HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20160301
AGENDA
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
REGULAR MEETING
March 01, 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. February 2, 2016 Minutes
V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Lift One Lodge Amendment
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
VIII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 002-2016
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 February 2, 2016
1
Mr. Walterscheid, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM
with members Jason Elliott, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Jasmine Tygre and Brian McNellis.
Keith Goode, Skippy Mesirow Jesse Morris, and Spencer McNight were not present for the meeting.
Also present from City staff; Jim True, Jennifer Phelan and Jessica Garrow.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
There were no comments.
STAFF COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
MINUTES – January 5, 2016
Ms. McNicholas Kury moved to approve the minutes for January 5th and was seconded by Mr. Elliott. All
in favor, motion passed.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There were no declarations.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Lift One Lodge - PD Amendment – Public Hearing
Mr. Walterscheid opened the public hearing and asked Staff to confirm the applicant’s request for a
continuance. Ms. Jessica Garrow, Community Development Long Range Planner, stated the applicant
has requested a continuance until March 1, 2016.
Mr. True confirmed the applicant’s notice had been appropriately provided.
Ms. Tygre moved to continue the hearing to March 1, 2016 and was seconded by Mr. McNellis. All in
favor, motion carried.
Mr. Walterscheid then closed the hearing.
Later in the meeting, two members of the public entered the meeting and requested time to provide
public comment on the Lift One Lodge hearing. Initially, P&Z did not believe they could take comment
on a closed hearing. After conferring with Mr. True and confirming it would be acceptable to take
comment under the circumstances, Mr. Walterscheid then reopened the hearing for public comment.
Mr. Larry Mages, Lift One condo owner and president of the board, along with Mr. Bruce Wank, a
member of the board, were present to comment. Mr. Mages stated they are concerned with three
primary things:
P1
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning February 2, 2016
2
1. The ski corridor which he believed is documented in a recorded easement, is to be maintained
and not be surrendered as part of what the applicant is requesting.
2. The obligation to maintain this corridor is not in any way be interfered with.
3. It be certain a lift can be built up the corridor to connect from about Dean St up to the bottom
of the lift.
They have heard the applicant has told the Gorsuch people building above him that he might not allow a
lift through his property. They believe the ordinances, regulations require it and would like to ensure it
remains a part of the planned development and part of his obligations.
Mr. Walterscheid then closed the hearing.
OTHER BUSINESS
Election of Chair and Vice-Chair
Mr. Walterscheid opened for discussion to elect a chair and vice-chair for 2016.
Ms. Tygre stated she would prefer to wait until more members were present.
Ms. McNicholas Kury asked Mr. True if the members could discuss this via email. Mr. True replied no,
because it would constitute a meeting and subject to a notice when more than two members are
communicating, it is technically a meeting. He added you can communicate one on one with members,
but no more than two.
Ms. Phelan asked if it could be discussed at tonight’s meeting and Mr. True stated they could. Ms.
McNicholas Kury stated she is not particularly interested and feels Mr. Goode and Mr. Mesirow would
be great candidates. Mr. Walterscheid agreed with her ideas on candidates, but was not sure of their
interest. Mr. McNellis suggested nominating those two candidates.
Mr. True stated the election is supposed to occur at the first meeting of the year, but is acceptable for
the current chair and vice-chair to continue until an election can occur. He did suggest not waiting too
long and added they have the authority to decide with the members in attendance at tonight’s meeting.
Mr. McNellis asked if they could elect them tonight. Mr. True answered they could elect tonight and the
individual could decline and a revote would be necessary.
After discussion, Ms. Tygre moved to nominate Mr. Goode as chairman and Mr. Mesirow as vice-
chairman for 2016, seconded by Ms. McNicholas Kury. Mr. Walterscheid requested a call to vote. Ms.
McNicholas Kury, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Elliott, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes, and Mr. Walterscheid, yes for a
total of five to zero (5 – 0). The motion passed.
Mr. Walterscheid stated he would run the remainder of the meeting in their absence.
This ended the business for the meeting and Mr. True stated he would return to the council meeting but
would be available if needed.
P2
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning February 2, 2016
3
AACP Update
Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to Ms. Garrow for an update on the AACP.
Ms. Garrow stated each year City Council adopts a set of top ten goals. One of the goals is to better
coordinate the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) into the land use code and has been defined as a
two year goal (2015 to mid-2017). There have been a lot code amendments undertaken to implement
parts of the AACP, but Council would like to see additional work in this area.
In November 2015, Staff met with Council in a work session to narrow in on the top items to be better
incorporated from the AACP. Council outlined a number of work areas Staff is preparing to embark on
and Staff wanted to check in with P&Z to ask how they would like to be involved as they initiate and
move forward on the various efforts and does P&Z have suggestions for Council regarding the
prioritization of their efforts. She noted the department is currently down a couple of staff members so
their efforts may not progress as fast initially until they are fully staffed sometime in April or May. They
expect to hire consultants for most of the work because it does require some outside expertise.
The top items Council wants information on for implementing into the code include:
1. Develop an understanding of the zoning history including how we got where we are and why we
have the regulations we have. Staff is working on this internally and hopes to have a white paper
finished mid-month which will be shared with P&Z as well. The paper tracks from the first zoning
ordinance in 1956 and includes changes throughout the years including infill and the
moratorium until current time.
2. Update the commercial design guidelines which is now about ten years old. Specifically, this
efforts will look at public amenity space, call up provisions, a varied downtown area, pedestrian
malls, and public amenity space on the public malls. Staff is currently reviewing submittals from
a released a Request for Proposal (RFP). They anticipate starting work in the March \ April
timeframe and expect a 10-12 month process.
3. In regards to off street parking and mobility, explore how we can tie our new transportation
mitigation system to our parking requirements. The system requires any net new trips
generated by a development to be offset through transit services or bike pathways. And if the
applicant goes above and beyond their mitigation requirements, would there be ways to offset
the parking requirements. Staff is currently reviewing submittals from a released a RFP and
anticipates this will also be a yearlong project.
4. Look at housing mitigation and understand the rules currently in place. Staff is not sure this will
turn into a work program item or not.
5. Look into regulating use and if there are ways to encourage locally serving businesses. This may
include looking into an overlay regulating international chain stores and how do we make sure
the use mix keeps the town vibrant in the future.
6. Explore view planes.
Staff is recommending moving forward on the parking and commercial design guidelines followed by
regulating the land use issue.
Staff is also looking into the possibility of hiring a single land use code expert firm or individual to help
oversize the whole rewriting of the code.
Mr. Walterscheid asked if this process would be similar to the one used recently to modify the
residential design guidelines including bringing in an outside firm to speak with architects, planners and
P3
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning February 2, 2016
4
various commissions. Ms. Garrow answered yes, particularly on the design guidelines. She anticipates a
different public outreach and community engagement strategy for each item to connect with folks who
may be interested in the commercial use mix, but may not be interested in parking and mobility as an
example.
Mr. Walterscheid said he was involved in the residential design standards and after they were done, it
then came to P&Z and he feels it may have been more valuable to engage the commissions throughout
the process instead of at the end. Ms. Garrow added they are looking into doing something different
and asked in general if the commission would like to be involved more or would they prefer to view the
changes once the language is written. Ms. Tygre stated she would have to think more about it. Mr.
McNellis stated it would require a lot more work from the commissions and thinks it is fine but wants to
make sure the commissions are aware of the amount of time involved. Mr. Walterscheid feels P&Z has a
general understanding of what is going on and would benefit from being able to participate earlier in the
process before the drafting of the language. He added perhaps Council should also be involved earlier
than they currently are in the process.
Ms. Tygre asked if the outreach would be in the form of public hearings or informal clicker sessions. Ms.
Garrow did not feel clicker sessions would be used but the method used may depends on the topic. Ms.
Garrow thought it may make sense to have a couple of small technical advisory groups including a
member of council, historic preservation commission (HPC), P&Z, along with design professionals and
community members to identify the issues within the design guidelines. Additional public types of
outreach could be conducted possibly including small and large open house groups, walking tours to
identify likes and dislikes of particular buildings and character areas. She added they will also use a web
site and online surveys which have provided good feedback for recent projects. She noted another
initiative had success using chalk boards placed around the city to gather passerby comments from folks
who may not normally engage in a survey or meeting.
