proposed structure does not have a one story element meeting the inflection requirement on the shared lot line. Staff does not find the application meeting the neighborhood standard and there are no site specific constraints associated with the parcel warranting the granting of the requested variances. Staff recommends denial of the secondary mass and inflection RDS variance request. Mr. Goode asked if there were any questions for staff. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked to confirm the criteria for secondary massing. She asked for any new structure built on a lot, what percentage is required of the primary and secondary structures. Ms. Seminick stated at least 10% of the total above grade floor area needs to be located in a secondary mass. This secondary mass could be completely detached from the primary structure like a garage or other subordinate structure like and accessory dwelling unit (ADU). Ms. McNicholas Kury asked what would be considered a linking element. Ms. Phelan stated the linking element must be a certain dimension and cannot exceed 10 ft long x 10 ft wide. She stated an example would be a mud room connecting a garage to the main house. Mr. Morris asked if the variances could be approved if one; the changes fit the context of the neighborhood and two; a site specific constraint exists. Ms. Seminick stated P&Z needs to identify only one of the criteria as being met to grant the variance. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the adjacent residence is located on a separate lot at which Ms. Seminick confirmed it was on a separate lot. Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to applicant. Mr. Steev Wilson, Forum Phi, represents the applicant. Mr. Wilson displayed an overhead shot of the two homes next to each other as they were prior to the lot split. He then provided a site plan and stated the eave height of the building predominately all the P2 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2016 3 way around is about 10 ft so it is viewed as a single story structure from the street. He noted an area highlighted in red representing no occupiable space below it. There are a few dormers projecting out, but the plate height is about 10 ft and it slopes up from there. The total size of the building is intended to be reduced by putting a lot of the space of the building in the attic. One of the primary intents of the piece of code in the building form section is to respect the scale of Aspen’s historical homes by creating new homes which are more similar in their massing. The secondary thing is to allow access for light and air. He stated the intent is to not have huge buildings encroaching on others which is accomplished by breaking up the mass of the building. Specifically, it states to create accessory units off the alleys of buildings. Mr. Wilson stated there is not alley for this application and this is not your typical street front back to alley west end lot. This project is on a lake in a subdivision. He understands the two houses need to be considered independently, and were originally part of the same lot and now one acts as a secondary mass to the other when considering the broader neighborhood context. He stated the inflection is being met through the longer façade that is one story. All the development has been moved up into the eaves of the building. Mr. Wilson then displayed a street level image and topo image. Picture 1 depicted large Spruce trees on neighboring lot. He noted the trees are not on the applicant’s property. He stated they belong to the City. He then showed images looking at up and down streets. He also showed views originating from driveways down on Lake Ave. He also showed images of homes across the street with predominantly one story eave line and noted they are accessing the attic for additional volume. A gambel roof form is used to provide additional space with a one story eave line. He then showed the location of the small cabin across the driveway access. He then displayed elevations including structures behind it for context. He pointed out the low eave form on the street facing façade about 7 ft deep across the entire face of the building. He noted there is a mass on the left and right and spanned with a roof between which they feel is close to having two elements. He stated it is not meeting the exact code but the area underneath is a breezeway giving it a carriage house feel which is in context with the neighborhood. From behind he showed the breezeway goes all the way through. The house is eight and a half ft off the ground and one long sloping roof with a few dormers in it. Why this may not meet the letter of inflection, he feels if the project meets the intent. He then displayed and discussed the recent proposed changes to the RDS that passed at first reading on December 14, 2015. He highlighted sections of the proposed code changes he feels are applicable to their proposal. He believes the code change is going to its second reading this month and based on their conversations with Mr. Justin Barker, the application would meet option 1 of the modified RDS based on the execution of the project. Mr. Wilson then showed a 3 dimensional picture of the proposed structure with and without existing trees from the across the street. He then displayed a view from the south and one from above. He concluded stating the development is historically respectful of the neighborhood. Mr. Goode asked if there were any questions for the applicant. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked for the height of the building that is to be considered for inflection. Ms. Phelan stated it is a one story cabin that was formerly a L’Auberge cabin. She doubted it is more than 15 ft tall. Mr. Morris asked for the peak height of the proposed inflected structure of the carriage house. Mr. Wilson believed it to be 28 ft. P3 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2016 4 Ms. McNicholas Kury then asked Mr. Wilson to point out 12 ft back from the front of the proposed structure, which he did. Mr. McNight asked for the reasoning of the lot split. Mr. Wilson stated it occurred in the 1990’s. Ms. Phelan stated this is a separate saleable lot. She added both lots are currently held by the same owner but it could be sold off. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if they could be rejoined and Ms. Phelan stated probably not because it would mean less developable sf. Mr. Goode then opened for public comment. Ms. Claude Salter, a neighbor, asked to make some points in regards to the property. • The hedgerow identified by Mr. Wilson might be on City property, but was planted by the previous owner. It is an illegal hedgerow and she cautioned the board to make any decisions in regards to the trees. • The lot under discussion is currently a vacant lot and she does not believe it has any site specific constraints such as river or steep slopes. She feels it is important for the development to correspond and respect Lake Ave and it should be facing Lake Ave. • The eave line meets the intent of the code regarding secondary mass. • The small cabin next to it should have inflection. The cabin was required to meet RDS when it was placed there. • New development should not be allowed any RDS variances, particularly in the west end. • In regards the eaves being presented as a one story inflection, she does not believe the code speaks to the eaves, it speaks to the entire structure. • Speaking as to what code may be in the future is taking a big risk. We do not know what Council will say in regards to the proposed changes to RDS. • This house as proposed does not meet the inflection required, nor does it meet secondary mass. The breezeway is not meet the definition of a linking element in regards to length and width. • She does not see eaves similar the proposed ones in the neighborhood. Even with the dormers, they are not putting a lot of volume into the eaves. In closing, she does not support any of the RDS variance requests. Mr. Goode then asked if the commissioners had additional questions. Ms. McNicholas Kury wanted to know if it was one story building with a 28 ft tall roof, would that be considered one story. Ms. Seminick stated stories are measured to plate heights. Ms. Phelan stated with inflection, it would be difficult to have a 28ft tall one story. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked about a traditional one story with uninhabitable attic space. Ms. Phelan stated there isn’t a good definition of one story of fully usable space at least 12 ft wide. There are areas within the code discussing not exceeding plate heights of 10 ft, but not related to inflection. Mr. McNight asked if the examples of garages and sheds for secondary masses listed in the packet reflect the purpose or could it be a carriage home. Ms. Phelan stated it could be part of the primary house, but you need a linking element. Another example had the master bedroom as a secondary mass with a linking element. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if it could be more than 10% at which Ms. Phelan stated yes, just not less than 10%. Mr. Goode then opened for discussion. P4 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2016 5 Mr. Morris stated if there are no site specific constraints, then it won’t be part of this discussion. He feels it is really inappropriate to make decisions based on potential future Council decisions. He does not feel the proposed design fits with the character of the neighborhood based on the inflection point. He understands the effort, but he feels the proposed structure is a lot of mass even when broken up. He does not see the contextual fit. He stated the shot of the building across the site (#5) steps down to a one story in the same building and has a different character than the proposed structure. Mr. McNight agrees with Mr. Morris. He feels it is a unique carriage house design, but feels the design includes a fully livable second story. He does not feel it is up to P&Z to decide and is opposed to the application. Ms. McNicholas Kury agrees with the others and doesn’t see an attempt to meet the secondary mass criteria. She see some attempt at justifying inflection but does not feel there are strong points to grant variances. Mr. Goode asked if the hedge is illegal, is the some way to notify the Parks Department. Ms. Phelan stated Parks would have to investigate for disease or see if something was planted too close. Mr. Goode feels an investigation may be constructive for the neighborhood. Mr. McNight agrees and feels this should be looked at as though it is not there. Mr. Goode feels they are all in agreement. Mr. Morris moved to deny the request for the RDS variance as noted in resolution 001, series 2016. At this point, the applicant requested a continuance. Ms. Phelan stated the applicant has the ability apply under the new RDS should it changed and adopted. Mr. Morris and Mr. McKnight felt it was reasonable to allow for a continuance. Mr. Morris withdrew his motion. Mr. Morris motioned to continue the hearing to January 18, 2016. The motion was seconded by Mr. McKnight. All in favor, motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS Election of Chair and Vice-Chair Ms. Quinn identified the options for selecting a chair and vice-chair, identify a temporary chair and vice- chair or continuing the selection to the next meeting. The commission discussed their options since there were only four members present. Ms. McNicholas Kury motioned to extend the selection of the chair and vice-chair appointments until the next regularly scheduled meeting in which there will be more than four members present and the motion was seconded. All in favor, motion passed. ADJOURN Mr. Goode then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager P5 IV.A. Lift One Lodge Amendment 2.2.2016 P&Z Memo Page 1 of 9 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Acting Community Development Director RE: 710/720 S Aspen Street – Planned Development Detailed Review Amendment, Commercial Resign Review Amendment, GMQS Reviews for Commercial Space and Affordable Housing, Conditional Use Review Resolution No.___, Series of 2015 MEETING DATE: February 2, 2016 APPLICANT /OWNER: Lift One Lodge Aspen, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann, Vann Associates, LLC LOCATION: 710/720 S Aspen Street CURRENT ZONING: Lodge (L) Zone District with a Planned Development Overlay SUMMARY: The owners of the Lift One Lodge request land use reviews to change the architecture and internal configuration of the approved project. Photo: Lift One Lodge location, looking south east. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends continuation of the hearing to February 16, 2016 to provide the Applicant an opportunity to respond to P&Z and Staff feedback and to provide P&Z an opportunity to receive formal APCHA comments. A resolution is not attached. REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Please note that this is an amendment to an approved and vested project and is subject to the provisions in the 2005 Land Use Code. • Commercial Design Review Amendment (Chapter 26.412, and the Commercial Design Guidelines) for an amended design of a mixed-use lodge building. (The Planning and P6 VI.A. Lift One Lodge Amendment 2.2.2016 P&Z Memo Page 2 of 9 Zoning Commission is the final review authority. City Council has the option to call-up the decision.) • A Planned Development Detailed Review Amendment (Chapter 26.445) to amend the design and internal configuration of an approved lodge. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority.) • GMQS Reviews (Chapter 26.470) for commercial and affordable housing development and allotments. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority.) • Conditional Use Review (Chapter 26.425) for commercial space as part of the lodge. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority.) BACKGROUND: In 2011, the Lift One Lodge project was approved by Ordinance 28, Series 2011. The approvals consisted of a four lot subdivision – Lot 1 containing a lodge and ski corridor, Lot 2 containing affordable housing in a rehabilitated Skiers Chalet Steakhouse, Lot 3 containing the historic Lift 1, and Lot 4 containing a relocated and rehabilitated Skiers Chalet Lodge to house an Aspen Historical Society Museum. The project was reviewed and vested in the 2005 land use code. Current vesting runs through November 28, 2018. Figure 1 shows the approved Lots. Figure 1 – approved Lots 1-4 of Lift One Subdivision P7 VI.A. Lift One Lodge Amendment 2.2.2016 P&Z Memo Page 3 of 9 Ordinance 28, Series 2011 included easements to the Aspen Skiing Company, the City of Aspen, and the property owners through Lots 1, 3, and 4 “for the purposes of constructing, operating, and maintaining a surface lift and other associated improvements necessary for uploading skiers from Willoughby Park to a point south of Lot 1 such that a skier could access Lift 1A or a relocated Lift 1A” (Section 1.1.a) and “for the purposes of constructing, operating, and maintaining a skiing corridor and associated improvements and operations necessary for skiing, including creating and maintaining acceptable snow surface conditions for skiing” (Section 1.1.b). These easements were subsequently recorded as part of the Development Agreement and Subdivision Plat, and are not proposed to change in this application. A number of rights-of-way were vacated as part of the original approval. Rights-of-way are typically not included in the calculation of Net Lot Area for Floor Area calculations. The P8 VI.A. Lift One Lodge Amendment 2.2.2016 P&Z Memo Page 4 of 9 Ordinance expressly stated that the vacated rights-of-way on Lots 1 and 2 were to be included in the calculation of Net Lot Area to offset the Ski Corridor Easement (Section 8). Heights for the Lodge portion of the project were approved using interpolated natural grade and range from 34.60 feet to 56.00 feet. The original approval included 5,263 sq ft of commercial net leasable space, which consisted of a 2,429 sq ft reconstruction credit and a 2,834 sq ft commercial growth management allotment. This space generated 8.77 FTEs. The lodge component and free-market residential component are not proposed to change. These spaces generated 23 FTEs and 3.35 FTEs, respectively. The original approval generated a total of 35.12 FTEs1. During the original approval process, the applicant committed to providing employee housing mitigation at 100% rather than the code required 60%. Ordinance 28 requires 16 FTEs be mitigated on-site through the provision of 8 dorm units on Lot 2, and allows the remaining 19.12 FTEs to be mitigated through a combination of off-site units, cash-in-lieu, and affordable housing credits. The approved project consists of the following use mix: Lot 1 – Lift One Lodge • Multi-story building connected subgrade with 2 separate above grade wings. • 22 timeshare units with 84 keys or rentable divisions. Each unit is divided into 1/8th interests for a total of 176 owner interests. • 5 free-market units • 163 subsurface space parking garage, with 50 spaces reserved for the public as replacement of lost parking on S Aspen St and Willoughby Park. • 5,263 sq ft commercial net leasable space Lot 2 – Skiers Chalet Steakhouse • 8 dormitory-style units providing housing for 16 employees Lot 3 – Lift One Park • Public Park with one lift tower of the historic Lift 1 apparatus. • Subgrade parking (park of Lot 1’s subsurface parking garage). Lot 4 – Willoughby Park • A public park with terminal and wheelhouse for the historic Lift 1. • Historical Society Museum. • Skier drop-off area • Ski area operations The proposed project amendment only involves the approvals for Lot 1. No changes are proposed for Lots 2, 3, or 4. 1 23 lodge FTEs + 8.77 commercial FTEs + 3.35 free-market residential FTEs = 35.12 total FTEs P9 VI.A. Lift One Lodge Amendment 2.2.2016 P&Z Memo Page 5 of 9 PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes amendments to the lodge building approved on Lot 1, including architectural changes to the building and converting “associated lodge” spaces to commercial net leasable. The proposal does not increase the floor area or heights of the approved building, and in many locations results in lower building heights. In addition, the applicant proposes setback changes to the lodge – all but one setback is proposed to increase so there are larger setbacks than in the approved project. The drawings in Exhibit C.1 show the proposed changes to height and setbacks. Table 1, below, outlines the dimensions that are proposed to change as part of this amendment. Table 1, Approved vs Proposed Lot 1 Dimensions Approved Dimensions Proposed Dimensions Minimum Lot Size 41,258 sq ft 41,268 (changes because of surveying error) Lot Area for Density 19,296 sq ft No Change Lot Area for Floor Area 38,954 sq ft No Change Lodge Unit Density Standard 537 sq ft per unit No Change Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit (free-market) 3,859 sq ft No Change Minimum Lot Area 19,296 sq ft No Change Minimum Lot Width 265 ft No Change Minimum Front Yard Setback East Wing: 1 ft West Wing: 4 ft East Wing: 0.42 ft West Wing: 6 ft Minimum Side Yard Setback East Wing North: 1 ft East Wing South: 1 ft West Wing North: 2 ft West Wing South: 3 ft East Wing North: 6 ft East Wing South: 4 ft West Wing North: 5 ft West Wing South: 4 ft Minimum Rear Yard Setback East Wing: 12 ft West Wing: 1 ft East Wing: 12.67 ft West Wing: 2 ft Maximum Height Per height Plan* East Wing: 34.6 – 44.4 ft West Wing: 37 - 56 ft *measured from interpolated grade Per height Plan* East Wing: 29.3 – 43.75 ft West Wing: 24.9 - 53 ft *measured from interpolated grade Total Floor Area 1.95:1, 76,141 sq ft 1.95:1, 76,123 sq ft Lodge Floor Area 1.16:1, 45,129 sq ft 1.16:1, 45,118 sq ft Commercial Floor Area 0.15:1, 5,698 sq ft 0.13:1, 5,220sq ft Non-Unit Space Floor Area 0.31:1, 12,206 sq ft 0.33:1, 12,684 sq ft Free-Market Residential Floor Area 17% of lodge FAR (0.33:1), 13,108 sq ft 17% of lodge FAR (0.33:1), 13,101 sq ft Total Parking 163 spaces 163 spaces Lodge Parking 42 spaces 66 spaces Commercial Parking 6 spaces 24 spaces P10 VI.A. Lift One Lodge Amendment 2.2.2016 P&Z Memo Page 6 of 9 Free-Market Residential Parking 5 spaces 5 spaces Affordable Housing Parking 8 spaces 8 spaces Public Parking 50 spaces 50 spaces Private Lodge Members Parking 44 spaces N/A Other (Neighbors) 8 spaces 10 spaces Commercial Space Changes: When the original approvals were granted, the project was owned by an entity associated with the Roaring Fork Club. As such, a number of internal spaces were to be associated with and made available exclusively to members of the Roaring Fork Club. These spaces were considered “associated lodge space” and were calculated in floor area, but did not count as commercial net leasable space because they technically were not open to the public. Because the property is under new ownership, the areas that were to be made available to the Roaring Fork Club are proposed to be repurposed as commercial net leasable space. This results in an increase of 18,413 sq ft of net leasable space, for a total of 23,676 sq ft of net leasable space in the project.2 The applicant anticipates that the commercial space will include additional restaurant and retail spaces, spa space, locker rooms, and ski storage. The applicant has committed to retaining the 100% employee mitigation commitment for the net increase in FTEs generated by this amendment when the code requires 30% mitigation. Complete mitigation calculations are included in Exhibit A.4. The increase in commercial space results in a net increase of 55.84 FTEs. The applicant proposes these FTEs be mitigated through a combination of off-site units, housing credits, and cash-in-lieu, consistent with the allowances in Ordinance 28, Series 2011. The increase in commercial space also increases the parking required for the commercial space. The Land Use Code requires 1 parking space per 1,000 sq ft of commercial space. This results in 24 spaces required for the commercial component of the project.3 The original approval included 44 parking spaces for members of the Roaring Fork Club. Because the Roaring Fork Club is no longer involved in the project, 18 of these spaces are proposed to be repurposed to meet the code required commercial parking spaces. The remaining 26 spaces are proposed to be repurposed for the lodge component and for neighbors. There is no decrease in total parking spaces provided in the sub-grade parking garage. Table 2, below, outlines the proposed parking reallocation. 2 18,413 sq ft new space + 5,263 sq ft in original approval = 23,676 sq ft 3 23,676 sq ft / 1,000 sq ft = 23.6 parking spaces, rounded to 24 spaces P11 VI.A. Lift One Lodge Amendment 2.2.2016 P&Z Memo Page 7 of 9 Table 2, Approved vs Proposed Parking Approved Dimensions Proposed Dimensions Total Parking 163 spaces 163 spaces Lodge Parking 42 spaces 66 spaces Commercial Parking 6 spaces 24 spaces Free-Market Residential Parking 5 spaces 4 spaces Affordable Housing Parking 8 spaces 8 spaces Public Parking 50 spaces 50 spaces Private Lodge Members Parking 44 spaces N/A Other (Neighbors) 8 spaces 10 spaces Design Changes: The applicant proposes changes to the overall architecture for the building. The basic form and scale of the buildings is maintained, while the treatment of the façade is amended to a more contemporary architecture. In addition, some rooftop deck space is proposed. The changes will not affect the skier’s access easement. Approved materials include a stone base and wood cladding. The proposed design retains a stone base and wood cladding while introducing additional windows to the design. Figure 2 illustrates the approved architecture, and Figure 3 illustrates the proposed architecture. These are taken from approximately the same view angle. Figure 2 – Approved Design, looking from southwest Figure 3 – Proposed Design, looking from southwest P12 VI.A. Lift One Lodge Amendment 2.2.2016 P&Z Memo Page 8 of 9 STAFF COMMENTS: In general, staff is supportive of the proposed changes, particularly converting significant privatized space that was to be made available only to members of the Roaring Fork Club to commercial space available to the general public. The proposal does not increase the overall floor area of the project and maintains or reduces building heights. Staff recommends some changes to the architecture to be more consistent with the neighborhood. Staff comments on each required review is detailed below. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT: A Planned Development Amendment is required for the amended dimensions and design. While the overall massing of the building stays the same, there are larger setbacks in all but one setback and the height is the same or lower than what was approved. Staff believes the dimensional changes are consistent with the original approvals, and particularly supports the increased setbacks as they will provide some additional pedestrian relief, particularly along the Skier’s easement between the two lodge wings. Staff does have concerns that the one setback decrease on the East Wing Front Setback (approved at 1 foot, proposed at 0.42 feet), is not large enough. Staff recommends that the setback remain 1 foot. In terms of design, the Planned Development review criteria requires the design to use materials that reduce the perceived scale of the building and enhance the visual interest of the façade. Staff is concerned that the new design is less alpine in nature than the previous design. As you go up the mountain, away from the commercial core, building designs tend to become more alpine in nature – pitched roofs, façade articulation, and less glass. While staff supports the design in terms of reducing overall heights, staff recommends the design be re-examined to better fit with the mountain context. COMMERCIAL DESIGN: A Commercial Design Amendment is required for the design changes that are proposed. The design is proposed to include a mix of rusticated metal, dressed stone, wood cladding, glass, and metal railings. The proposed materials are indicative of the use and the character of the area. As stated above, staff would like to see more alpine elements in the design to better match the general character of the area, such as • Additional façade articulation. • A pitched roof on the eastern-most building. • Sloping roof forms on the buildings. • Less glazing and more of the proposed wood material GROWTH MANAGEMENT: Growth Management Reviews are required for the additional commercial space. An allotment of 18,413 sq ft of net leasable space is requested. This equates to 55.84 FTEs. The code requires 30% of new commercial FTEs to be mitigated, which would be 16.75 FTEs4. However, the applicant proposes to be consistent with the original project approval and agree to mitigate 100% of the net new FTEs generated. The original approval allowed any FTEs beyond the 16 housed in the Skiers Chalet Steakhouse to be mitigated through a combination of housing credits, off-site units, or cash-in-lieu payment. Due to a Planning Staff oversite, the APCHA Board has not had an opportunity to review the proposed mitigation, and 4 55.84 FTEs x 30% mitigation rate = 16.75 FTEs P13 VI.A. Lift One Lodge Amendment 2.2.2016 P&Z Memo Page 9 of 9 their recommendation is required before P&Z can make a decision on the mitigation proposed. They will review the case on Wednesday February 3rd. CONDITIONAL USE: A Conditional Use review is required for the proposed commercial spaces. All commercial spaces, including restaurants, retail, and spa/locker facilities are conditional uses in the Lodge (L) zone district. The amendment proposes commercial spaces that are typical of other lodges in town and in the Lodge zone district, including The St. Regis, Grand Hyatt, Sky Hotel, and Limelight. Staff supports the request, as the proposed commercial uses (restaurant, retail, spa, lockers, and rooftop bar, are typical amenities of a hotel in this area and will enhance the viability of the lodge and Aspen’s resort economy. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission continue the public hearing to February 16, 2016 to allow the Applicant to respond to initial comments from staff and the Commission and to allow the APCHA Board time to provide comments on the project. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to continue the public hearing for 710/720 S Aspen Street (Lift One Lodge) to February 16, 2016.” Attachments: Exhibit A.1 – PD Review Criteria, Staff Findings Exhibit A.2 – Commercial Design Review Criteria, Staff Findings Exhibit A.3 – Conditional Use Review Criteria, Staff Findings Exhibit A.4 – GMQS Review Criteria, Staff Findings Exhibit B – Application Exhibit C.1 – Planned Development Drawings Exhibit C.2 – Planned Development Renderings Exhibit D – Public Comment – includes all letters received through January 28, 2016 P14 VI.A. Lift One Lodge PD – Detailed Review Amendment Exhibit A.1, PD Review Criteria Page 1 of 7 Exhibit A.1 – Planned Development Detailed Review Criteria Note: This project is vested in the 2005 code. However, the Planned Development portion of the current Land Use Code requires that all amendments be subject to the review process and standards in the current code. Therefore, for the Planned Development Amendment only, the project is subject to the current review standards. 26.445.110. Amendments. Amendments to an approved Project Review or to an approved Detailed Review shall be reviewed according to the standards and procedures outline below. Amendments to Planned Unit Development and Specially Planned Area approvals (pre- Ordinance 36, 2013, approvals) shall also proceed according to the standards and procedures outline below and the Community Development Director shall determine the type of procedure most-applicable to the requested amendment. E. Minor Amendment to a Detailed Review approval. An amendment found by the Community Development Director consistent with a Project Review approval and to be generally consistent with the allowances and limitations of a Detailed Review approval, or which otherwise represents an insubstantial change, but which does not meet the established thresholds for an insubstantial amendment, may be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission as applicable, pursuant to 26.445.040.B.3 – Step Three. 26.445.070. Detailed Review Standards. Detailed Review shall focus on the comprehensive evaluation of the specific aspects of the development, including utility placement, and architectural materials. In the review of a development application for Detailed Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission, or the Historic Preservation Commission as applicable, shall consider the following: A. Compliance with Project Review Approval. The proposed development, including all dimensions and uses, is consistent with the Project Review approval and adequately addresses conditions on the approval and direction received during the Project Review. Staff Response: Minor dimensional variations are proposed which increase setbacks and decrease heights. While there is a proposed increase in the amount of commercial net leasable space, no changes to the overall floor area ratio are proposed. One setback is proposed to decrease, which is inconsistent with the original approval. Staff recommends this setback (the East Wing front yard setback) be 1 foot, which is consistent with the original approval. The proposed dimensional changes are listed in the table below. Staff supports all the revised dimensions, with the exception of the one setback change. Approved Dimensions Proposed Dimensions Minimum Lot Size 41,258 sq ft 41,268 sq ft (changes because of surveying error) Minimum Front Yard Setback East Wing: 1 ft West Wing: 4 ft East Wing: 0.42 ft West Wing: 6 ft P15 VI.A. Lift One Lodge PD – Detailed Review Amendment Exhibit A.1, PD Review Criteria Page 2 of 7 Minimum Side Yard Setback East Wing North: 1 ft East Wing South: 1 ft West Wing North: 2 ft West Wing South: 3 ft East Wing North: 6 ft East Wing South: 4 ft West Wing North: 5 ft West Wing South: 4 ft Minimum Rear Yard Setback East Wing: 12 ft West Wing: 1 ft East Wing: 12.67 ft West Wing: 2 ft Maximum Height Per height Plan* East Wing: 34.6 – 44.4 ft West Wing: 37 - 56 ft *measured from interpolated grade Per height Plan* East Wing: 29.3 – 43.75 ft West Wing: 24.9 - 53 ft *measured from interpolated grade Total Floor Area 1.95:1, 76,141 sq ft 1.95:1, 76,123 sq ft Lodge Floor Area 1.16:1, 45,129 sq ft 1.16:1, 45,118 sq ft Commercial Floor Area 0.15:1, 5,698 sq ft 0.13:1, 5,220sq ft Non-Unit Space Floor Area 0.31:1, 12,206 sq ft 0.33:1, 12,2684 sq ft Free-Market Residential Floor Area 17% of lodge FAR (0.33:1), 13,108 sq ft 17% of lodge FAR (0.33:1), 13,101 sq ft Total Parking 163 spaces 163 spaces Lodge Parking 42 spaces 66 spaces Commercial Parking 6 spaces 24 spaces Free-Market Residential Parking 5 spaces 5 spaces Affordable Housing Parking 8 spaces 8 spaces Public Parking 50 spaces 50 spaces Private Lodge Members Parking 44 spaces N/A Other (Neighbors) 8 spaces 10 spaces B. Growth Management. The proposed development has received all required GMQS allotments, or is concurrently seeking allotments. Staff Response: The proposed amendment includes a request for Growth Management allotments for the increase commercial space. See Exhibit A.4 for responses to those review criteria. Staff finds this criterion is met. C. Site Planning and Landscape Architecture. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well-designed treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. Vegetation removal, protection, and restoration plans shall be acceptable to the Director of Parks and Open Space. P16 VI.A. Lift One Lodge PD – Detailed Review Amendment Exhibit A.1, PD Review Criteria Page 3 of 7 Staff Response: No changes are proposed to the approved landscaping plan. As outlined in the original approval Ordinance (Ordinance 28, Series 2011) all final landscaping will be reviewed by the Parks Department at the time of building permit submission. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. 2. Buildings and site grading provide simple, at-grade entrances and minimize extensive grade changes along building exteriors. The project meets or exceeds the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and applicable requirements for emergency, maintenance, and service vehicle access. Adequate snow storage is accommodated. Staff Response: The project includes at-grade entrances, with the exception of the ski lockers which are accessed through the parking garage. An ADA lift will be provided to ensure access to the lockers is compliant with ADA requirements. In addition, there are adequate sidewalk widths along S Aspen Street. Snow storage areas are included on the site. Staff finds this criterion is met. 3. Energy efficiency or production features are integrated into the landscape in a manner that enhances the site. Staff Response: There are no energy production features proposed. The only energy efficiency features are the landscape lights which will meet the City’s lighting code. Staff finds this criterion is met. 4. All site lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. All exterior lighting shall comply with the City’s outdoor lighting standards. Staff Response: No changes are proposed to the site’s approved lighting plan. All outdoor lighting is required to meet the City’s Outdoor Lighting Code. Verification will occur at building permit review. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 5. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in compliance with Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Response: Site drainage is required to be in compliance with Title 29. Conformation of compliance will be required at building permit. Staff finds this criterion is met. D. Design Standards and Architecture. The proposed architectural details emphasize quality construction and design characteristics. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: 1. The project architecture provides for visual interest and incorporates present-day details and use of materials respectful of the community’s past without attempting to mimic history. P17 VI.A. Lift One Lodge PD – Detailed Review Amendment Exhibit A.1, PD Review Criteria Page 4 of 7 Staff Response: The revised project is similar in footprint to the previous proposal, but the two buildings will have flat, rather than pitched roofs. Like the original approval, the larger structure steps up in height as it follows the natural topography. The materials are consistent with the original approval, but include significantly more glazing. The materials include a combination of rusticated stone, dressed stone, wood cladding, glass, and metal railings and connectors. The base of the building is clad in heavier stone, consistent with the area and the approved design. While staff appreciates the contemporary design approach as part of a desired reinvigoration of the neighborhood, the surrounding neighborhood includes a mix of flat and sloping roof forms. Staff believes there should be a stronger relationship between the proposed lodge design and the Skier Chalet buildings that occupy Lots 2 and 4 of the subdivision. The form of those gabled buildings complement the mountain landscape, rather than contrasting with it, and like other structures in the area, they reflect classic alpine architecture traditions that were considered appropriate for development at the original access point for skiing Aspen Mountain, one of America’s earliest ski resorts. The proposed green roofs on the structures have numerous benefits and these systems can be installed on roofs with a slope, satisfying environmental and architectural policies. Staff suggests the following elements be considered in an effort to create a design more responsive to the alpine context: • Additional façade articulation. • A pitched roof on the eastern-most building. • Introduction of some sloping roof forms on the buildings. Areas of flat roof, particularly for outdoor decks, are appropriate. • Less glazing and more of the proposed wood material Staff finds this criterion is not met. 2. Exterior materials are of a high quality, durability, and comply with applicable design standards, including those outlined in Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Standards, and Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation. Staff Response: The applicant proposes a combination of rusticated stone, dressed stone, wood cladding, glass, and metal railings and connectors. Green roof elements are proposed to be installed. Any rooftop mechanical equipment will be screened and meet the height allowances outlined in the original approval. The Commercial Design Standards include a reference to the City’s Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines document. This property falls in the “Mountain Base” character area, which includes two guidelines related to exterior materials. Compliance with these standards is listed below: Mountain Base Architectural Materials Guideline 4.23: 4.23 High quality, durable materials should be employed. P18 VI.A. Lift One Lodge PD – Detailed Review Amendment Exhibit A.1, PD Review Criteria Page 5 of 7 • The palette of materials proposed for all development should be specified and approved as part of the general and detailed development approvals process, including samples of materials as required. The proposed palette of materials is durable and high quality. They are materials typical of the area, and include stone, metal, and wood. Staff finds this guideline is met. Mountain Base Architectural Materials Guideline 4.24: 4.24 Building materials should have these features: • Convey the quality and range of materials seen historically • Reduce the perceived scale of the building and enhance visual interest of the façade. • Convey human scale • Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within this climate Staff has some concerns that the proposed use of glass does not convey human scale. Staff recommends that the amount of glazing be reduced in an effort to respond to the neighborhood context of small punched openings. In addition, staff has some concerns that the streamlined design creates a relatively flat horizontal design that increases the perceived scale of the building and removes some of the visual interest that was created through the façade articulation in the original approved proposal. Staff finds this guideline is not met. At this time, Staff finds this criterion is not met. 3. Building entrances are sited or designed to minimize icing and snow shedding effects. Staff Response: Building entrances are designed to minimize icing and snow shedding. The main entrance to the building is located in the covered drop-off area, and the entrance to the restaurant is covered. Staff finds this criterion is met. 4. Energy efficiency or production features are integrated into structures in a manner that enhances the architecture. Staff Response: Energy efficiency features, such as solar panels, are not proposed as part of this project. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. 5. All structure lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. All exterior lighting shall comply with the City’s outdoor lighting standards. Staff Response: All lighting will met the City of Aspen’s Outdoor Lighting standards. The Zoning Officer will confirm compliance during the building permit review. Staff finds this criterion is met. P19 VI.A. Lift One Lodge PD – Detailed Review Amendment Exhibit A.1, PD Review Criteria Page 6 of 7 E. Common Parks, Open Space, Recreation Areas, or Facilities. If the proposed development includes common parks, open space, recreation areas, or common facilities, a proportionate, undivided interest is deeded in perpetuity to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the Planned Development. An adequate assurance through a Development Agreement for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a prohibition against future development is required. Staff Response: No common parks, open spaces, or other facilities are proposed to be conveyed to the owners of the free-market units or the fractional lodge units. A public park was part of the original approval, and all requirements remain in effect. Staff finds this criterion is met. F. Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular facilities and improvements. Any new vehicular access points minimize impacts on existing pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities. Any specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines as required during Project Review comply with the applicable requirements of the Project Review and as otherwise required in the Land Use Code. These plans shall provide sufficient detail to determine if the design or mitigation concept complies with the intent of the requirements and to determine any required cost estimating for surety requirements, but do not need to be detailed construction documents. Staff Response: The project completed an extensive transportation plan as part of the original approval. No changes to that plan are proposed. Staff finds this criterion is met. G. Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the proposed subdivision to comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). Any specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines as required during Project Review comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). These plans shall provide sufficient detail to determine if the design or mitigation concept complies with the intent of the requirements, but do not need to be detailed construction documents. Staff Response: The applicant will comply with all requirements listed in their original approval, as well as the requirements outlined in Title 29 and the URMP. Staff finds this criterion is met. H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. P20 VI.A. Lift One Lodge PD – Detailed Review Amendment Exhibit A.1, PD Review Criteria Page 7 of 7 Any specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines as required during Project Review comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). These plans shall provide sufficient detail to determine if the design or mitigation concept complies with the intent of the requirements, but do not need to be detailed construction documents. Staff Response: The applicant commits to upgrading public infrastructure as described in the original approval ordinance (Ordinance 28, Series of 2011) and in the recorded Development Agreement. Staff finds this criterion is met. I. Phasing of development plan. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. Phasing shall insulate, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. All necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the Planned Development, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures shall be completed concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. Staff Response: The applicant represents that the project will not be phased. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. P21 VI.A. Lift One Lodge Amendment Exhibit A.2 – Commercial Design Staff Findings Page 1 of 7 Exhibit A.2 – Commercial Design Standards Staff Findings Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Review 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: 1. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial Design Standards or any deviation from the Standards provides a more-appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the Standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested Design Elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the Standards. Staff Findings: The proposed uses are consistent with the intent of the Lodge (L) Zone district. The commercial uses (retail, restaurant, ski lockers, spa, bar and lounge, kitchen) all currently exist on the site. Staff finds this criterion is met. 2. 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. Amendments to the façade of the building may be required to comply with this section. Staff Findings: The proposed amendment does not convert an existing structure. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. 3. For properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures or located within a Historic District, the proposed development has received Conceptual Development Plan approval from the Historic Preservation Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.415. This criterion shall not apply if the development activity does not require review by the Historic Preservation Commission. Staff Findings: The proposed amendment does not impact a designated structure. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. 26.412.060 Commercial Design Standards. The following design standards shall apply to commercial, lodging, and mixed-use development: A. Building Relationship to Primary Street. A street wall is comprised of buildings facing principal streets and public pedestrian spaces. Consistent street walls provide a sense of a coherent district and frame an outdoor room. Interruptions in this enclosure can lessen the quality of a commercial street. Corner buildings are especially important, in that they are more visible and their scale and proportion affects the street walls of two streets. Well-designed and located pedestrian open spaces can positively affect the quality of the district, while remnant or leftover spaces can detract from the downtown. A building’s relationship to the street is entirely important to the quality of the downtown P22 VI.A. Lift One Lodge Amendment Exhibit A.2 – Commercial Design Staff Findings Page 2 of 7 pedestrian environment. Split-level retail and large vertical separations from the sidewalk can disrupt the coherence of a retail district. The following standards shall apply: 1. Building facades shall be parallel to the adjoining primary streets. Minor elements of the building façade may be developed at irregular angles. Staff Findings: The proposed building is parallel to S Aspen Street. Staff finds this criterion is met. 2. Building facades along primary streets shall be setback no more than the average setback of the adjoining buildings and no less than the minimum requirement of the particular zone district. Exempt from this provision are building setbacks accommodating On-Site Pedestrian Amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030. Staff Findings: The proposed building facades are located at a consistent setback and are larger than as approved in all but one setback. Staff recommends that the one setback proposed to be reduced (front yard setback on the East Wing) be retained at the 1 foot in the approval. This setback is located on the park side of the building. Staff finds this criterion is met. 3. Building facades along primary streets shall maintain a consistent setback on the first and second story. Staff Findings: The proposed building includes a consistent façade along S Aspen Street. Staff finds this criterion is met. 4. Commercial buildings shall be developed with the first floor at, or within two (2) feet above, the level of the adjoining sidewalk, or right-of-way if no sidewalk exists. “Split- level” retail frontage is prohibited. Staff Findings: The proposed building is located on a sloping site and is proposed to be located with access points from the sidewalk at multiple locations. Staff finds this criterion is met. 5. Commercial buildings incorporating a setback from a primary street shall not incorporate a substantial grade change between the building façade and the public right-of-way. “Moats” surrounding buildings are prohibited. Staff Findings: No moats are proposed. The building appropriately steps up with the changing grade along S Aspen Street. Staff finds this criterion is met. B. Pedestrian 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. Pedestrian amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights- of-way or private property within commercial areas. P23 VI.A. Lift One Lodge Amendment Exhibit A.2 – Commercial Design Staff Findings Page 3 of 7 On parcels required to provide pedestrian amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030 – Pedestrian Amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the Pedestrian 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 pedestrian amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. 2. The pedestrian 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. 3. The pedestrian amenity, and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of-way, and uses, contributes to an inviting pedestrian environment. 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. 5. Any variation to the Design and Operational Standards for Pedestrian Amenity, Section 26.575.030(F) promote the purpose of the pedestrian amenity requirements. 6. The Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, may reduce the pedestrian amenity requirement by any amount, such that no more than half the requirement is waived, as an incentive for well-designed projects having a positive contribution to the pedestrian environment. The resulting requirement may not be less than 10%. On-site provision shall not be required for a reduction in the requirement. A mix of uses within the proposed building that enliven the surrounding pedestrian environment may be considered. Staff Findings: No public amenity space is proposed on Lot 1. This was part of the original approval due to the significant public spaces and skier access easement included in Lots 3 and 4 of the subdivision and the fact that the Lodge zone district did not require Public Amenity space at the time. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. C. Street-Level Building Elements. The “storefront,” or street-level portion of a commercial building is perhaps the single most important element of a commercial district building. Effective storefront design can make an entire district inviting and pedestrian friendly. Unappealing storefront design can become a detriment to the vitality of a commercial district. In order to be an effective facility for the sale of goods and services, the storefront has traditionally been used as a tool to present those goods and services to the passing pedestrian (potential customer). Because of this function, the storefront has traditionally been as transparent as possible to allow maximum visibility to the interior. The following standards shall apply: 1. Unarticulated, blank walls are prohibited. Fenestration, or an alternate means of façade articulation, is required on all exterior walls. P24 VI.A. Lift One Lodge Amendment Exhibit A.2 – Commercial Design Staff Findings Page 4 of 7 Staff Findings: The proposed building amendment includes a great deal of glass and fenestration and does not include blank facades along the street. Staff finds this criterion is met. 2. Retail buildings shall incorporate, at a minimum, a 60% fenestration ratio on exterior street-level walls facing primary streets. (For example: each street-level wall of a retail building that faces a primary street must be comprised of at least 60% fenestration penetrations and no more than 40% solid materials.) This provision may be reduced or waived for lodging properties with no, or limited, street-level retail, office buildings with no retail component, and for Service/Commercial/Industrial buildings. Staff Findings: A majority of the commercial space is located subgrade and accessed through the building. This standard is therefore only applicable to the at grade restaurant space located on the south side of the West Wing. The entrance to the restaurant includes significant windows, consistent with the proposed building design. While there are windows that meet this standard, staff has some concerns that the amount of glazing it greater than is typically seem in the neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion is met. 3. Building entrances shall be well-defined and apparent. Staff Findings: Building entrances are located along the south property line for the restaurant and in the drop off area. Both locations are well defined. Staff finds this criterion is met. 4. Building entrances shall be designed to accommodate an internal airlock such that temporary seasonal airlocks on the exterior of the building are unnecessary. 5. Staff Findings: Airlocks are proposed for all commercial entrances. Staff finds this criterion is met. 6. Non-traditional storefronts, such as along an alleyway, are encouraged. Staff Findings: No non-traditional storefronts are proposed. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. D. Parking. Parking is a necessary component of a successful commercial district. The manner in which parking is physically accommodated has a larger impact upon the quality of the district that the amount of parking. Surface parking separating storefronts from the street creates a cluttered, inhospitable pedestrian environment. A downtown retail district shaped by buildings, well- designed storefronts, and a continuous street wall is highly preferred over a district shaped by parking lots. Well-placed and well-designed access points to parking garages can allow convenient parking without disrupting the retail district. The following standards shall apply: P25 VI.A. Lift One Lodge Amendment Exhibit A.2 – Commercial Design Staff Findings Page 5 of 7 1. Parking shall only be accessed from alleyways, unless such access is unavailable or an unreasonable design solution in which case access from a primary street shall be designed in a manner that minimizes disruption of the pedestrian environment. Staff Findings: Parking is accessed from the same location as the original approved design. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. 2. Surface parking shall not be located between the Street right-of-way and the building façade. Staff Findings: No surface parking is proposed. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. 3. Above grade parking garages in commercial districts shall incorporate ground-floor commercial uses and be designed in a manner compatible with surrounding buildings and uses. Staff Findings: The proposed parking garage is located subgrade. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. 