HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20160315
AGENDA
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
REGULAR MEETING
March 15, 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. March 1, 2016 Draft Meeting Minutes
V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Lift One Lodge Planned Development Amendment
B. 200 S. Aspen Street - Hotel Lenado, Remand
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
VIII. BOARD REPORTS
IX. 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. Goode, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with
members Jason Elliott, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Jasmine Tygre, Brian McNellis and Ryan Walterscheid.
Skippy Mesirow Jesse Morris, and Spencer McNight were not present for the meeting.
Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan and Jessica Garrow.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Mr. Goode thanked Ms. Tygre for nominating him as chair.
STAFF COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
MINUTES – February 2, 2016
Ms. Tygre moved to approve the minutes for February 2nd and was seconded by Ms. McNicholas Kury.
All in favor, motion passed.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There were no declarations.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Lift One Lodge - PD Amendment – Public Hearing
Mr. Goode opened the public hearing and asked Ms. Quinn if notice had been provided at which she and
Ms. Garrow stated the applicant’s notice had been appropriately provided at a previous meeting.
Ms. Garrow, Community Development Long Range Planner, reviewed the application. She noted the
applicants are Aaron and Michael Brown of Lift One Lodge Aspen LLC represented by Sunny Vann, Vann
Associates and Scott Glass, Guerin Glass Architects.
She noted the 2011 approval divided the parcel into four lots. The application requests changes for lot 1
only, not lots 2, 3 and 4. She stating the applicant is requesting to amend the lodge portion of the
application including the following changes.
• Convert lodge space previously associated with a private club to commercial space. The
private club is no longer a part of the project
• Architectural changes to the building that are design changes and changes to spaces
within the building
• The changes to setback are proposed to be increased on all but one which means there
are larger setbacks than the previously approved application
P1
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning February 2, 2016
2
She added the proposal will not increase the floor area or heights of the previously approved building
and the heights have been lowered in many locations.
The applicant is meeting the parking requirements, but changing the use of the parking to accommodate
the needs of the commercial space. The 50 spaces previously designated for public parking remains the
same.
The applicant has committed to retaining the 100% employee mitigation commitment for the net FTE
increase generated by the space converted to commercial space. The applicant proposes mitigating the
FTEs through off-site units, housing credits and cash-in-lieu. The Aspen \ Pitkin Housing Authority
(APCHA) has reviewed the application and would prefer to remove the cash-in-lieu option and possibly
see some on-site units. APCHA recommends if on-site units are not feasible, it be allowed to review and
approve any off-site units.
She noted there are no proposed changes to the lodge and free market components.
Ms. Garrow noted staff generally supports the proposed changes. But in regards to the architecture,
Staff would like to see something a bit more alpine in nature which may include façade articulation,
pitched roofs, and less glazing. They hope the changes would create more pedestrian scale.
Ms. Kelly McNicholas Kury asked Staff to confirm under which version of the code this application
should be reviewed. Ms. Garrow replied the application should be reviewed by the code from 2005.
Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant.
Mr. Sunny Vann, Vann Associates, introduced himself as a representative along with Scott Glass, Guerin
Glass Architects. He also introduced Michael Brown as the owner. He noted the previous approvals of
the project and how they included a lot of contributions to the town. He continued stating the major
points in the current proposal include changes to the architecture skin and repurposing the accessory
space to commercial use. He noted there is no expansion of the overall building.
Mr. Glass displayed and discussed a list of the project highlights including the following:
• 84 hotel keys, 22 units sold as fractional units
• 5 free market units
• A bit more than 5,000 sf commercial space
• 163 underground parking spaces
• 50 parking spaces used for public use
• Public ski lockers
• $600,000 contributed to the platter lift
• Ski corridor
• Repurpose Skiers Chalet Steakhouse as housing
• Repurpose Skiers Chalet Lodge as Ski Museum
Mr. Glass then displayed and discussed another slide of design similarities including:
• No increase in cumulative floor area or building heights
• The average size of the lodge units remains unchanged
Mr. Glass then displayed a slide noting there are no significant changes to the basic internal
configuration of the lodge including:
• Restaurant space at grade level
P2
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning February 2, 2016
3
• All back of house and support levels located at or below grade
• Number of parking spaces remains the same, but some are reallocated to commercial
Mr. Glass noted the east and west wings of the lodge buildings will have green roofs.