Mr. McNellis suggested P&Z and HPC commissions could each elect a representative to attend each of
the meetings and report back to their commission. Ms. McNicholas Kury was not sure one individual
could appropriately represent the different viewpoints of the P&Z members. Mr. McNellis thought
perhaps representative may not be the best word, but have someone there who could report back the
pulse of the initiative would be beneficial. He also suggested any member could attend at any time. Ms.
Garrow stated they have done this in the past with Convenience and Welfare of the Public (COWOPS)
projects where both boards elected a representative.
Ms. Garrow is interested to know if any of the items on the list identified by Council should be at the top
of the list. Ms. McNicholas asked if they have established any prioritization at which Ms. Garrow stated
the most recently scheduled slot at a January 26th work session with Council to discuss the list was
continued to the end of February. She hopes to provide some of P&Z’s feedback to Council at the work
session.
Ms. McNicholas Kury feels they see a lot of comments with transportation and parking in regards to the
mitigation and how should it relate to an overall goal for the city in way that is non-conflicting. Mr.
McNellis agreed and feels it is a defining situation that will come into play with future development with
a lot of passion on both sides. Mr. Walterscheid feels it has been difficult to discuss because everyone
seems to be pulled in different directions and at times the direction from Council and Staff seem to be at
odds with one another.
Ms. McNicholas Kury feels the use question really jumps out regarding who should be operating and
where and feels it is an issue that will continue to gain energy. Mr. Walterscheid asked what discussions
have occurred regarding the use mix and is it done anywhere else. Ms. Garrow stated one of the goals is
P4
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning February 2, 2016
5
to save the nooks and crannies, longer time local stores, and mom and pop stores while also recognizing
a number of now international chains now in Aspen so there needs to be a balance to ensure there is an
appropriate mix downtown including restaurants and retail. Our community has the conversation every
five to ten years with the last time about ten years ago. Other communities have tackled this including
Carmel and Martha’s Vineyard who have implemented quotas on specific uses. Another idea is to
identify community spaces subsidized by the government for a local business to start or move on. She
stated similar to Justice Snow’s operating out of the Wheeler at a subsidized rate. She stated currently
Aspen has the SEI zone district to define a finer set of use. She then mentioned Basalt has defined an
overlay to encourage different business in their historic downtown. She added legal counsel would have
to be hired for advisement to ensure there are no violations of existing legislation.
Mr. McNellis asked what specifically was Council interested in with regard to housing. Ms. Garrow
replied Council is interested in understanding why buildings get credit for existing space if they did not
mitigate for the space when it was originally developed. Right now in growth management, if you have a
historic building built in the 1800’s that was never mitigated and the owner now wants to expand it and
technically triggers demolition. The owner gets credit for what previously existed and they only have to
mitigate the net new area. Council wants to investigate if this has to be done or not. Ms. Tygre
responded this situation has always bothered her. Ms. Garrow stated she is working on this currently
with Mr. True. Both Mr. Walterscheid and Mr. McNellis stated they are interested in this item.
Mr. McNellis then asked about any discussions regarding subpar construction and that the housing stock
is getting a bit old and some HOA are suffering with upkeep without the revenue in their own budget to
address some of the recent failures. Ms. Garrow stated this is another Council goal to tackle this
separately. Mr. McNellis stated he would be interested in this item as it is being discussed.
Ms. Tygre stated she does not feel she is in a position to prioritize any of the items.
Mr. Elliott did not have anything to add at this time.
Mr. Walterscheid stated he would be interested in the commercial design guideline discussions. He
stated they talked a lot about the intent during the residential design guideline discussions. With intent
of each statement, they tried to outline specific ways to achieve them to remove subjectivity as much as
possible. He hopes this will be a goal for the commercial guidelines as well.
Ms. Garrow summarized stating parking, uses and commercial design guidelines are a rough
prioritization.
In regard to commercial guidelines, Mr. McNellis wanted to add the need to look closely at green roofs.
Mr. Walterscheid remarked it would be nice if the commercial guidelines were actually in the land use
code as the residential guidelines are now and not use references.
Ms. Garrow followed by saying she would have an update after the meeting with Council later in the
month.
Ms. McNicholas asked if there is any energy to build public art as an amenity in our environment. Ms.
Garrow stated is something that hasn’t been looked at holistically. Occasionally, a member of the public
requests to have a piece of art in a public amenity space for a building. She thought it could come into
the commercial design guidelines conversation as well as with another Council goal which is looking at
the pedestrian malls and looking into a plan there for public art. Currently when the City is given art, it
goes on the mall without a lot of rhyme or reason. Mr. McNellis added Basalt is looking into public art
specifically with local artists for designated places for rotating pieces.
P5
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning February 2, 2016
6
Ms. Garrow asked for anything else to pass onto Council related to AACP implementation. Ms. Tygre is
very happy Council is doing it and the other P&Z members agreed. Ms. Tygre thinks it’s important for
the public to know it is being worked on. Mr. Walterscheid stated until the AACP is codified, it is just a
recommendation that can be dismissed or accepted. Ms. Garrow stated it is difficult because it covers so
many topics and not all is specific to land use code, some is policy and programs the City, County and
other folks need to be involved in the implementation. Ms. Tygre added implementing the aspiration of
the AACP to code is challenging because of diverse opinions.
Mayor Steve Skadron then entered the meeting. He expressed thanks to the members for serving on the
commission.
Ms. Tygre reiterated how all the P&Z members agree that it is important for Council to address the
modifications to incorporate the AACP in the land use code and she feels it is important for the public to
know this is a priority. Mayor Skadron noted they have already completed quite a few.
Mayor Skadron asked Ms. Tygre if she had any priorities. Ms. Garrow noted parking had been identified
as a priority earlier in the meeting. Mr. Walterscheid explained the commission receives various
viewpoints and feels there is no clear direction; Council may want less parking spaces; some P&Z
members want even less parking spaces than minimum required and neighbors want more than the
minimum. Mayor Skadron asked what they would like to see and Mr. Walterscheid states clarity would
be nice and noted if someone comes in with more than the minimum, it is seen negatively as it may be
promoting traffic. Mr. McNellis and others noted this debate happens frequently between what is
desired and what is logical based on the use and the location. Mr. Walterscheid added the residential
neighbors get very upset when P&Z tries to minimize parking and then it just shuffles into the
neighborhood. Ms. Tygre added until all the members of P&Z and Council give up their cars, she does
not want to reduce parking because just saying no is not an answer. Mr. Walterscheid agreed and stated
for people living on the other side of the bridge or up the pass it is not as convenient to get around
without the use of a vehicle. Ms. Tygre stated back in the day, folks worked on the mountains during the
day and in restaurants at night and they needed to shower and change and it won’t work with a bus
schedule. The people need both jobs and to tell them to leave their car at home is arrogant. Mr.
Walterscheid and Mr. McNellis stated it is a similar situation for parenting and noted the winters
especially are very difficult to rely on public transportation. Mayor Skadron stated is a much bigger
discussion than how much parking a development should or should not be allowed. He added he is
attending a valley wide transportation summit with CDOT and valley participants to discuss parking and
transportation from a valley wide. He added the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) is
reaching capacity in regards to the parking and ridership. He has stated with both Council and with the
RFTA that he does not want any more bus trips coming into Aspen which is currently about 900 buses
per day. He does not want to burden the community any more. He feels it’s time to push next
generation solutions.
Mayor Skadron noted in a broader discussion he thought the base lodge parking situation could have
been a classic test case for the community to be discuss the future of transportation. He thought it could
have been an interesting debate where the developer would have been required to come back with a
solution and felt it was lost opportunity. Mr. Elliott stated it seems we run into conflicting goals for
situations when the proposed development is for a lower price point that may be interesting to families
and sporting teams who would logically drive to their destination. But if we tell them they cannot park
at their destination, it seems to be conflicting. Ms. McNicholas Kury noted when visiting Telluride, they
ban all parking in town for big festival weekends. You can drop off things and then you are given a
location to leave your car. Shuttles are then available to take you to places. Mr. Elliott stated that may
not work for situations where a family is visiting town for a hockey tournament and needs there vehicle
P6
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning February 2, 2016
7
to go between the venue and hotel. Mayor Skadron stated Mr. Hunt had proposed a next generation
hotel product Aspen does not yet have and it attracts a different audience. This audience has different
habits than what we have today. He thought it should be Mr. Hunt’s burden, not the city’s burden to
define it.