4. Above grade parking garages shall not reveal internal ramping on the exterior façade of the building. Staff Findings: The proposed parking garage is located subgrade. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. E. 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 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 utility, trash, and recycle service area shall be accommodated along the alley meeting the minimum standards established by Section 26.575.060 Utility/Trash/Recycle Service Areas, unless otherwise established according to said section. Staff Findings: The utility area and trash and recycle service area is located in the subgrade garage. Staff finds this criterion is met. 2. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property and along the alley. 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 a historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. Staff Findings: All utility service pedestals are located on private property. Staff finds this criterion is met. P26 VI.A. Lift One Lodge Amendment Exhibit A.2 – Commercial Design Staff Findings Page 6 of 7 3. Delivery service areas shall be incorporated along the alley. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. Staff Findings: Delivery service areas shall be located in the proposed parking garage. Staff finds this criterion is met. 4. 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: Venting and exhaust will be vented through the roof and will be set back from S Aspen Street. Staff finds this criterion is met. 5. 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: Any venting through the roof will be screened and consistent with the height allowances in the original approval ordinance. Staff finds this criterion is 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 wayfinding 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. 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. 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 26.575.050, is mandatory. P27 VI.A. Lift One Lodge Amendment Exhibit A.2 – Commercial Design Staff Findings Page 7 of 7 D. Original Townsite Articulation: Buildings spanning more than one Original Townsite Lot should incorporate façade expressions coincidental with these original parcel boundaries to reinforce historic scale. This may be inappropriate in some circumstances, such as on large corner lots. E. Architectural Features: Parapet walls should be used to shield mechanical equipment from pedestrian views. Aligning cornices and other architectural features with adjacent buildings can relate new buildings to their historical surroundings. Awnings and canopies can be used to provide architectural interest and shield windows and entryways from the elements. Staff Findings: These standards are not required to be met, but can be used to justify a variance on other standards. Signage and display windows are not advantageous on this project due to the use being primarily lodging. The application proposes to be in compliance with the City’s lighting requirements. The project is consistent with the original townsite grid. Staff finds this criterion is met. P28 VI.A. Lift One Lodge Amendment Exhibit A.3 – Conditional Use Staff Findings Page 1 of 2 Exhibit A.3 – Conditional Use Staff Findings 26.425.040. Standards applicable to all conditional uses. When considering a development application for a conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether all of the following standards are met, as applicable. A. The conditional use is consistent with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located and complies with all other applicable requirements of this Title; and Staff Findings: The proposed uses are consistent with the intent of the Lodge (L) Zone district. The commercial uses (retail, restaurant, ski lockers, spa, bar and lounge, kitchen) all currently exist on the site. Staff finds this criterion is met. B. The conditional use is compatible with the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping, and open space, as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan. Staff Findings: The proposal is compatible with the mix of development in the area. Other hotels in the area that are of similar scale, including the St. Regis to the north and the Grand Hyatt, Little Nell, and Residences to the east, also include these types of commercial spaces. The existing hotel includes all the proposed uses, as does the adjacent Little Nell Hotel. The restaurant is accessed through an at grade entrance at the south end of the site. Other commercial areas are accessed internally. The property is not subject to any adopted regulatory plans. Staff finds this criterion is met. C. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses and enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; and Staff Findings: The proposal is consistent with the character in the area Other hotels in the area that are of similar scale, including the St. Regis to the north and the Grand Hyatt, Little Nell, and Residences to the east, also include these types of commercial spaces. Staff finds this criterion is met. D. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; and Staff Findings: The proposal minimizes adverse impacts on neighbors by locating most of the commercial spaces inside, and by locating all service deliveries and trash pick-up through the subgrade garage. Parking for the commercial areas meets the code requirement and is located within the subgrade garage. Staff finds this criterion is met. P29 VI.A. Lift One Lodge Amendment Exhibit A.3 – Conditional Use Staff Findings Page 2 of 2 E. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems and schools; and Staff Findings: All required public infrastructure is available and will be updated, as necessary, as part of this project. Staff finds this criterion is met. F. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; and Staff Findings: The applicant proposes housing mitigation for the additional commercial space. Complete review criteria for the growth management review is in Exhibit A.4. Staff finds this criterion is met. G. The Community Development Director may recommend and the Planning and Zoning Commission may impose such conditions on a conditional use that are necessary to maintain the integrity of the City's Zone Districts and to ensure the conditional use complies this Chapter and this Title; is compatible with surrounding land uses; and is served by adequate public facilities. This includes, but is not limited to, imposing conditions on size, bulk, location, open space, landscaping, buffering, lighting, signage, off-street parking and other similar design features, the construction of public facilities to serve the conditional use and limitations on the operating characteristics, hours of operation and duration of the conditional use. Staff Findings: At this time, staff does not propose any additional conditions related to the commercial uses. The applicant will be required to meet all city codes, including noise regulations. Staff finds this criterion is met. P30 VI.A. Lift One Lodge Amendment Exhibit A.4 – GMQS Staff Findings Page 1 of 5 Exhibit A.4 – GMQS Staff Findings Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System 26.470.040.B.3. Incentive Lodge Development. The expansion of an existing lodge or the development of a new lodge shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the expansion, pursuant to Section 26.470.030(D), Annual Development Allotments. Staff Findings: The Application includes a request allotments for 18,413 sq ft of commercial net leasable space. There are adequate allotments available for the request. Staff finds this criterion is met. b) The proposed development is compatible with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Findings: The proposed development demonstrated compliance with this criterion during the original approval. Since that approval, the Aspen Area Community Plan has been updated and is no longer considered a regulatory document. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. c) The project contains a minimum of one lodge unit per five hundred (500) square feet of Lot Area and these lodge units average five hundred (500) square feet or less per unit. These two standards (the density standard and the unit-size standard) may be varied in some cases according to the limitations of the zone district in which the project is developed and still meet this criterion. (See zone district requirements.) Units developed in excess of those necessary to meet the Lot Area standard shall not be required to meet the average-size standard. For the expansion of a lodge which is not being demolished/redeveloped and which does not currently meet the Lot Area standard, only the average unit-size standard of the new units shall be required in order to meet this criterion. Projects not meeting the density or unit-size standard shall be reviewed pursuant to 26.470.040.C.2 – Expansion/New Commercial, Lodge, or Mixed Use Development. Staff Findings: Lot 1 includes a lot area of 19,296 sq ft for density calculation purposes. The approved lodge includes 22 units with 84 rentable keys (lock-offs). The project includes one lodge unit per 230 sq ft of net lot area (19,296 sq ft / 84 lodge keys = 230 sq ft lot area per key). The average unit size for the units is 537 sq ft (45,118 sq ft lodge floor area / 84 lodge keys = 537 sq ft average unit size). The amendment does not change the number of lodge units, the average unit size, or lodge floor area that were approved in the original ordinance. The average unit size was approved at the 537 sq ft during the original approval. Therefore, staff finds this criterion is met. d) Associated free-market residential development, as permitted pursuant to the zone district in which the lodge is developed, shall be allocated on a unit basis and attributed to the P31 VI.A. Lift One Lodge Amendment Exhibit A.4 – GMQS Staff Findings Page 2 of 5 annual development allotment. Each unit shall require the provision of affordable housing mitigation by one of the following methods: i) Providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or a Carriage House for each residential unit pursuant to Section 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses. The unit need not be detached or entirely above grade to meet this criterion. ii) Providing on-site or off-site Affordable Housing Units equal to 30% of the free- market residential units (on a unit basis). The affordable housing units shall be one-bedroom or larger and be provided as actual units (not as a cash-in-lieu payment). Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. Provision of affordable housing mitigation via units outside of the City of Aspen shall require approval from City Council, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.D.2. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. iii) Paying an affordable housing cash-in-lieu fee normally associated with exempt single-family and duplex development, pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Notes: The City encourages the affordable housing units required for the free- market residential development to be associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. An efficiency or reduction in the number of employees required for a lodge component of a Incentive Lodge project may be approved as a credit towards the mitigation requirement for the free-market component of the project, pursuant to Section 26.470.050.A.1 – Employee Generation. Staff Findings: The original approval included 5 free-market residential units. There is no proposed increase to the lodge’s free-market units. The original approval under this code was determined to be 3.35 employees, at the 30% mitigation requirement, which were approved to be mitigated pursuant to Section 4.4 of the approval ordinance. Staff finds this criterion is met. e) Thirty (30) percent of the employees generated by the additional lodge, timeshare lodge, exempt timeshare units, and associated commercial development, according Section 26.470.050.A, Employee Generation Rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof. On-site affordable housing units shall be one-bedroom or larger units. Employee mitigation shall only be required for additional development and shall not be required for replacement development. The Planning and Zoning Commission may consider unique characteristics or efficiencies of the proposed operation and lower the mitigation requirements pursuant to Section 26.470.050.A.1 – Employee Generation. Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. Provision of affordable housing mitigation via units outside of the City of Aspen shall require approval from City Council, P32 VI.A. Lift One Lodge Amendment Exhibit A.4 – GMQS Staff Findings Page 3 of 5 pursuant to Section 26.470.040.D.2. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. Staff Findings: No additional lodge units are proposed in this amendment. The applicant proposes an additional 18,413 sq ft of commercial space. In order to calculate the number of FTEs generated, complete calculations of the lodge and commercial component, including reconstruction credits is required. These calculations are detailed below: Reconstruction Credits: Section 4.1 of the original Ordinance outlines the reconstruction credits for the project, which included 38 lodge units/bedrooms and 2,429 sq ft of commercial net leasable space. This equates to a reconstruction credit of 28.96 FTEs, as follows: 38 lodge bedrooms x 0.5 FTEs per bedroom = 19 FTEs 2,429 sq ft net leasable x 4.1 FTEs per1,000 sq ft net leasable = 9.96 FTEs 19 FTEs + 9.96 FTEs = 28.96 FTE reconstruction credit Proposed development: 5 proposed free-market units = 3.35 FTEs 84 proposed lodge bedrooms x 0.5 FTEs per bedroom = 42 FTEs 23,680 sq ft net leasable total = 74.57 FTEs 18,414 sq ft sub-grade commercial net leasable x 3.075 FTEs per 1,000 sq ft net leasable = 56.62 FTEs 1,725 sq ft street level commercial net leasable x 4.1 FTEs per 1,000 sq ft net leasable = 7.07 FTEs 3,537 sq ft upper level commercial net leasable x 3.075 FTEs per 1,000 sq ft net leasable = 10.88 FTEs 74.57 FTEs generated by commercial space 3.35 FTEs + 42 FTEs +74.57 FTEs = 119.92 FTEs generated Net increase with this amendment: 119.92 FTEs generated - 28.96 FTE credit = 90.96 Net FTEs generated 90.96 Net FTEs generated – 35.12 generated in original approval = 55.84 FTEs generated by this amendment Mitigation method: The mitigated approved in the original ordinance included a combination of on-site units on Lot 2, housing credits, off-site units, and cash-in-lieu. The applicant committed to providing 100% mitigation, rather than the 30% required by the code. The on-site units included 8 dorm units providing mitigation for 16 FTEs. The remaining FTEs were allowed to be mitigated at the developer’s discretion using housing credits, off-site units, or cash-in-lieu (only for a fraction of a unit). The applicant proposes to mitigate the net increase of 55.84 FTEs at 100% through these same methods as approved in the original ordinance. P33 VI.A. Lift One Lodge Amendment Exhibit A.4 – GMQS Staff Findings Page 4 of 5 At this time staff does not have a recommendation regarding the method of mitigation. Staff will make a recommendation following review by the APCHA board. f) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services. Staff Findings: Adequate public facilities exist and will be upgraded at the owner’s expense. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 26.470.040.B.7. 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) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the new units, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.C, Development Ceiling Levels. Staff Findings: No new affordable housing units are proposed. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. b) The proposed development is compatible with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Findings: The proposed development demonstrated compliance with this criterion during the original approval. Since that approval, the Aspen Area Community Plan has been updated and is no longer considered a regulatory document. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. c) 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: No new affordable housing units are proposed. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. d) 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 of Aspen city limits. Units outside the city limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to 26.470.040.D.2. Provision of affordable housing through a cash-in-lieu payment shall be at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. P34 VI.A. Lift One Lodge Amendment Exhibit A.4 – GMQS Staff Findings Page 5 of 5 Staff Findings: The applicant proposes to mitigate the net increase of 55.85 FTEs at 100% through these same methods as approved in the original ordinance. This includes using housing credits, off-site units, or cash-in-lieu (only for a fraction of a unit). At this time staff does not have a recommendation regarding the method of mitigation. Staff will make a recommendation following review by the APCHA board. e) 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. In the alternative, rental units may be provided if a legal instrument, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, ensures permanent affordability of the units. Staff Findings: No new affordable housing units are proposed. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. P35 VI.A. P36 VI.A. P37 VI.A. P38 VI.A. P39 VI.A. P40 VI.A. P41 VI.A. P42 VI.A. P43 VI.A. P44 VI.A. P 4 5 V I . A . P46 VI.A. P 4 7 V I . A . P 4 8 V I . A . P 4 9 V I . A . P50 VI.A. P 5 1 V I . A . P52 V I . A . P53 VI.A. P 5 4 V I . A . P 5 5 V I . A . P 5 6 V I . A . P57 V I . A . P58 V I . A . P59 V I . A . P60 V I . A . P61 V I . A . P62 V I . A . P63 V I . A . P64 VI.A. P 6 5 V I . A . P 6 6 V I . A . P 6 7 V I . A . P 6 8 V I . A . P 6 9 V I . A . P 7 0 V I . A . P 7 1 V I . A . P 7 2 V I . A . P 7 3 V I . A . P 7 4 V I . A . P75 VI.A. P76 VI.A. P77 V I . A . P78 V I . A . P79 V I . A . P80 VI.A. P81 V I . A . P82 V I . A . P83 VI.A. P84 VI.A. P85 VI.A. P86 VI.A. P87 VI.A. P88 VI.A. P89 VI.A. P90 VI.A. P91 VI.A. P92 VI.A. P 9 3 V I . A . P94 VI.A. P95 VI.A. P96 VI.A. P97 VI.A. P98 VI.A. P99 VI.A. P100 VI.A. P101 VI.A. P102 VI.A. P103 VI.A. P104 VI.A. P105 VI.A. P106 VI.A. P107 VI.A. P108 VI.A. P109 VI.A. P110 VI.A. P111 VI.A. P112 VI.A. P113 VI.A. P114 VI.A. P115 VI.A. P116 VI.A. P117 VI.A. P118 VI.A. P119 VI.A. P120 VI.A. P121 VI.A. P122 VI.A. P123 VI.A. P124 VI.A. P125 VI.A. P126 VI.A. P127 VI.A. P128 VI.A. P129 VI.A. P130 VI.A. P131 VI.A. P132 VI.A. P133 VI.A. P134 VI.A. P135 VI.A. P136 VI.A. P137 VI.A. P138 VI.A. P139 VI.A. P140 VI.A. P141 VI.A. P142 VI.A. P143 VI.A. P144 VI.A. P145 VI.A. P146 VI.A. P147 VI.A. P148 VI.A. P149 VI.A. P150 VI.A. P151 VI.A. P152 VI.A. P153 VI.A. P154 VI.A. P155 VI.A. P156 VI.A. P157 VI.A. P158 VI.A. P159 VI.A. P160 VI.A. P161 VI.A. P162 VI.A. P163 VI.A. P164 VI.A. P165 VI.A. P166 VI.A. P167 VI.A. P168 VI.A. P169 VI.A. P170 VI.A. P171 VI.A. P172 VI.A. P173 VI.A. P174 VI.A. P175 VI.A. P176 VI.A. P177 VI.A. P178 VI.A. P179 VI.A. P180 VI.A. P181 VI.A. P182 VI.A. P183 VI.A. P184 VI.A. P185 VI.A. P186 VI.A. P187 VI.A. P188 VI.A. P189 VI.A. P190 VI.A. P 1 9 1 V I . A . P 1 9 2 V I . A . P 1 9 3 V I . A . P 1 9 4 V I . A . P 1 9 5 V I . A . P 1 9 6 V I . A . P 1 9 7 V I . A . P 1 9 8 V I . A . P 1 9 9 V I . A . P 2 0 0 V I . A . P 2 0 1 V I . A . P 2 0 2 V I . A . P 2 0 3 V I . A . P 2 0 4 V I . A . P 2 0 5 V I . A . P 2 0 6 V I . A . P 2 0 7 V I . A . P 2 0 8 V I . A . P 2 0 9 V I . A . P 2 1 0 V I . A . P 2 1 1 V I . A . P 2 1 2 V I . A . P 2 1 3 V I . A . P 2 1 4 V I . A . P 2 1 5 V I . A . P 2 1 6 V I . A . P 2 1 7 V I . A . P 2 1 8 V I . A . P 2 1 9 V I . A . P 2 2 0 V I . A . P 2 2 1 V I . A . P 2 2 2 V I . A . P 2 2 3 V I . A . P 2 2 4 V I . A . P 2 2 5 V I . A . P 2 2 6 V I . A . P 2 2 7 V I . A . P 2 2 8 V I . A . P 2 2 9 V I . A . P 2 3 0 V I . A . P 2 3 1 V I . A . P 2 3 2 V I . A . P 2 3 3 V I . A . P 2 3 4 V I . A . P235 VI.A. P236 VI.A. P237 VI.A. P238 VI.A. P239 VI.A. P240 VI.A. P241 VI.A. P242 V I . A . P 2 4 3 V I . A . P244 V I . A . P 2 4 5 V I . A . P246 V I . A . P247 VI.A. P248 VI.A. P249 VI.A. c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 Lift One Lodge SOUTH ASPEN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL: 2735-131-01-001 PD Minor Amendment - 12.01.15 P 2 5 0 V I . A . c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 ARCHITECTURAL: G-000.10 COVER SHEET G-001.00 SYMBOLS / ABBREVIATION & DRAWING LIST G-010.00 FINAL PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN G-101.00 FLOOR AREA CALCULATION DIAGRAMS G-201.00 ENVELOPE STUDY FLOOR PLANS G-202.00 ENVELOPE STUDY FLOOR PLANS G-203.00 ENVELOPE STUDY FLOOR PLANS G-204.00 ENVELOPE STUDY FLOOR PLANS G-301.00 COMMERCIAL NET LEASABLE AREA DIAGRAMS G-501.00 HEIGHT PLAN PROPOSED G-502.00 HEIGHT PLAN COMPARISON G-503.00 INTERPOLATED NATURAL GRADE G-504.00 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY OF 1957 G-801.00 ADA ACCESSIBILITY PLAN R-101.00 RENDERED SITE PLAN R-201.00 RENDERED WEST ELEVATION - WEST BUILDING R-202.00 RENDERED EAST ELEVATION - WEST BUILDING R-203.00 RENDERED EAST ELEVATION - EAST BUILDING R-204.00 RENDERED WEST ELEVATION - EASE BUILDING R-205.00 RENDERED SOUTH ELEVATION R-206.00 RENDERED NORTH ELEVATION R-301.00 MATERIALS L-001.00 LANDSCAPE PLAN L-002.00 TREE REMOVAL PLAN L-003.00 EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN L-004.00 IRRIGATION SUPPLY DIAGRAM C-001.00 DATA FOR ALIGNMENT LAYOUT C-002.00 UTILITY PLAN C-003.00 SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN C-004.00 SOUTH ASPEN STREET PLAN & PROFILE - CENTERLINE C-005.00 SOUTH ASPEN STREET PLAN & PROFILE - WEST FLOWLINE C-006.00 SOUTH ASPEN STREET PLAN & PROFILE - EAST FLOWLINE C-007.00 STORM SEWER PLAN C-008.00 DEANE STREET AND DROP-OFF LOOP PLAN & PROFILE C-009.00 DEANE STREET FLOWLINE PROFILES C-010.00 SOUTH END OF SOUTH ASPEN STREET PLAN C-011.00 STREET SECTIONS & DETAILS C-012.00 DRAINAGE DETAILS A-101.00 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL P2 PARKING A-102.00 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL P1 PARKING A-103.00 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL M A-104.00 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 1 A-105.00 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 2 A-106.00 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 3 A-107.00 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 4 A-108.00 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 5 A-109.00 FLOOR PLAN - ROOF DECK A-110.00 ROOF PLAN A-301.00 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS EAST & WEST BUILDING 1 A-302.00 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS EAST & WEST BUILDING 2 A-303.00 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS NORTH & SOUTH BUILDING 1 & 2 SYMBOLS LEGEND ABBREVIATIONS LEGEND MATERIALS DRAWING LIST P 2 5 1 V I . A . c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 1/32" = 1'-0" CONCRETE PAVING ASPHALT PAVING SPECIALTY PAVING PLAN DIMENSIONS AS SHOWN ILLUSTRATE MINIMUM SETBACK DISTANCE FROM PROPERTY LINE TO FACE OF STRUCTURE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED CHANGES MAY RESULT AS A PART OF THE FINAL ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHALL, CITY OF ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT, CITY OF ASPEN PARKS DEPARTMENT, AND CITY OF ASPEN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS AND APPROVALS. TABLE NOTES 1. FLOOR AREA RATIO, LOTS 1, 2 AND 4: FOR THE PURPOSES OF CALCULATING A FLOOR AREA RATIO ON LOTS 1, 2 AND 4 THAT MORE ACCURATELY REPRESENTS THE NUMERICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAND AND FLOOR AREA, THE AREA OF VACATED RIGHTS OF WAY HAVE NOT BEEN DEDUCTED FROM LOT AREA. THIS CALCULATION IS NOT INTENDED TO MODIFY THE DEFINITION OF LOT AREA AS SET FORTH IN THE LAND USE CODE. 2. PEDESTRIAN AMENITY: THIS SITE IS OUTSIDE OF THE AREA REQUIRING PEDESTRIAN AMENITY SPACE. 3. PROJECT PARKING: THE PARKING SECTION OF THE THIS TABLE REFLECTS THE ENTIRE PROJECT, NOT JUST LOT 1. 4. MAXIMUM HEIGHT: THE HEIGHTS FOR THE SKIERS CHALET STEAKHOUSE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY ARE TAKEN FROM THE RIDGE OF ROOF. 5. FLOOR AREA RATIO, LOT 4: THIS INCLUDES BOTH THE MUSEUM AND POOL HOUSE. P 2 5 2 V I . A . c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 1/32" = 1'-0" P 2 5 3 V I . A . c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 1:25 RED LINE DEPICTS ENTITLED DESIGN ENVELOPE RED LINE DEPICTS ENTITLED DESIGN ENVELOPE RED LINE DEPICTS ENTITLED DESIGN ENVELOPE RED LINE DEPICTS ENTITLED DESIGN ENVELOPE P 2 5 4 V I . A . c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 RED LINE DEPICTS ENTITLED DESIGN ENVELOPE RED LINE DEPICTS ENTITLED DESIGN ENVELOPE RED LINE DEPICTS ENTITLED DESIGN ENVELOPERED LINE DEPICTS ENTITLED DESIGN ENVELOPE 1:25 P 2 5 5 V I . A . c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 RED LINE DEPICTS ENTITLED DESIGN ENVELOPE RED LINE DEPICTS ENTITLED DESIGN ENVELOPE 1:25 P 2 5 6 V I . A . c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 1:20 RED LINE DEPICTS ENTITLED DESIGN ENVELOPERED LINE DEPICTS ENTITLED DESIGN ENVELOPE RED LINE DEPICTS ENTITLED DESIGN ENVELOPE RED LINE DEPICTS ENTITLED DESIGN ENVELOPE RED LINE DEPICTS ENTITLED DESIGN ENVELOPERED LINE DEPICTS ENTITLED DESIGN ENVELOPE P 2 5 7 V I . A . c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 1/32" = 1'-0" P 2 5 8 V I . A . c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 NTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 8: MEASUREMENTS OF CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 28, SERIES OF 2011, THE HEIGHTS NOTED AREA MEASURED AS THE MAXIMUM DISTANCE POSSIBLE VERTICALLY FROM THE INTERPOLATED NATURAL GRADE TO THE HIGHEST POINT OF STRUCTURE WITHIN A VERTICAL PLANE. THE INTERPOLATED NATURAL GRADE REPRESENTED IS DOCUMENTED ON SHEET G-503.00 P 2 5 9 V I . A . c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 NTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 8: MEASUREMENTS OF CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 28, SERIES OF 2011, THE HEIGHTS NOTED AREA MEASURED AS THE MAXIMUM DISTANCE POSSIBLE VERTICALLY FROM THE INTERPOLATED NATURAL GRADE TO THE HIGHEST POINT OF STRUCTURE WITHIN A VERTICAL PLANE. THE INTERPOLATED NATURAL GRADE REPRESENTED IS DOCUMENTED ON SHEET G-503.00 P 2 6 0 V I . A . c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 1:20 INTERPOLATED NATURAL GRADE HAS BEEN DETERMINED BASED OFF OF THE EXISTING AERIAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY OF 1957, PRE-DEVELOPEMENT, INCLUDED AS G-504.00. THE AERIAL SURVEY IS 5.4 FEET LOWER THAN CONTEMPORARY BENCHMARKS. THE INTERPOLATED GRADE HAS BEEN ADJUSTED TO REFLECT CONTEMPORARY BENCHMARK ELEVATIONS. P 2 6 1 V I . A . c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 N.T.S. P 2 6 2 V I . A . c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 AS NOTED ALL GROUND SURFACE ACCESSIBLE AISLES WILL BE A MIN OF 36" WIDE (PT.36 APP A A SECTION 4.5 OF THE 210 ADA HANDBOOK) ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS ARE LOCATED CLOSEST TO THE PARKING LOT PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCES ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL DIMENSIONS AT 96" WIDE MIN. ALL CURB RAMPS TO COMPLY WITH PT.36, APP.A SECTION 4.7 OF THE 2010 ADA HANDBOOK SURFACE OF ALL RAMPS SHALL COMPLY WITH PT.36, APP A SECTION 4.5 OF THE 2010 ADA HANDBOOK P 2 6 3 V I . A . c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 NTS P 2 6 4 V I . A . c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 NTS P 2 6 5 V I . A . c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 NTS P 2 6 6 V I . A . c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 NTS P 2 6 7 V I . A . c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 NTS P 2 6 8 V I . A . c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 NTS P 2 6 9 V I . A . c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 NTS P 2 7 0 V I . A . c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 NTS P 2 7 1 V I . A . c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 332" = 1'-0" P 2 7 2 V I . A . c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 332" = 1'-0" P 2 7 3 V I . A . c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 332" = 1'-0" P 2 7 4 V I . A . c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 332" = 1'-0" P 2 7 5 V I . A . c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 332" = 1'-0" P 2 7 6 V I . A . c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 332" = 1'-0" P 2 7 7 V I . A . c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 332" = 1'-0" P 2 7 8 V I . A . c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 332" = 1'-0" P 2 7 9 V I . A . c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 332" = 1'-0" P 2 8 0 V I . A . c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 332" = 1'-0" P 2 8 1 V I . A . c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 332" = 1'-0" 1 2 P 2 8 2 V I . A . c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 332" = 1'-0" 1 2 P 2 8 3 V I . A . c G u e r i n G l a s s A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . 2 0 1 5 332" = 1'-0" 2 1 P 2 8 4 V I . A . P 2 8 5 V I . A . P 2 8 6 V I . A . P 2 8 7 V I . A . P 2 8 8 V I . A . P289 VI.A. P290 VI.A. P291 VI.A. P292 VI.A. P293 VI.A. P294 VI.A. TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director RE: Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson MEETING DATE: February 2, 2016 At the first meeting of the year, the Planning and Zoning Commission is tasked with electing a Chair and Vice-Chair. The appointment is for one year and currently elected members can be re- elected. RECOMMENDED MOTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission may use this motion “I move to make a recommendation to elect ____________, as chairperson and _______________as vice-chairperson of the Planning and Zoning Commission for 2016.” P295 VII.A. RESOLUTION NO. __ Series of 2016 WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission is required to elect a chairperson and vice- chairperson as outlined in Section 26.212.030, Membership-Appointment, removal, terms and vacancies of the land use code; and WHEREAS, the term of each position is for one (1) year; and WHEREAS, the commission voted to elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson on February 2, 2016; and WHEREAS, _______________was elected chairperson and _______________was elected vice- chairperson; and WHEREAS, both positions shall expire on January 6, 2017; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of Aspen, Colorado, by this resolution that ____________be appointed as chairperson and ______________be appointed as vice-chairperson. DATED: February 2, 2016 _________________________ Ryan Walterscheid, Chair ATTEST:__________________________ Cindy Klob, Records Manager P296 VII.A. Page 1 of 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner MEETING DATE: February 2, 2016 RE: AACP / Land Use Code Coordination Update SUMMARY & BACKGROUND: In August 2015 City Council adopted a set of “Top Ten Goals” to work on for the next two years. One of the goals is to “Reconcile the land use code to the Aspen Area Community Plan so the land use code delivers what the AACP promises.” Staff hired land use consultant Bob Schultz to assist in identification of AACP implementation priorities. He met with Council members in October to discuss each member’s initial thoughts about this goal, and facilitated a November 17th work session with Council. At that meeting City Council identified a number of general code amendment and policy areas for staff work in response to the Council Top Ten goal of better aligning the Land Use Code and the Aspen Area Community Plan. Attached as Exhibit B is a list of AACP implementation items completed since 2012. Staff was scheduled to meet with City Council on January 26th to get additional feedback on next steps. Council was not able to get to the item due to time constraints and a new meeting date has not yet been set. The purpose of this update with P&Z is to get the Commission’s initial feedback on the direction and discuss how the Commission would like to be involved going forward. PROPOSED WORK ITEMS: While the Council was interested in a number of topics, there was agreement to make the commercial core/downtown area as the first priority for action on the Land Use Code. Council members discussed seven work areas related to the commercial core/downtown. There was discussion and interest in staff presenting a range of options for action that included “bold” steps to achieve the desired future expressed in the AACP. There was recognition that many of the items will require consultant assistance, and Council supported staff beginning to work on finding appropriate consultant help. There was also support for broad community input on the efforts. The prioritized work areas are discussed in more detail below. Zoning Review Council expressed interest in understanding the forms of buildings that are likely to be produced based on current zoning standards/dimensions. Council was also interested in reviewing exceptions to standards and dimensions that exist in the current code. Some Council members expressed an interest in understanding whether a cap on development could create the environment for using transferable development rights to accommodate new growth without P297 VII.B. Page 2 of 3 increasing the overall development rights in the community. In general, Council is interested in reducing ambiguity and uncertainty in the land use review process. Current Status: Staff is working on a white paper that details the history of planning and zoning in Aspen. It will include information on the general planning concepts of each decade as well as basic dimensional and use allowances over the years. Attached as Exhibit A is a basic graphic showing the timeframe for major code changes through the 2006 moratorium. Commercial Design Guidelines & Public Amenities Council expressed interest in updating the Commercial Design Guidelines, which have not been updated since 2007. This work area may best be addressed in tandem with the zoning review (above) as the zoning standards/dimensions and design guidelines work together to influence the form and appearance of commercial buildings. Council expressed interest to examine the Public Amenity requirements, an effort that could be combined with an examination of the Commercial Design Standards. There is a desire to promote community-shared places that promote interaction and sense of place. Current Status: Staff has issued an RFP requesting consultant assistance for a comprehensive update to the Commercial Design Standards and Public Amenity Requirements. Staff hopes to have a consultant selected in February, with completion of an update by the Fall of 2016. Mobility-Parking There is an interest in regulations that support Council policies to limit traffic and reduce traffic congestion while providing good circulation and mobility alternatives. Minimum and maximum parking requirements would be examined, as well as ways to incorporate the city’s transportation mitigation requirements into parking standards. This work is on-going in conjunction with Council’s transportation-related goals. Current Status: Staff has issued an RFP requesting consultant assistance for an examination and potential update to the mobility and off-street parking requirements for development. Staff hopes to have a consultant selected in February, with completion of an update by the end of 2016. Employee Housing Mitigation for existing commercial spaces There have been questions and concerns raised about mitigation requirements related to existing commercial spaces. Council expressed interest in understanding the legal and practical implications of how existing commercial spaces are calculated in the determination of required housing mitigation. Current Status: Planning staff is working with the City Attorney’s office to address this issue and expects to have information for Council in early February. Regulate Use Council expressed a desire to understand the opportunities and constraints related to regulating use in commercial buildings. There is a general concern that the unfettered market will result in exclusionary commercial opportunities that will fail to serve locals and a diverse base of visitors. P298 VII.B. Page 3 of 3 Council members expressed concern that over time it could threaten Aspen’s vitality and economy. There is also an interest in understanding the “nooks and crannies” around town and how they create opportunity for small business and vitality. Current Status: Staff will be asking for additional feedback from City Council at an upcoming work session regarding how they would like to proceed with this priority. Due to staffing levels, staff is suggesting to hold off on this work for a few months. Council has discussed these issues in the past, specifically around implementing quotas for different types of businesses, providing direct subsidies to businesses, regulating chain retail, creating public-private partnerships, tax incentives, and creating incubator commercial spaces, and has decided not to move forward on them. Once work begins, staff recommends hiring a consultant to assist in crafting potential solutions to preserve Aspen businesses as well as updating background information related to businesses entering and existing the market. View Planes Council indicated an interest in reviewing the existing view plane protections for effectiveness and assess the community’s priorities for view plan protection. Current Status: At this time, staff recommends moving forward with public outreach efforts around the community’s overall goals related to view planes and which views are important to preserve later in 2016. Much of this work will likely be influenced by work on the Commercial Design Guidelines and staff believes it is important to begin that work first. REQUEST OF P&Z: The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide feedback on: 1. Does P&Z have any thoughts on the initial direction for this work? 2. How would the P&Z like to be involved moving forward? ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Zoning changes over time Exhibit B – AACP Implementation since 2012 P299 VII.B. Lodging Regulations Affordable Housing Regulations Environmental & Design Standards Growth Management Overall Code Adopted Plans 1979-1980 Lodge Condominimization 1977 Mitigation at 15% 1971-1973 8040 Greenline, Viewplanes, Stream Margins, Historic Preservation Overlays 1975-1976 Mall Built 1977 Original GMQS 1956 First Zoning Ordinance 1961 Zoning Regs Codified 1967-1969 New Zoning Districts, PUD, Subdivision Regulations 1975 Modern Aspen Code 1966 Aspen Area General Plan 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan 1976 Growth Management Policy Plan 1950s 1960s 1970s City of Aspen P 3 0 0 V I I . B . 1982 Time Share Regs 1983 L-3/LP Zone 1996 LP Conversion Allowed 2002 New Time Share Regs 1999 LP Conversion Revised 2005 Infill Regs 1989-1990 Mitigation at 60% Housing Replacement Program AH Zone District 2000 COWOP Adopted 1995 Residential Design Standards, Historic Preservation Inventory, Stream Margin Standards, Hallam Lake Overlay 2002 Historic Preservation Standards and Incentives 2005 Commercial Design Standards 1982/1983 GMQS Expanded 1994 Revise GMQS per AACP 2005 Revise GMQS for Infill Regulations 1988 Aspen Land Use Regulations 1999 Current Land Use Code 1983-1990 Comprehensive Plan Elements Transportation, Housing, Open Space, Annexation, Historic Preservation, Growth Policy Update 1993 AACP 2000 AACP Update 1984 Mitigation at 35% 1980s 1990s 2000s 1987 Historic Preservation Demolition/incentives Planning History P 3 0 1 V I I . B . AACP WORK COMPLETED SINCE 2012 Since the adoption of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) in 2012, there have been a number of items reviewed and implemented by City Departments and City Council. The AACP includes many policy priorities and a variety of policy direction on topics from growth to the transportation to historic preservation to the environment. Every year since the AACP adoption, City Council has prioritized various work program items from the AACP. Some items have been made into City Council goals or processed as code amendments, while others have not yet been selected by City Council for implementation. This exhibit outlines the AACP policies the City has completed worked on since 2012.1 Master Plan Process – Added a new chapter outlining the process for any master plan. (Ord 31, 2012). AACP: General implementation from the overall 2012 AACP Process. Aspen Idea Chapter: • Uphill Economy – In 2015 the City began work to support the “Uphill Economy.” The effort builds on the popularity of this outdoor movement by attracting events and businesses to Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley that can provide economic development that is not tied to the built environment. In February 2015 the City hosted a successful uphill event and expo that coincided with the Power of Four race. AACP: Aspen Idea Policies I.3-4; Managing Growth Policy I.4. Managing Growth For Community & Economic Sustainability Chapter: • Code Amendment Process – Updated process for code amendments, allowing more Council oversight and more immediate action (Ord 11, 2012). AACP: Managing Growth Policies VIII.1-2. • Downtown heights & uses – Reduced heights to 28 feet, eliminated SFR/Duplex as allowed use in C-1, reduced allowed Free-market FAR (Ord 12, 2012), and amended heights to address south/north sides of street, eliminated Free-market residential as an allowed use in CC and C- 1 (Ord 25, 2012). AACP: Managing Growth Policies I.6 and V.3. • Mitigating Impacts of Development Report – Report analyzing the impacts of development on Parks/Open Space/Recreation/Trails, Transportation, the Environment, Affordable Housing, Construction, and Public Health/Human Services. Council chose to move forward on Housing and Transportation. (Report issued May 2012). AACP: Managing Growth Policies VII.1-2. • Lodging Charrette & Report – Provided an analysis of existing conditions in the lodging sector (Report issued August 2012). AACP: Managing Growth Policies IV.1-2. 