Mr. Glass then displayed images of the original building and proposed building and discussed the
following changes:
1. Expanded common area - Mr. Brown stated this will create vitality to the area
2. Overall aesthetic revised with a direct relation to scale and massing of nearby historical
neighborhood
3. Parking garage reduced from three to two levels. Mr. Brown noted it has the same number of
spaces, including public spaces
4. Reprogramed amenity areas
5. Reduction in building height- Mr. Brown noted this allows a better fit with the neighborhood
6. Reiterated 100% of the affordable housing requirements
Mr. Glass then displayed a site plan and discussed the following:
1. Parking facility
2. Mr. Brown stated the two wings will have a connection below ground
3. Public ski lockers
4. Renovation of two existing buildings
5. Preserve historic Lift One
6. Open space between buildings providing a physical connection between Dean and the mountain
7. Green roofs which should blend in when seen from above on the mountain
Mr. Glass then reviewed the community benefits of the application:
1. Provide increased vibrancy and vitality to the area of town
2. Revive Lift 1a neighborhood with commercial spaces
3. Engage this area for skiers. Mr. Brown wants people to be able to start and end their ski day in
this area
4. Incorporate the surrounding neighborhood as part of commercial experience
5. Provide unique retail and restaurant experiences
6. Manage and mitigate all neighborhood impacts on site
7. Improved street infrastructure. MB noted the street will be rebuilt with better drainage.
8. Provide connection of Lift 1a to Dean St
9. Public parking
10. Ski lockers
11. Restored chalet and steak house
12. Preserve lift one
Mr. Glass then displayed a slide and discussed the following:
1. Indoor outdoor eating
2. Spa
3. Fitness center
Mr. Glass displayed a slide about architecture and discussed how the mountain is integrated with the
town during all seasons.
P3
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning February 2, 2016
4
Mr. Glass then displayed pictures of areas around town including mining areas, the Wheeler, the
Sundeck, the Jerome, and the Elks building. He discussed the rich architecture built from a history of
mining times.
Mr. Glass then displayed images of the Aspen Institute, the Aspen Meadows Resort, Snowmass
Mountain, Hearthstone House, Silver Queen Gondola, and the old Pitkin County Library depicting the
great contemporary fabric and how Aspen has evolved.
Mr. Glass then displayed images of architecture from locations around the world demonstrating
contemporary architecture in places with rugged environments how they integrated with the
environment.
Mr. Glass then displayed images of contemporary buildings in town including the Episcopal Church, the
Blackbird house and the Residences at the Little Nell.
Mr. Glass then displayed images of the site itself including the Skier Chalet, the slopes, Lift 1a and noted
it is an important site.
Mr. Glass then displayed images of buildings in the neighborhood including the Caribou Condos, Dancing
Bear, Lift One Condos and the St Regis.
Mr. Glass then noted they did not want the new buildings to replicate the Skiers Chalet and want it to be
a counter point to the chalet. He then showed slides demonstrating how historic and new structures are
connected. He stated the new building should promote the beauty and scale of the historic structure.
Mr. Glass then discussed the materiality of the structure’s skin including the following. He also displayed
examples of the materiality inspirations including trees, stone, rusticated stone connecting to the earth.
He noted the materials will convey warmth and vitality to the neighborhood.
• Rusticate stone for the building base
• Added dressed stone on piers and vertical elements
• Wood cladding
• Glass and metal rails
• Wood cladding frames
Mr. Glass displayed additional slides of the proposed architecture and context of the building. He noted
the space between the buildings and how the sections of the design keep the pedestrian scale.
Another slide displayed provided a view of the proposed project including the One Aspen Townhouse
and the Skier Chalet. Mr. Glass stated they want people to see the chalet and the mountain so the
proposed structure keeps a low profile and steps downhill in rhythm with the chalet.
Mr. Glass then showed another slide of the building from Shadow Mountain and at the top of Aspen St.
He noted how the building steps down the mountain, the deep façade creates internal privacy. He also
noted the commercial access will be at the main entrance of the building.
Another slide displayed a view from the east of the existing lift showing the southern façade of the
building and it relationship to neighboring buildings and the corridor. Mr. Brown stated they have met
with the neighbors and they were generally appreciative of the height reduction and articulation of the
building and widened ski corridor.