Ms. Tygre asked if anyone knew how the economy hotel in Basalt was doing at which Mayor Skadron
replied the Element hotel is a gigantic success and the patrons are using buses or driving to Aspen. Ms.
Tygre noted we had nothing to do with it being built and asked what could be learned from it to
incorporate it into something we’re doing in regards to parking and transportation. Mr. Walterscheid
responded the community probably would not accept the same approach because they are serving a
mass and scale of economy allowing them to build a larger building with parking all around it. The
community has been clear they don’t want anything that large.
Mayor Skadron relayed an interview between the Israeli President and the Palestinian Authority
President and how the actions by each entity was integrated and not independent of each other. He
wanted to respond to Ms. Tygre’s earlier comment stating Aspen had nothing to do with and he feels
the fact we don’t have a similar product, it creates an opportunity down valley and now Aspen has the
traffic impacts. Mr. Walterscheid noted the community really stretches from Aspen to Glenwood
Springs.
Mr. Walterscheid noted opponents of the Base 2 Lodge have stated town is at its maximum occupancy
during holidays and wanted to know how to limit who comes into town without stifling businesses.
Mayor Skadron replied the premise is you are always welcome in Aspen Colorado and he would never
support a direction stating don’t come here or you’re not welcome here. Mr. Walterscheid doesn’t want
it to feel like it is a country club where you have to pay dues to be a part of it but sometimes feels is a bit
of the dichotomy that goes on with those who want to live here and those that have lived here for some
time. Mayor Skadron mentioned the uphill economy discussed recently at Council and it really grows
from the idea around the preservation of a mountain town culture and a community retaining its core
values. He feels our core values are in our ski roots and it distinguishes us from everybody else and
fosters a community fabric.
Mayor Skadron also noted not everybody who wants to come here can come here. He feels we
shouldn’t build affordable housing for the sake of it and had a discussion with the Next Gen Commission
that just because they want to live here does not mean the community is responsible to build a house
for them. He mentioned at a micro level, the Chamber’s marketing program could be tweaked and at
the last Chamber Board Meeting he asked about the relevancy of the board which is happening with
chambers around the country. The chamber has an aggressive program and we have a lodging tax
generating $2 million towards marketing the community. He wondered if should be tweaked so it is not
about more and more and more.
Mayor Skadron noted these conversations are happening in every ski town. The changing demographics
in the state is putting pressure on the ski towns and he feels the biggest challenge for the community is
the clash of values between the town’s unique character and from people moving here with
expectations similar to those from the suburban areas from which they came. Sometimes he feels
downtown is turning into Cherry Creek Mall. Ms. Tygre mentioned how the Thrift Shop is booming for
both locals and tourists. He mentioned there is a group that has gotten together to look at legislation to
limit retail chains.
P7
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning February 2, 2016
8
ADJOURN
Mr. Walterscheid then adjourned the meeting.
Cindy Klob
City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager
P8
IV.A.
Lift One Lodge Amendment
3.1.2016 P&Z Memo
Page 1 of 10
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: March 1, 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 in favor of the change in
use from private club space to commercial
net leasable space, and recommends
revisions to the architecture.
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
Zoning Commission is the final review authority. City Council has the option to call-up
the decision.)
P9
VI.A.
Lift One Lodge Amendment
3.1.2016 P&Z Memo
Page 2 of 10
• 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. Only Lot 1 is the subject of this amendment.
Figure 1 – approved Lots 1-4 of Lift One Subdivision
P10
VI.A.
Lift One Lodge Amendment
3.1.2016 P&Z Memo
Page 3 of 10
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. This means the skier access
that was part of the original approval is being maintained and is unchanged.
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
P11
VI.A.
Lift One Lodge Amendment
3.1.2016 P&Z Memo
Page 4 of 10
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 in the original Skiers Chalet Lodge
• 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
P12
VI.A.
Lift One Lodge Amendment
3.1.2016 P&Z Memo
Page 5 of 10
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
P13
VI.A.
Lift One Lodge Amendment
3.1.2016 P&Z Memo
Page 6 of 10
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, and the changes meet the requirements of the
code. 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
P14
VI.A.
Lift One Lodge Amendment
3.1.2016 P&Z Memo
Page 7 of 10
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
P15
VI.A.
Lift One Lodge Amendment
3.1.2016 P&Z Memo
Page 8 of 10
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.
This has been included in the Resolution.
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 and the Skiers Chalet buildings.
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, recommends 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. When
combined with the FTEs generated by the other uses already approved in the project4, this
equates to 55.84 FTEs. The code requires 30% of new commercial FTEs to be mitigated, which
would be 16.75 FTEs5. 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
4 5 free market units, 84 lodge bedrooms, and 5,263 sq ft of net leasable space were previously approved and are
proposed to remain as part of the project.
5 55.84 FTEs x 30% mitigation rate = 16.75 FTEs
P16
VI.A.
Lift One Lodge Amendment
3.1.2016 P&Z Memo
Page 9 of 10
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.
Complete employee generation and mitigation calculations are included in Exhibit A.4.
The Planning and Zoning Commission can approve the required mitigation method, after
receiving a recommendation from the APCHA Board. The APCHA Board reviewed this
application at their February 17th meeting and would like to see the cash-in-lieu option removed
and potentially see some on-site units. The Board recommend that if on-site units are not
feasible, that any off-site units be reviewed and approved by APCHA prior to acceptance as
mitigation for the Lift One Lodge.
Staff recommends that the employee housing mitigation required by this amendment be satisfied
through off-site units, housing credits, or cash-in-lieu (only for a fraction of an FTE), and that
any off-site units be reviewed and approved by APCHA (and receive any required land use
reviews) prior to issuance of the building permit for the lodge building. This requirement has
been included in the Resolution. Per the original Ordinance, the 16 on-site units continue to
provide the mitigation for the previously approved net leasable space, free-market units, and
lodge bedrooms.
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 continuation of the review to allow the applicant to
make revisions to the building design.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to continue the public hearing for 710/720 S Aspen Street
(Lift One Lodge) to March 15, 2016.”
Or:
“I move to approve Resolution ____, Series 2016, approving amendments to the Lift One
Lodge.”
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
P17
VI.A.
Lift One Lodge Amendment
3.1.2016 P&Z Memo
Page 10 of 10
Exhibit D – Public Comment – includes all letters received through February 23, 2016
Exhibit E – APCHA Recommendation
Exhibit F – Draft P&Z Meeting minutes from 2/2/2016
P18
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
P19
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.
P20
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.
P21
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.
P22
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.
P23
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.
P24
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.
P25
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
P26
VI.A.
Lift One Lodge Amendment
Exhibit A.2 – Commercial Design Staff Findings
Page 2 of 7
building’s relationship to the street is entirely important to the quality of the downtown
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.
P27
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.
P28
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:
P29
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.
P30
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.
P31
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.
P32
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.
P33
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.
P34
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
P35
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,
P36
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.
P37
VI.A.
Lift One Lodge Amendment
Exhibit A.4 – GMQS Staff Findings
Page 4 of 5
Staff recommends that the employee housing mitigation required by this amendment be
satisfied through off-site units, housing credits, or cash-in-lieu (only for a fraction of a
unit), and that any off-site units be reviewed and approved by APCHA (and receive any
required land use reviews) prior to issuance of the building permit for the lodge building.
This requirement has been included in the Resolution.
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
P38
VI.A.
Lift One Lodge Amendment
Exhibit A.4 – GMQS Staff Findings
Page 5 of 5
from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Required affordable housing may be
provided through a mix of these methods.
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). Staff
recommends that the employee housing mitigation required by this amendment be satisfied
through off-site units, housing credits, or cash-in-lieu (only for a fraction of a unit), and
that any off-site units be reviewed and approved by APCHA (and receive any required land
use reviews) prior to issuance of the building permit for the lodge building. This
requirement has been included in the Resolution.
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.