1 While the AACP is a joint plan between the City and the County and includes potential work items for the City, County, and community non-profits, this exhibit focuses only on the work conducted by the City of Aspen. AACP Implementation Page 1 of 7 P302 VII.B. • Employee Generation and Double Dipping – Updated the City’s Employee Generation Study for commercial and lodging zones, and eliminated the so-called “double-dip provision” in Growth Management that had allowed project to only mitigate for their highest requirement (Ord 4, 2013). AACP: Managing Growth Policy VII.2. • PUD/PD – A complete re-write of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) chapter, renamed chapter to “Planned Development”, established new review criteria, Council decision on projects made sooner in process, went from 4 required review steps to 3 (Ord 36, 2013). AACP: Managing Growth Policies VIII.2-3. • Subdivision & Development Documents – A complete rewrite of Subdivision chapter, updated review criteria, established clearer requirements for development documents through creation of a new chapter, established clearer subdivision review types (Ord 37, 2013 – Subdivision; Ord 41, 2013 – Development Documents). AACP: Managing Growth Policy VIII.2. • Lodging Economics & Demand Report – Report outlining the economics and general demand around the lodging and short-term rental sector in Aspen and other resort communities (Report issued June 2013). AACP: Managing Growth Policies IV.1-2. • Double Basement – Eliminated the ability to build double basements in single-family and duplex development (Ord 31, 2014). AACP: Managing Growth Policy III.2. • Lodge Incentive Program – Created program intended to provide incentives for existing lodges and condominiums to upgrade, and to enable new lodging products to be developed (Ord 19, Series 2014 – rescinded). AACP: Managing Growth Policies IV.1-4 and VII.3. • Public Projects – Updated the COWOP Chapter to address all Public Projects and to address state law (Ord 11, 2015). AACP: Managing Growth Policy VIII.3. • Small Lodge Preservation Program – Created a 5-year program to assist existing small lodges to upgrade, refurbish, and expand, in an effort to enable them to remain a lodge. (Ord 15, Series 2015). AACP: Managing Growth Policies IV.1-2. • Downtown Residential Uses – Legalized existing free-market residential units, while prohibiting any new free-market residential units and any expansion of free-market residential space to address non-conforming status created by Ordinance 25, Series 2012 (Ord 25, Series 2015). AACP: Managing Growth Policies III.2 and VIII.2. Transportation Chapter: • Transportation Mitigation Requirements – Implemented a new system for all new development to mitigate its new trips through TDM and MMLOS measures (Ord 8, 2014). AACP: Transportation Primary Policies 1-2, and Policies III.1, III.3; Environmental Sustainability Policies I.3, II.1 and II.4; Managing Growth Policy VII.2. AACP Implementation Page 2 of 7 P303 VII.B. • Bus Stop Improvements – Remodel and updates of Rubey Park, and replacements and updates of stops along the Hunter Creek route. AACP: Transportation Primary Policies 1-2, and Policy I.1. • Bus Service Improvements – Includes the remodel of Rubey Park, and ongoing efforts including “shopping of routes,” ongoing discussions and coordination with RFTA regarding customer and service issues, and promotion of BRT. AACP: Transportation Policies I.4 and VI.3. • Education and Outreach Efforts – Ongoing efforts by Transportation Department to make more people aware of bus system and incentivize use. This has included contests, appreciation events, and outreach and marketing to hotels. AACP: Transportation Policies I.3 and VI.1. Housing Chapter: • Capital Reserves Policy – Policy development is currently in process, with timing associated with resolution of issues at Centennial. APCHA partly funded capital reserve studies for those HOA’s who opted in. This enabled some of the HOA’s to create capital reserves and begin to collect the funds. AACP: Housing Policies I.1 and I.3. • ADUs – Ongoing work to address the ADU option for housing mitigation. AACP: Housing Policies II.5-6. • AH Credits Conversion – Provide a system of conversion between categories (Ord 32, 2012). AACP: Housing Policy III.2. • Non-mitigation units – APCHA and City continue to work on ways to partner on housing and increase community involvement in creation on non-mitigation housing. This includes ongoing discussions with Habitat for Humanity, continued refinements to the Housing Credits Program, and RFPs for the City’s land-banked properties. AACP: Housing Policy III.2. • Housing Guidelines – Updated Housing Guidelines to make them easier to understand and to include new procedural information (anticipated effective date August 2015). AACP: Housing Policy V.1. • Community Outreach and Engagement – The Housing Office has provided a number of seminars and other educational opportunities for homeowners, including information on CCIOA. AACP: Housing Policies I.4 and V.1. • Management and Enforcement – Increased audits and inventorying of each unit as to household size, employment, etc. Increases in qualified tenants. AACP: Housing Policy V.2. • AH Credits Update – Update program to limit creation of affordable housing credits to private sector developers, to full units (no dorm units), to within city limits, to Categories with cash- in-lieu figures in the Housing Guidelines, and to address the creation of fractional credits in AACP Implementation Page 3 of 7 P304 VII.B. mixed-use buildings (Ord 34, 2015). AACP: Managing Growth Policy VIII.2 and Housing Policies IV.2 and V.1. Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails Chapter: • Park Acquisitions – Acquired a number of parcels for both active and passive parks, including the Dolinsek property, the Lindsey parcel, and Smuggler Mineral Rights. AACP: Parks Policies I.1 and III.2-3. • Park Balance – Continue to maintain a balance between active recreational parks and passive parks, this has included efforts at Ajax Park, Pioneer Park, Bugsy Bernard Park, and Garrish open space. AACP: Parks Policy I.2. • Recreation Business Plan – The Recreation Department is working on an update to their business plan. AACP: Recreation Policies II.1-2. • Protecting Open Space – Implement improved noxious weed management, enforcement of illegal camping, and clean-up efforts at Cozy Point. AACP: Parks Policy III.1, and Environmental Stewardship Policies VI.1 and VII.1. • Trail Improvements – Implemented trail enhancements and new connections, including Cozyline, Airline, Ditchline, Deer Hill trail, Burlingame connector, Hummingbird traverse, Lollipop extension, and Hunter Creek Extension. AACP: Parks Policies IV.1 and IV.3. • Regional Trail Planning – On going work on the Upper Roaring Fork trails plan (draft expected September 2015), and coordination with multiple jurisdictions on trail planning, including Pitkin County, US Forest Service, Snowmass Village, and Aspen Skiing Company. AACP: Parks Policy IV.2. • Community Outreach – Enhanced communications and outreach efforts regarding city parks, open space, trails, and recreation, including online surveys, new summer and winter trail maps, new Smuggler self-guided tour map, and a new Nordic website. AACP: Parks Policy V.1. Environmental Stewardship Chapter: • Greenhouse Gases – GHG emissions were down by 7.4% in 2014 from the baseline year. Voluntary programs exist to encourage energy reduction. AACP: Environmental Stewardship Policies I.1-4 and V.1-5. • Complete Streets – Adopted and implemented a “complete streets” policy that encourages street design for all form of transportation, including bikes and pedestrians. Implementation has included the work along the Main Street corridor. AACP: Environmental Stewardship Policy I.3 AACP Implementation Page 4 of 7 P305 VII.B. • Air Quality Monitoring – Participate in the Colorado State Patrol’s biannual Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles safety checks, including performing emissions checks on all trucks to determine if they meet state air quality standards. Conduct weekly vehicle idling surveillance throughout the winter. Provide air quality trainings to all new RFTA bus drivers. AACP: Environmental Stewardship Policy II.1 • Ozone Monitoring – Implement updated air quality monitoring system to provide accurate real-time data to the public. Real-time ozone and particulate data in both a health based form as well as raw form is available at www.aspenairquality.com. AACP: Environmental Stewardship Policy II.1-2. • Stormwater Updates –Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP) requires all development sites to treat stormwater runoff with a preference for on-site treatment. Larger scale community projects have also been completed to help treat water in the rivers, including at Rio Grande Park and the John Denver Sanctuary. AACP: Environmental Stewardship Policies III.4, III.6 and III.7. • Trash & Recycling Requirements – Updated requirements for trash and recycling for all use types (Ord 13, Series 2013). In addition, the city has been working with Pitkin County and Waste Management staff to encourage use of the Rio Grande Recycling Center. AACP: Environmental Stewardship Policy IV.1. • Bag Ban – Instituted a ban on plastic bags in May 2012. The Bag Bank program continues to offer free reusable shopping bags to residents and visitors through 12 different locations. Environmental Health staff has also been training the checkout personnel at the two grocery stores to ensure they are complying with the Waste Reduction Ordinance. AACP: Environmental Stewardship Policy IV.1. • Composting – The City’s Environmental Health Department and Pitkin County Solid Waste Center were awarded a $200,000 grant from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to expand the compost collection program (SCRAPS). Funds from this program are making a wider array of curbside collection containers available to residents and businesses at no charge. AACP: Environmental Stewardship Policy IV.1. • Deconstruction Requirements – Instituted a tracking and reporting system as part of the Construction Management Plan process to track the amount of deconstruction and to encourage reuse and recycling of materials. Approximately 60% of the total waste brought to the landfill is diverted. 63% of the waste brought to the landfill is Construction and Demolition waste. This has helped in efforts to increase the life of the landfill. AACP: Environmental Stewardship Policy IV.2 and IV.4 • Snow Storage Requirements – The Engineering Department has updated requirements to address snow storage requirements, requiring a minimum functional area of 30% of the paved area to be provided for snow storage on site. Detached sidewalk requirements also provide areas for snow storage. AACP: Environmental Stewardship Policy IV.3 AACP Implementation Page 5 of 7 P306 VII.B. • Aspen Electric Utility – Aspen Electric has achieved 100% renewable energy. AACP: Environmental Stewardship Policy V.1-2 Historic Preservation Chapter: • Historic Districts – Clarified that non-historic properties located within a Historic District are subject to the City’s historic preservation requirements. (Ord 33, 2012). AACP: Historic Preservation Policy II.1. • AspenModern Website – Implemented website dedicated to Aspen’s Post-WWII era properties. The website was completed in April 2014 and includes information on each style of architecture and each architect modern properties (http://www.aspenmod.com/) Staff continues to update the website as new properties are designated. AACP: Historic Preservation Policies I.1-2. • AspenVictorian Website – Implemented website dedicated to Aspen’s Victorian era properties (http://aspenvictorian.com/). The website went live in September 2014, and continues to be updated with information. AACP: Historic Preservation Policies I.1-2. • TDRs – Expanded TDR landing sites by allowing up to 3 TDRs on large lots (Ord 33, 2014). AACP: Historic Preservation Policies II.2-3; Managing Growth Policy III.3. Lifelong Aspenite Chapter: • Childcare Access – Kids First has ongoing efforts to ensure affordable child care is available to residents and workers, including offering financial aid above the Colorado Childcare Assistance Program maximum income. In 2014, 81 families received childcare financial aid, with an average award of $31.93 per day. All the families live or work in Aspen. Kids First financial aid serves approximately 15% of the total children enrolled in licensed childcare in Pitkin County. AACP: Lifelong Aspenite Policy I.1. • Early Childhood Mental Health – Kids First provides early childhood mental health consulting in the childcare programs; services include developmental screenings, behavioral challenges, emotional challenges, and family concerns. Their consultant (MA, LPC) also provides parent training and coaching sessions for childcare staff and families on social – emotional development. AACP: Lifelong Aspenite Policy III.1 and III.4. • Nurse Consulting Services – Kids First provides Nurse Consulting to the childcare programs that includes topics such as safety, nutrition, disease prevention, immunization policy and procedures, and medication administration. Their registered nurse also offers child dental, vision and hearing screenings, as well as teaching CPR and First Aid to childcare staff. AACP: Lifelong Aspenite Policy III.1, III.4, and III.5. • Continuing Education – Kids First offers scholarships and incentives to childcare staff to attend college courses to advance their learning in early childhood education. In 2014 over AACP Implementation Page 6 of 7 P307 VII.B. 70% of all staff working in licensed childcare programs took at least one 3-credit college course. AACP: Lifelong Aspenite Policy IV.1. AACP Implementation Page 7 of 7 P308 VII.B.