P4
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning February 2, 2016
5
Mr. Glass displayed one final slide of a view down from above Lift 1a showing the west and east wings of
the buildings and how they connect to the town.
Mr. Brown closed the presentation stating he feels it blends with the chalet in a noncompetitive way.
Mr. Goode asked if there were questions for the applicant.
Mr. McNellis asked if there was any proposal to use the corridor to bring up people from Dean St. Mr.
Brown replied they will contribute $600,000 for the development of a platter pole lift from Dean St
through Lift One Park. Mr. Vann noted the lift has been reviewed and approved to exist between Dean
St and Lift One Park.
Mr. McNellis then asked about the historic Lift One. Mr. Vann stated the towers will remain. Mr.
McNellis asked about the distance between the two buildings. Mr. Vann replied it can’t be any closer
because the Lift One Park belongs to the City. Ms. Garrow stated on p 261 of the packet it shows the
park, lift corridor and easement to SkiCo’s property at Lift 1a. Mr. Vann added the ski corridor was a
result from the earlier COOP process. Ms. Garrow stated the dimensions are on p 268 of the packet.
Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if Dean St will be one way. Mr. Vann replied it will be a two way street and
added the parking now extends into the street, but will be fixed during the project.
Mr. McNellis asked about the status of replacing Lift 1a. Ms. Garrow replied they have heard there may
be an application, but nothing has been stated so far. Mr. McNellis added he assumes the barn structure
will go away when the lift is replaced.
Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the chalet will be preserved with the same form and materials. Ms.
Garrow stated the structure would remain as is and the applicant has done a great job ensuring the
buildings have been maintained.
Mr. Goode asked about the public outreach. Mr. Brown replied they have met with the neighbors.
Mr. Goode then opened for public comment.
Mr. Ron Lacey, Lift One Condo HOA, stated he likes what they have heard about the project and stated
the applicant has been working with the neighbors. He does not see commitment to produce an uphill
lift. He concluded stating his questions had been answered well tonight.
Ms. Toni Kronberg stated she lobbied during the COOP process to retain the corridor. She feels the
original easements granted by Friedl Pfeifer remain in place. She feels the space allotted between the
two buildings is smaller than called for in the original PUD. She feels the street should be heated. And
then she discussed installing a tramway which needs 70 ft between the buildings. She provided a
handout (Exhibit G).
Mr. Vann then asked Mr. Goode if he could respond to Ms. Kronberg’s statements at which Mr. Goode
replied he could respond. Mr. Vann stated all the old easements had been vacated via a recorded plat.
In respect to heating the street, City Council opposed a snowmelt option. The applicant had to commit
to purchasing a dump truck to maintain the street instead.
Mr. Goode then closed the public comment section and opened for commissioner discussion.
Ms. McNicholas Kury feels lowering the height is a good direction based on previous applications.
P5
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning February 2, 2016
6
Mr. Walterscheid likes the project and appreciates they are not repeating the same style and likes the
modern, contemporary take on mountain architecture. He also commended them on lowering the
height and adding a flat green roof which will blend well. He feels the height, scale and mass blends well
with neighboring buildings. He concluded stating the applicant has his support.
Mr. McNellis noted he was a member of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) when this project
was first evaluated and approved. He stated he is very much in support of increasing vitality in this part
of town. Being a landscape architect, he is sensitive to how the buildings sit on the property. Although
he appreciates the efforts to maintain the historical bones, he feels it is a bit too contemporary and feels
it overshadows the historic buildings. He would like to see the architecture softened to blend with the
historic buildings and landscape. He added he appreciates the green roof. He is also concerned about
the width of the corridor.
Mr. Elliott appreciates the applicant is over mitigating on the housing requirements and working with
the neighbors. He is okay with the flat, green roof and feels the design respects the historic buildings
and feels good with the applicant moving forward.
Ms. Tygre feels it is improvement from original project and commended the applicant for mitigating the
housing 100%. In regards to the architecture, she wants to try to apply the standards and consider
Staff’s concerns. She stated she does not know what “alpine” means but feels the amount of glass drives
her crazy. She concluded she would support it if the applicant reduces the amount of glass.
Mr. Goode likes the changes to increase the vitality in the area and also appreciates the housing
mitigation. He likes the way the new buildings make the chalet look like a gem. He feels this is a project
Aspen has been waiting on for a long time.