P39
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Reso No. __, Series 2016
Page 1 of 4
RESOLUTION NO. __
(SERIES OF 2016)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVAL FOR A MINOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO A
DETAILED REVIEW, GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW, COMMERCIAL DESIGN
AMENDMENT, CHANGE IN USE - AMENDMENT OF DEVELOPMENT ORDER-
OTHER AMENDMENT, FOR LOTS 1 & 2 OF THE LIFT ONE LODGE
SUBDIVISION/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON PROPERTY
COMMONLY KNOWN AS 710/720 S. ASPEN STREET, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel IDs: 2735-131-01-001 & 2735-131-01-002
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application for the
Lift One Lodge Aspen Subdivision and Planned Unit Development (the Application) from Lift
One Lodge Aspen, LLC (Applicant), represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, LLC for
the following land use review approvals:
• Planned Development – Detailed Review Amendment, pursuant to Land Use Code
Chapter 26.445.
• Growth Management Review – Commercial Development, pursuant to Land Use Code
Chapter 26.470.
• Growth Management Review – Affordable Housing, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter
26.470.
• Commercial Design Review - Amendment, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412;
and,
• Conditional Use – Amendment of Development Order – Other Amendment, pursuant to
Land Use Code Chapter 26.425; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned Lodge (L) with a Planned Development (PD)
Overlay; and,
WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in
effect on the day of initial application – November 26, 2006, as applicable to this Project; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing, of the Land Use
Code, a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority is required and a
recommendation for approval by the board was provided at their February 17, 2016, regular
meeting; and,
WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department
reviewed the proposed Application and recommended approval with conditions; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.445 of the Land Use Code, Planned Development -
Detailed Review approval may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly
noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development
Director, and relevant referral agencies; and,
P40
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Reso No. __, Series 2016
Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.470 of the Land Use Code, Growth Management
Review – Commercial Development approval may be granted by the Planning and Zoning
Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the
Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.470 of the Land Use Code, Growth Management
Review – Affordable Housing approval may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission
at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community
Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.412 of the Land Use Code, an Amendment to a
Commercial Design approval may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly
noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development
Director, and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.425 of the Land Use Code, an Amendment of
Development Order - Other Amendment approval may be granted by the Planning and Zoning
Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the
Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures,
and Section 26.304.060.B.4, Modification of Review Procedures, all other necessary land use
reviews, as identified herein, have been combined to be considered by the Planning and Zoning
Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the
Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, such combination of review procedures was done to ensure clarity of
review, was accomplished with all required public noticing provided as evidenced by an affidavit
of public noticing submitted to the record, and the public was provided a thorough and full
review of the proposed development; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Application at a duly
noticed public hearing on February 2, 2016, and continued to February 16, 2016 and March 1,
2016; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 1, 2016, the Planning and
Zoning Commission approved Resolution __, Series of 2016, by a ____to ___ (__-__) vote
approving the Lift One Lodge Application and all necessary land use reviews, as identified
herein, with the recommended conditions of approval listed hereinafter.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVEDBY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1:Approvals
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PUD –
Planned Development Amendment – Detailed Review approval, Growth Management –
Commercial Development approval, Growth Management – Affordable Housing approval,
Commercial Design Review Amendment approval, Change in Use - Amendment of
P41
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Reso No. __, Series 2016
Page 3 of 4
Development Order, Other Amendment; subject to the recommended conditions of approval as
listed herein in Sections 2-9.
Section 2: Approved Dimensions
Minimum Lot Size 41,268 sq ft (changes because of surveying error)
Minimum Front Yard Setback East Wing: 1 ft
West Wing: 6 ft
Minimum Side Yard Setback
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: 12.67 ft
West Wing: 2 ft
Maximum Height
Per height Plan, measured from interpolated grade
East Wing: 29.3 – 43.75 ft
West Wing: 24.9 - 53 ft
Total Floor Area 1.95:1, 76,123 sq ft
Lodge Floor Area 1.16:1, 45,118 sq ft
Commercial Floor Area 0.13:1, 5,220sq ft
Non-Unit Space Floor Area 0.33:1, 12,2684 sq ft
Free-Market Residential Floor Area 17% of lodge FAR (0.33:1), 13,101 sq ft
Total Parking 163 spaces
Lodge Parking 66 spaces
Commercial Parking 24 spaces
Free-Market Residential Parking 5 spaces
Affordable Housing Parking 8 spaces
Public Parking 50 spaces
Private Lodge Members Parking N/A
Other (Neighbors) 10 spaces
Section 3: Growth Management Allotments
The following growth management allotments are recommended to be granted to the Lift One
Lodge Subdivision/PD:
a. Commercial Net Leasable - 18,413 sq ft
b. Affordable Housing - 55.84 FTEs (no annual growth limit)
Section 4: Affordable Housing
The 55.84 FTEs generated by this amendment may be satisfied through the provision of off-site
units, housing credits, or cash-in-lieu (only for a fraction of a unit). The mitigation method shall
be represented at the time of building permit submittal for the lodge building. Any off-site units
P42
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Reso No. __, Series 2016
Page 4 of 4
shall be reviewed and approved by APCHA (and receive any required land use reviews) prior to
issuance of the building permit for the lodge building.
Section 5: Planned Development – Detail Review
The materials and architecture as represented at the March 1, 2016 Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting, and attached as Exhibit A, are approved.
Section 6: Subdivision/PD Plat and Agreement
The Applicant shall amend the Subdivision/PD agreement (hereinafter “Agreement”) that meets
the requirements of the Land Use Code within 180 days of this approval. The recordation
documents shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements of Section 26.490 Approval
Documents of the Land Use Code.
Section 7:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation
presented before the Community Development Department, the Planning and Zoning
Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development
approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by
other specific conditions or an authorized authority.
Section 8:
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 9:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 1st day of March 1, 2016.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
__________________________ ______________________________
Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Skippy Mesirow, Chair
Attest:
_______________________________
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Approved Plans
P43
VI.A.
P44
VI.A.
P45
VI.A.
P46
VI.A.
P47
VI.A.
P48
VI.A.
P49
VI.A.
P50
VI.A.
P51
VI.A.
P52
VI.A.
P
5
3
V
I
.
A
.
P54
VI.A.
P
5
5
V
I
.
A
.
P
5
6
V
I
.
A
.
P
5
7
V
I
.
A
.
P58
VI.A.
P
5
9
V
I
.
A
.
P60
V
I
.
A
.
P61
VI.A.
P
6
2
V
I
.
A
.
P
6
3
V
I
.
A
.
P
6
4
V
I
.
A
.
P65
V
I
.
A
.
P66
V
I
.
A
.
P67
V
I
.
A
.
P68
V
I
.
A
.
P69
V
I
.
A
.
P70
V
I
.
A
.
P71
V
I
.
A
.
P72
VI.A.
P
7
3
V
I
.
A
.
P
7
4
V
I
.
A
.
P
7
5
V
I
.
A
.
P
7
6
V
I
.
A
.
P
7
7
V
I
.
A
.
P
7
8
V
I
.
A
.
P
7
9
V
I
.
A
.
P
8
0
V
I
.
A
.
P
8
1
V
I
.
A
.
P
8
2
V
I
.
A
.
P83
VI.A.
P84
VI.A.
P85
V
I
.
A
.
P86
V
I
.
A
.
P87
V
I
.
A
.
P88
VI.A.
P89
V
I
.
A
.
P90
V
I
.
A
.
P91
VI.A.
P92
VI.A.
P93
VI.A.
P94
VI.A.
P95
VI.A.
P96
VI.A.
P97
VI.A.
P98
VI.A.
P99
VI.A.
P100
VI.A.
P
1
0
1
V
I
.
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.
P191
VI.A.
P192
VI.A.
P193
VI.A.
P194
VI.A.
P195
VI.A.
P196
VI.A.
P197
VI.A.
P198
VI.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
.
P
2
3
5
V
I
.
A
.
P
2
3
6
V
I
.
A
.
P
2
3
7
V
I
.
A
.
P
2
3
8
V
I
.
A
.
P
2
3
9
V
I
.
A
.
P
2
4
0
V
I
.
A
.
P
2
4
1
V
I
.
A
.
P
2
4
2
V
I
.
A
.
P243
VI.A.
P244
VI.A.
P245
VI.A.
P246
VI.A.
P247
VI.A.
P248
VI.A.
P249
VI.A.
P250
V
I
.
A
.
P
2
5
1
V
I
.
A
.
P252
V
I
.
A
.
P
2
5
3
V
I
.
A
.
P254
V
I
.
A
.
P255
VI.A.
P256
VI.A.
P257
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
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
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
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
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
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
1/32" = 1'-0"
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
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
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
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
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
RED LINE DEPICTS ENTITLED DESIGN ENVELOPE
RED LINE DEPICTS ENTITLED DESIGN ENVELOPE
1:25
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
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
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
1/32" = 1'-0"
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
N.T.S.
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
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
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
NTS
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
NTS
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
NTS
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
NTS
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
NTS
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
NTS
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
NTS
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
NTS
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"
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"
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"
P
2
8
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
8
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
8
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
8
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
8
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
8
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"
1
2
P
2
9
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"
1
2
P
2
9
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"
2 1
P
2
9
2
V
I
.
A
.
P
2
9
3
V
I
.
A
.
P
2
9
4
V
I
.
A
.
P
2
9
5
V
I
.
A
.
P
2
9
6
V
I
.
A
.
P297
VI.A.
P298
VI.A.
P299
VI.A.
P300
VI.A.
P301
VI.A.
P302
VI.A.
Norway Island LLC
c/o Lowe Enterprises Inc.
P.O. Box 12393
Aspen, CO 81612-9207
February 10, 2016
Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
City of Aspen
Community Development
130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: South Aspen Street Improvements | Lift One Lodge Planned Development
sent by hand and via email to: Jessica.garrow@cityofaspen.com
Dear Jessica:
This letter is in reference to the December 1, 2016 Minor PUD Amendment Application for the Lift One
Lodge Project. Specifically, we are concerned with the portion of the application addressing the
terminus of South Aspen Street related to site improvements, as depicted on Drawing Sheets G-801.00
and R-101.00. The PUD process for the Lift One Lodge Project and the improvements in the Right of Way
have been undertaken through the land use approval process for the project and to date, the
improvements in the area are, in our view, incomplete and do not reflect the comprehensiveness
necessary to address how the top of South Aspen Street should be completed, specifically relating to
access to adjacent properties, the exact location of the improvements, emergency access and servicing
of public access to Aspen Mountain at the location of the improvements shown on the Drawing Sheets
referenced above
Norway Island, LLC will be submitting a proposal for redevelopment of Lift 1A and development of the
Gorsuch Haus project for the site in the near future. The set of issues mentioned above will be
addressed in our application and will impact the physical improvements of the terminus as currently
shown in the December 1, 2016 Minor PUD Amendment Application for the Lift One Lodge Project. With
our application, we intend to complete the turn around, include pedestrian circulation, provide logical
public access to Aspen Mountain, and provide public street access to Shadow Mountain Condominiums
and our proposed development.
While we want the City to understand our concerns with the Lift One Lodge plan as currently approved,
we also want you to know that the planning and design effort for a comprehensive solution for the area
abutting the Lift One Lodge project will be submitted.
James DeFrancia
for Norway Island ,LLC
P303
VI.A.
210 E. Hyman, Suite 202 • Aspen, CO 81611
970-920-5050 • www.apcha.org
Amendment to Redevelopment of the Lift One Lodge Page 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jessica Garrow, Long-Range Planner, Community Development
FROM: APCHA Board of Directors
THRU: Mike Kosdrosky, Executive Director
Cindy Christensen, Deputy Director
DATE: February 18, 2016
RE: Amendment to the Lift One Lodge Redevelopment
ISSUE: The applicant is seeking approval for an amendment to the redevelopment of the Lift One
Lodge, located at 223 Gilbert Street, 710 and 720 South Aspen Street.
BACKGROUND: The Board reviewed the application in 2011. The applicant has amended the
application to convert some of the associated lodge space meant for private members of the
Roaring Fork Club to commercial space available to the public. This increases the net leasable
commercial space from 5,263 to 23,676 – an additional 18,413 square feet of commercial space.
According to Section 26.470.050.A, Employee Generation Rates, 30% of the employees
generated by additional lodge, timeshare lodge, exempt timeshare units, and associated
commercial development must be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-
in-lieu. 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, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.D.2. An applicant may
choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation.
DISCUSSION: No additional lodge units are proposed in this amendment. In order to calculate
the number of FTE’s generated, complete calculations of the lodge and commercial component,
including reconstruction credits, is required. These calculations are detailed below:
P304
VI.A.
Amendment to Redevelopment of the Lift One Lodge Page 2
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 square feet 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 square feet net leasable x 4.1 FTEs per 1,000 square feet net leasable = 9.96 FTE’s
19 FTE’s + 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 square feet 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 free-market FTEs + 42 lodge FTEs + 74.57 commercial FTEs = 119.92 total FTEs generated
Net Increase with this Amendment:
119.92 FTEs generated - 28.96 FTE credit = 90.97 Net FTEs generated
90.97 Net FTEs generated – 35.12 generated in original approval = 55.84 FTEs generated by
this amendment
Mitigation Method:
The mitigation 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.
Part III, Section 4 of the Aspen/Pitkin County Employee Housing Guidelines prioritizes the
affordable housing mitigation options available to private sector property developers in the
following order:
1. On-site deed-restricted housing units constructed or converted next to or attached to the
proposed development.
2. Off-site deed-restricted housing units constructed or converted at a separate location
within the Aspen core subject to approval by APCHA. A single off-site deed-restricted
unit in an otherwise free-market housing complex shall not be approved.
3. Use of the Affordable Housing Credit Program.
4. APCHA approved buy-down units.
5. Payment-in-lieu to the city or payment of an Impact Fee to the county; or Land-in-lieu
by conveyance of vacant property to the city or APCHA, permitted on a case-by-case
P305
VI.A.
Amendment to Redevelopment of the Lift One Lodge Page 3
basis.
Out of the 90.97 total FTE’s that the applicant has agreed to mitigate, only 16 FTE’s are being
satisfied on-site as dormitory units. The balance, 74.97 FTE’s, is being proposed to be mitigated
through the use of the housing credit program, providing off-site units, or by cash-in-lieu. Staff
would recommend taking the cash-in-lieu option off the table and would recommend that if
possible, at least some of the additional mitigation be provided on site.
As stated in the Aspen/Pitkin County Employee Housing Guidelines, the APCHA Board has
prioritized affordable housing mitigation options available to private sector property developers
in the following order:
1. On-site deed-restricted housing units constructed or converted next to or attached to the
proposed development.
2. Off-site deed-restricted housing units constructed or converted at a separate location
within the Aspen core subject to approval by APCHA. A single off-site deed-restricted
unit in an otherwise free-market housing complex shall not be approved.
3. Use of the Affordable Housing Credit Program.
4. APCHA approved buy-down units.
5. Payment-in-lieu to the city or payment of an Impact Fee to the county; or Land-in-lieu
by conveyance of vacant property to the city or APCHA, permitted on a case-by-case
basis.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the Land Use Code, the developer is required to only mitigate at
30% of the required FTE mitigation. Based on the 90.97 total FTE’s, this would require mitigation
of 27.29 FTE’s. The applicant is proposing to mitigate at their 100% mitigation.
The APCHA Board reviewed the application at their regular meeting held February 17, 2016, and
recommend approval with the following condition:
If it is not feasible to do any additional housing on site, and in order to maintain the 100%
mitigation, prior to building permit approval the applicant will provide the proposed method for
discussion and approval to the APCHA Board to satisfy the 100% mitigation requirement that will
be established at the time of building permit.
P306
VI.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning February 2, 2016
1
Mr. Walterscheid, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM
with members Jason Elliott, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Jasmine Tygre and Brian McNellis.
Keith Goode, Skippy Mesirow Jesse Morris, and Spencer McNight were not present for the meeting.
Also present from City staff; Jim True, Jennifer Phelan and Jessica Garrow.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
There were no comments.
STAFF COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
MINUTES – January 5, 2016
Ms. McNicholas Kury moved to approve the minutes for January 5th and was seconded by Mr. Elliott. All
in favor, motion passed.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There were no declarations.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Lift One Lodge - PD Amendment – Public Hearing
Mr. Walterscheid opened the public hearing and asked Staff to confirm the applicant’s request for a
continuance. Ms. Jessica Garrow, Community Development Long Range Planner, stated the applicant
has requested a continuance until March 1, 2016.
Mr. True confirmed the applicant’s notice had been appropriately provided.
Ms. Tygre moved to continue the hearing to March 1, 2016 and was seconded by Mr. McNellis. All in
favor, motion carried.
Mr. Walterscheid then closed the hearing.
Later in the meeting, two members of the public entered the meeting and requested time to provide
public comment on the Lift One Lodge hearing. Initially, P&Z did not believe they could take comment
on a closed hearing. After conferring with Mr. True and confirming it would be acceptable to take
comment under the circumstances, Mr. Walterscheid then reopened the hearing for public comment.
Mr. Larry Mages, Lift One condo owner and president of the board, along with Mr. Bruce Wank, a
member of the board, were present to comment. Mr. Mages stated they are concerned with three
primary things:
P307
VI.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning February 2, 2016
2
1. The ski corridor which he believed is documented in a recorded easement, is to be maintained
and not be surrendered as part of what the applicant is requesting.
2. The obligation to maintain this corridor is not in any way be interfered with.
3. It be certain a lift can be built up the corridor to connect from about Dean St up to the bottom
of the lift.
They have heard the applicant has told the Gorsuch people building above him that he might not allow a
lift through his property. They believe the ordinances, regulations require it and would like to ensure it
remains a part of the planned development and part of his obligations.
Mr. Walterscheid then closed the hearing.
OTHER BUSINESS
Election of Chair and Vice-Chair
Mr. Walterscheid opened for discussion to elect a chair and vice-chair for 2016.
Ms. Tygre stated she would prefer to wait until more members were present.
Ms. McNicholas Kury asked Mr. True if the members could discuss this via email. Mr. True replied no,
because it would constitute a meeting and subject to a notice when more than two members are
communicating, it is technically a meeting. He added you can communicate one on one with members,
but no more than two.
Ms. Phelan asked if it could be discussed at tonight’s meeting and Mr. True stated they could. Ms.
McNicholas Kury stated she is not particularly interested and feels Mr. Goode and Mr. Mesirow would
be great candidates. Mr. Walterscheid agreed with her ideas on candidates, but was not sure of their
interest. Mr. McNellis suggested nominating those two candidates.
Mr. True stated the election is supposed to occur at the first meeting of the year, but is acceptable for
the current chair and vice-chair to continue until an election can occur. He did suggest not waiting too
long and added they have the authority to decide with the members in attendance at tonight’s meeting.
Mr. McNellis asked if they could elect them tonight. Mr. True answered they could elect tonight and the
individual could decline and a revote would be necessary.
After discussion, Ms. Tygre moved to nominate Mr. Goode as chairman and Mr. Mesirow as vice-
chairman for 2016, seconded by Ms. McNicholas Kury. Mr. Walterscheid requested a call to vote. Ms.
McNicholas Kury, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Elliott, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes, and Mr. Walterscheid, yes for a
total of five to zero (5 – 0). The motion passed.
Mr. Walterscheid stated he would run the remainder of the meeting in their absence.
This ended the business for the meeting and Mr. True stated he would return to the council meeting but
would be available if needed.
P308
VI.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning February 2, 2016
3
AACP Update
Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to Ms. Garrow for an update on the AACP.
Ms. Garrow stated each year City Council adopts a set of top ten goals. One of the goals is to better
coordinate the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) into the land use code and has been defined as a
two year goal (2015 to mid-2017). There have been a lot code amendments undertaken to implement
parts of the AACP, but Council would like to see additional work in this area.
In November 2015, Staff met with Council in a work session to narrow in on the top items to be better
incorporated from the AACP. Council outlined a number of work areas Staff is preparing to embark on
and Staff wanted to check in with P&Z to ask how they would like to be involved as they initiate and
move forward on the various efforts and does P&Z have suggestions for Council regarding the
prioritization of their efforts. She noted the department is currently down a couple of staff members so
their efforts may not progress as fast initially until they are fully staffed sometime in April or May. They
expect to hire consultants for most of the work because it does require some outside expertise.
The top items Council wants information on for implementing into the code include:
1. Develop an understanding of the zoning history including how we got where we are and why we
have the regulations we have. Staff is working on this internally and hopes to have a white paper
finished mid-month which will be shared with P&Z as well. The paper tracks from the first zoning
ordinance in 1956 and includes changes throughout the years including infill and the
moratorium until current time.
2. Update the commercial design guidelines which is now about ten years old. Specifically, this
efforts will look at public amenity space, call up provisions, a varied downtown area, pedestrian
malls, and public amenity space on the public malls. Staff is currently reviewing submittals from
a released a Request for Proposal (RFP). They anticipate starting work in the March \ April
timeframe and expect a 10-12 month process.
3. In regards to off street parking and mobility, explore how we can tie our new transportation
mitigation system to our parking requirements. The system requires any net new trips
generated by a development to be offset through transit services or bike pathways. And if the
applicant goes above and beyond their mitigation requirements, would there be ways to offset
the parking requirements. Staff is currently reviewing submittals from a released a RFP and
anticipates this will also be a yearlong project.
4. Look at housing mitigation and understand the rules currently in place. Staff is not sure this will
turn into a work program item or not.
5. Look into regulating use and if there are ways to encourage locally serving businesses. This may
include looking into an overlay regulating international chain stores and how do we make sure
the use mix keeps the town vibrant in the future.
6. Explore view planes.
Staff is recommending moving forward on the parking and commercial design guidelines followed by
regulating the land use issue.
Staff is also looking into the possibility of hiring a single land use code expert firm or individual to help
oversize the whole rewriting of the code.
Mr. Walterscheid asked if this process would be similar to the one used recently to modify the
residential design guidelines including bringing in an outside firm to speak with architects, planners and
P309
VI.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning February 2, 2016
4
various commissions. Ms. Garrow answered yes, particularly on the design guidelines. She anticipates a
different public outreach and community engagement strategy for each item to connect with folks who
may be interested in the commercial use mix, but may not be interested in parking and mobility as an
example.
Mr. Walterscheid said he was involved in the residential design standards and after they were done, it
then came to P&Z and he feels it may have been more valuable to engage the commissions throughout
the process instead of at the end. Ms. Garrow added they are looking into doing something different
and asked in general if the commission would like to be involved more or would they prefer to view the
changes once the language is written. Ms. Tygre stated she would have to think more about it. Mr.
McNellis stated it would require a lot more work from the commissions and thinks it is fine but wants to
make sure the commissions are aware of the amount of time involved. Mr. Walterscheid feels P&Z has a
general understanding of what is going on and would benefit from being able to participate earlier in the
process before the drafting of the language. He added perhaps Council should also be involved earlier
than they currently are in the process.
Ms. Tygre asked if the outreach would be in the form of public hearings or informal clicker sessions. Ms.
Garrow did not feel clicker sessions would be used but the method used may depends on the topic. Ms.
Garrow thought it may make sense to have a couple of small technical advisory groups including a
member of council, historic preservation commission (HPC), P&Z, along with design professionals and
community members to identify the issues within the design guidelines. Additional public types of
outreach could be conducted possibly including small and large open house groups, walking tours to
identify likes and dislikes of particular buildings and character areas. She added they will also use a web
site and online surveys which have provided good feedback for recent projects. She noted another
initiative had success using chalk boards placed around the city to gather passerby comments from folks
who may not normally engage in a survey or meeting.
Mr. McNellis suggested P&Z and HPC commissions could each elect a representative to attend each of
the meetings and report back to their commission. Ms. McNicholas Kury was not sure one individual
could appropriately represent the different viewpoints of the P&Z members. Mr. McNellis thought
perhaps representative may not be the best word, but have someone there who could report back the
pulse of the initiative would be beneficial. He also suggested any member could attend at any time. Ms.
Garrow stated they have done this in the past with Convenience and Welfare of the Public (COWOPS)
projects where both boards elected a representative.
Ms. Garrow is interested to know if any of the items on the list identified by Council should be at the top
of the list. Ms. McNicholas asked if they have established any prioritization at which Ms. Garrow stated
the most recently scheduled slot at a January 26th work session with Council to discuss the list was
continued to the end of February. She hopes to provide some of P&Z’s feedback to Council at the work
session.
Ms. McNicholas Kury feels they see a lot of comments with transportation and parking in regards to the
mitigation and how should it relate to an overall goal for the city in way that is non-conflicting. Mr.
McNellis agreed and feels it is a defining situation that will come into play with future development with
a lot of passion on both sides. Mr. Walterscheid feels it has been difficult to discuss because everyone
seems to be pulled in different directions and at times the direction from Council and Staff seem to be at
odds with one another.
Ms. McNicholas Kury feels the use question really jumps out regarding who should be operating and
where and feels it is an issue that will continue to gain energy. Mr. Walterscheid asked what discussions
have occurred regarding the use mix and is it done anywhere else. Ms. Garrow stated one of the goals is
P310
VI.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning February 2, 2016
5
to save the nooks and crannies, longer time local stores, and mom and pop stores while also recognizing
a number of now international chains now in Aspen so there needs to be a balance to ensure there is an
appropriate mix downtown including restaurants and retail. Our community has the conversation every
five to ten years with the last time about ten years ago. Other communities have tackled this including
Carmel and Martha’s Vineyard who have implemented quotas on specific uses. Another idea is to
identify community spaces subsidized by the government for a local business to start or move on. She
stated similar to Justice Snow’s operating out of the Wheeler at a subsidized rate. She stated currently
Aspen has the SEI zone district to define a finer set of use. She then mentioned Basalt has defined an
overlay to encourage different business in their historic downtown. She added legal counsel would have
to be hired for advisement to ensure there are no violations of existing legislation.
Mr. McNellis asked what specifically was Council interested in with regard to housing. Ms. Garrow
replied Council is interested in understanding why buildings get credit for existing space if they did not
mitigate for the space when it was originally developed. Right now in growth management, if you have a
historic building built in the 1800’s that was never mitigated and the owner now wants to expand it and
technically triggers demolition. The owner gets credit for what previously existed and they only have to
mitigate the net new area. Council wants to investigate if this has to be done or not. Ms. Tygre
responded this situation has always bothered her. Ms. Garrow stated she is working on this currently
with Mr. True. Both Mr. Walterscheid and Mr. McNellis stated they are interested in this item.
Mr. McNellis then asked about any discussions regarding subpar construction and that the housing stock
is getting a bit old and some HOA are suffering with upkeep without the revenue in their own budget to
address some of the recent failures. Ms. Garrow stated this is another Council goal to tackle this
separately. Mr. McNellis stated he would be interested in this item as it is being discussed.
Ms. Tygre stated she does not feel she is in a position to prioritize any of the items.
Mr. Elliott did not have anything to add at this time.
Mr. Walterscheid stated he would be interested in the commercial design guideline discussions. He
stated they talked a lot about the intent during the residential design guideline discussions. With intent
of each statement, they tried to outline specific ways to achieve them to remove subjectivity as much as
possible. He hopes this will be a goal for the commercial guidelines as well.
Ms. Garrow summarized stating parking, uses and commercial design guidelines are a rough
prioritization.
In regard to commercial guidelines, Mr. McNellis wanted to add the need to look closely at green roofs.
Mr. Walterscheid remarked it would be nice if the commercial guidelines were actually in the land use
code as the residential guidelines are now and not use references.
Ms. Garrow followed by saying she would have an update after the meeting with Council later in the
month.
Ms. McNicholas asked if there is any energy to build public art as an amenity in our environment. Ms.
Garrow stated is something that hasn’t been looked at holistically. Occasionally, a member of the public
requests to have a piece of art in a public amenity space for a building. She thought it could come into
the commercial design guidelines conversation as well as with another Council goal which is looking at
the pedestrian malls and looking into a plan there for public art. Currently when the City is given art, it
goes on the mall without a lot of rhyme or reason. Mr. McNellis added Basalt is looking into public art
specifically with local artists for designated places for rotating pieces.
P311
VI.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning February 2, 2016
6
Ms. Garrow asked for anything else to pass onto Council related to AACP implementation. Ms. Tygre is
very happy Council is doing it and the other P&Z members agreed. Ms. Tygre thinks it’s important for
the public to know it is being worked on. Mr. Walterscheid stated until the AACP is codified, it is just a
recommendation that can be dismissed or accepted. Ms. Garrow stated it is difficult because it covers so
many topics and not all is specific to land use code, some is policy and programs the City, County and
other folks need to be involved in the implementation. Ms. Tygre added implementing the aspiration of
the AACP to code is challenging because of diverse opinions.
Mayor Steve Skadron then entered the meeting. He expressed thanks to the members for serving on the
commission.
Ms. Tygre reiterated how all the P&Z members agree that it is important for Council to address the
modifications to incorporate the AACP in the land use code and she feels it is important for the public to
know this is a priority. Mayor Skadron noted they have already completed quite a few.
Mayor Skadron asked Ms. Tygre if she had any priorities. Ms. Garrow noted parking had been identified
as a priority earlier in the meeting. Mr. Walterscheid explained the commission receives various
viewpoints and feels there is no clear direction; Council may want less parking spaces; some P&Z
members want even less parking spaces than minimum required and neighbors want more than the
minimum. Mayor Skadron asked what they would like to see and Mr. Walterscheid states clarity would
be nice and noted if someone comes in with more than the minimum, it is seen negatively as it may be
promoting traffic. Mr. McNellis and others noted this debate happens frequently between what is
desired and what is logical based on the use and the location. Mr. Walterscheid added the residential
neighbors get very upset when P&Z tries to minimize parking and then it just shuffles into the
neighborhood. Ms. Tygre added until all the members of P&Z and Council give up their cars, she does
not want to reduce parking because just saying no is not an answer. Mr. Walterscheid agreed and stated
for people living on the other side of the bridge or up the pass it is not as convenient to get around
without the use of a vehicle. Ms. Tygre stated back in the day, folks worked on the mountains during the
day and in restaurants at night and they needed to shower and change and it won’t work with a bus
schedule. The people need both jobs and to tell them to leave their car at home is arrogant. Mr.
Walterscheid and Mr. McNellis stated it is a similar situation for parenting and noted the winters
especially are very difficult to rely on public transportation. Mayor Skadron stated is a much bigger
discussion than how much parking a development should or should not be allowed. He added he is
attending a valley wide transportation summit with CDOT and valley participants to discuss parking and
transportation from a valley wide. He added the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) is
reaching capacity in regards to the parking and ridership. He has stated with both Council and with the
RFTA that he does not want any more bus trips coming into Aspen which is currently about 900 buses
per day. He does not want to burden the community any more. He feels it’s time to push next
generation solutions.
Mayor Skadron noted in a broader discussion he thought the base lodge parking situation could have
been a classic test case for the community to be discuss the future of transportation. He thought it could
have been an interesting debate where the developer would have been required to come back with a
solution and felt it was lost opportunity. Mr. Elliott stated it seems we run into conflicting goals for
situations when the proposed development is for a lower price point that may be interesting to families
and sporting teams who would logically drive to their destination. But if we tell them they cannot park
at their destination, it seems to be conflicting. Ms. McNicholas Kury noted when visiting Telluride, they
ban all parking in town for big festival weekends. You can drop off things and then you are given a
location to leave your car. Shuttles are then available to take you to places. Mr. Elliott stated that may
not work for situations where a family is visiting town for a hockey tournament and needs there vehicle
P312
VI.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning February 2, 2016
7
to go between the venue and hotel. Mayor Skadron stated Mr. Hunt had proposed a next generation
hotel product Aspen does not yet have and it attracts a different audience. This audience has different
habits than what we have today. He thought it should be Mr. Hunt’s burden, not the city’s burden to
define it.
Ms. Tygre asked if anyone knew how the economy hotel in Basalt was doing at which Mayor Skadron
replied the Element hotel is a gigantic success and the patrons are using buses or driving to Aspen. Ms.
Tygre noted we had nothing to do with it being built and asked what could be learned from it to
incorporate it into something we’re doing in regards to parking and transportation. Mr. Walterscheid
responded the community probably would not accept the same approach because they are serving a
mass and scale of economy allowing them to build a larger building with parking all around it. The
community has been clear they don’t want anything that large.
Mayor Skadron relayed an interview between the Israeli President and the Palestinian Authority
President and how the actions by each entity was integrated and not independent of each other. He
wanted to respond to Ms. Tygre’s earlier comment stating Aspen had nothing to do with and he feels
the fact we don’t have a similar product, it creates an opportunity down valley and now Aspen has the
traffic impacts. Mr. Walterscheid noted the community really stretches from Aspen to Glenwood
Springs.
Mr. Walterscheid noted opponents of the Base 2 Lodge have stated town is at its maximum occupancy
during holidays and wanted to know how to limit who comes into town without stifling businesses.
Mayor Skadron replied the premise is you are always welcome in Aspen Colorado and he would never
support a direction stating don’t come here or you’re not welcome here. Mr. Walterscheid doesn’t want
it to feel like it is a country club where you have to pay dues to be a part of it but sometimes feels is a bit
of the dichotomy that goes on with those who want to live here and those that have lived here for some
time. Mayor Skadron mentioned the uphill economy discussed recently at Council and it really grows
from the idea around the preservation of a mountain town culture and a community retaining its core
values. He feels our core values are in our ski roots and it distinguishes us from everybody else and
fosters a community fabric.
Mayor Skadron also noted not everybody who wants to come here can come here. He feels we
shouldn’t build affordable housing for the sake of it and had a discussion with the Next Gen Commission
that just because they want to live here does not mean the community is responsible to build a house
for them. He mentioned at a micro level, the Chamber’s marketing program could be tweaked and at
the last Chamber Board Meeting he asked about the relevancy of the board which is happening with
chambers around the country. The chamber has an aggressive program and we have a lodging tax
generating $2 million towards marketing the community. He wondered if should be tweaked so it is not
about more and more and more.
Mayor Skadron noted these conversations are happening in every ski town. The changing demographics
in the state is putting pressure on the ski towns and he feels the biggest challenge for the community is
the clash of values between the town’s unique character and from people moving here with
expectations similar to those from the suburban areas from which they came. Sometimes he feels
downtown is turning into Cherry Creek Mall. Ms. Tygre mentioned how the Thrift Shop is booming for
both locals and tourists. He mentioned there is a group that has gotten together to look at legislation to
limit retail chains.
P313
VI.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning February 2, 2016
8
ADJOURN
Mr. Walterscheid then adjourned the meeting.
Cindy Klob
City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager
P314
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Reso No. __, Series 2016
Page 1 of 5
RESOLUTION NO. __
(SERIES OF 2016)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVAL FOR A MINOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO A
DETAILED REVIEW, GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW, COMMERCIAL DESIGN
AMENDMENT, AMENDMENT OF DEVELOPMENT ORDER, OTHER AMENDMENT
FOR LOTS 1 & 2 OF THE LIFT ONE LODGE SUBDIVISION/PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 710/720 S.
ASPEN STREET, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel IDs: 2735-131-01-001 & 2735-131-01-002
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application for the
Lift One Lodge Aspen Subdivision and Planned Unit Development (the Application) from Lift
One Lodge Aspen, LLC (Applicant), represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, LLC for
the following land use review approvals:
• Planned Development – Detailed Review Amendment, pursuant to Land Use Code
Chapter 26.445.
• Growth Management Review – Commercial Development, pursuant to Land Use Code
Chapter 26.470.
• Growth Management Review – Affordable Housing, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter
26.470.
• Commercial Design Review - Amendment, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412;
and,
• Conditional Use – Amendment of Development Order – Other Amendment, pursuant to
Land Use Code Chapter 26.425; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned Lodge (L) with a Planned Development (PD)
Overlay; and,
WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in
effect on the day of initial application – November 26, 2006, as applicable to this Project; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing, of the Land Use
Code, a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority is required and a
recommendation for approval by the board was provided at their February 17, 2016, regular
meeting; and,
WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department
reviewed the proposed Application and recommended approval with conditions; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.445 of the Land Use Code, Planned Development -
Detailed Review approval may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly
noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development
Director, and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.470 of the Land Use Code, Growth Management
Review – Commercial Development approval may be granted by the Planning and Zoning
P315
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Reso No. __, Series 2016
Page 2 of 5
Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the
Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.470 of the Land Use Code, Growth Management
Review – Affordable Housing approval may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission
at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community
Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.412 of the Land Use Code, an Amendment to a
Commercial Design approval may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly
noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development
Director, and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.425 of the Land Use Code, an Amendment of
Development Order - Other Amendment approval may be granted by the Planning and Zoning
Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the
Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures,
and Section 26.304.060.B.4, Modification of Review Procedures, all other necessary land use
reviews, as identified herein, have been combined to be considered by the Planning and Zoning
Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the
Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, such combination of review procedures was done to ensure clarity of
review, was accomplished with all required public noticing provided as evidenced by an affidavit
of public noticing submitted to the record, and the public was provided a thorough and full
review of the proposed development; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Application at a duly
noticed public hearing on February 2, 2016, and continued to March 1, 2016; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 1, 2016, the Planning and
Zoning Commission approved Resolution __, Series of 2016, by a ____to ___ (__-__) vote
approving the Lift One Lodge Application and all necessary land use reviews, as identified
herein, with the recommended conditions of approval listed hereinafter.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVEDBY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1:Approvals
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PUD –
Planned Development Amendment – Detailed Review approval, Growth Management –
Commercial Development approval, Growth Management – Affordable Housing approval,
Commercial Design Review Amendment approval; and Conditional Use approval; subject to the
conditions of approval as listed herein.
P316
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Reso No. __, Series 2016
Page 3 of 5
Section 2: Approved Dimensions
Minimum Lot Size 41,268 sq ft (changes because of surveying error)
Minimum Front Yard Setback East Wing: 1 ft
West Wing: 6 ft
Minimum Side Yard Setback
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: 12.67 ft
West Wing: 2 ft
Maximum Height
Per height Plan, measured from interpolated grade
East Wing: 29.3 – 43.75 ft
West Wing: 24.9 - 53 ft
Total Floor Area 1.95:1, 76,123 sq ft
Lodge Floor Area 1.16:1, 45,118 sq ft
Commercial Floor Area 0.13:1, 5,220sq ft
Non-Unit Space Floor Area 0.33:1, 12,684 sq ft
Free-Market Residential Floor Area 17% of lodge FAR (0.33:1), 13,101 sq ft
Total Parking 163 spaces
Lodge Parking 66 spaces
Commercial Parking 24 spaces
Free-Market Residential Parking 5 spaces
Affordable Housing Parking 8 spaces
Public Parking 50 spaces
Private Lodge Members Parking N/A
Other (Neighbors) 10 spaces
Section 3: Growth Management Allotments
The following growth management allotments are granted to the Lift One Lodge
Subdivision/PD:
a. Commercial Net Leasable - 18,413 sq ft
b. Affordable Housing - 55.84 FTEs
Section 4: Affordable Housing
The 55.84 FTEs generated by this amendment may be satisfied through the provision of off-site
units, housing credits, or cash-in-lieu (only for a fraction of an FTE). The mitigation method
shall be represented at the time of building permit submittal for the lodge building. Any off-site
units shall be reviewed and approved by APCHA (and receive any required land use reviews)
prior to issuance of the building permit for the lodge building.
P317
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Reso No. __, Series 2016
Page 4 of 5
P318
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Reso No. __, Series 2016
Page 5 of 5
Section 5: Planned Development – Detail Review
The materials and architecture as represented at the March 1, 2016 Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting, and attached as Exhibit A, are approved.
Section 6: Subdivision/PD Plat and Agreement
The Applicant shall amend the Subdivision/PD agreement (hereinafter “Agreement”) that meets
the requirements of the Land Use Code within 180 days of this approval. The recordation
documents shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements of Section 26.490 Approval
Documents of the Land Use Code.
Section 7:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation
presented before the Community Development Department, the Planning and Zoning
Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development
approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by
other specific conditions or an authorized authority.
Section 8:
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 9:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 1st day of March 1, 2016.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
__________________________ ______________________________
Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Keith Goode, Chair
Attest:
_______________________________
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Approved Plans
P319
VI.A.