Ms. McNicholas Kury wanted to add a few more thoughts. She also feels the contemporary design
should be pushed back and would like to see the building bridge more with its historic surroundings.
Mr. Elliott remarked the bridge concept is not fair and hybrid ideas do not promote the best. He feels
the applicant has gone above and beyond and doesn’t feel it is garish. He believes it is a solid project and
is not sure asking for more is fair. He does agree with the amount of glass may cause light pollution.
Ms. Tygre added each member may interpret the design standards differently and she feels it does not
meet the standards.
Mr. Walterscheid stated there is no definition of “alpine” and feels the historic asset should stand out
and doesn’t want to see the design hacked apart.
Mr. McNellis feels the ascetics are paramount and feels the architecture is a bit stark for what the site
deserves. He would like to see more materiality.
Mr. McNellis motioned to continue the hearing and was seconded by Ms. Tygre.
Mr. Vann then asked Mr. Goode if the applicant could comment at which he replied he could. Mr. Glass
feels the materials for the proposed vs the original project have been enriched. He added the design
tries to respect the topography in regards to the material relative to the amount of glazing. He feels they
can consider options to reduce the amount of light and doesn’t feel the size of the windows indicate the
amount of light. He feels the applicant is committed to making the project part of the mountain and
feels the “alpine” architecture is in the materials.
Mr. McNellis responded the materials did not come through on the renderings provided.
P6
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning February 2, 2016
7
Mr. McNellis asked if the application goes to the HPC at which Ms. Garrow replied no.
Mr. Walterscheid asked if the project will be eligible for call up by Council and Ms. Garrow replied
Council may consider calling it up.
Ms. Garrow asked the commissioner to provide specific direction regarding the application.
Ms. McNicholas Kury wants to see if replacing the glass railing would reduce glazing.
Mr. McNellis asked for additional renderings to better explain the façade and materials.
Mr. Goode likes the materials, but feels the box windows feels civic and he wants to see a lodge and
feels less glass could be part of it.
Ms. Tygre is concerned about materiality and glazing and feels additional information from applicant
may be more helpful.
Mr. Goode asked what the building would look like at night.
Ms. Tygre asked for more detail of the entrance to see if it looks like a lodge.
Mr. Walterscheid feels if there are no definitions then the applicant has met the code.
Based on the slides shown, Mr. McNellis noted he did not see anything telling him to experience the ski
corridor. Mr. Brown noted the corridor itself is a city park and yet to be designed and is not part of this
application except for the applicant is providing $600,000 to the city for the inclusion of the lift.
After discussion Ms. Garrow noted the following items to be possibly followed up on at the next
meeting:
1. Include additional views of the ski corridor from within Lift One Park to demonstrate how the
structures integrate with landscape and invite people to look and use the ski corridor.
2. Provide a sample of the materials to be utilized for the skin of the structure.
3. Propose alternate design options for the railings that may or may not utilize glass.
4. Propose ways to reduce the glazing.
Mr. McNellis amended his motion for the public hearing to be continued to March 15, 2016 to address
the four items previously noted by Ms. Garrow. Ms. Tygre seconded the motion. Roll call: Ms. Tygre,
yes; Ms. McNicholas Kury, Yes; Mr. Walterscheid, No; Mr. McNellis, Yes; Mr. Elliott, Yes; and Mr. Goode,
Yes for a total of five Yes and one No (5-1).
Mr. Goode then closed the hearing.
ADJOURN
Mr. Goode then adjourned the meeting.
Cindy Klob
City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager
P7
IV.A.
Lift One Lodge Amendment
3.15.2016 P&Z Memo
Page 1 of 12
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
Hillary Seminick, Planner
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 2016
MEETING DATE: March 15, 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 believes redesigned
Option 1 addresses P&Z’s comments
requesting reduced glazing.
P8
VI.A.
Lift One Lodge Amendment
3.15.2016 P&Z Memo
Page 2 of 12
UPDATES SINCE MARCH 1ST P&Z MEETING:
During the March 1st public hearing at P&Z, Commission members provided feedback to the
applicant regarding the design of the Lift One Lodge Building. The P&Z was supportive of the
decreases in overall height. Commission members generally supported the flat roof design of the
building, but requested additional information about the materials and views from the Lift One
Park. In addition, Commission members requested the applicant provide options to reduce the
glazing on the building. The applicant has provided some initial information, attached as Exhibit
H. Additional information including material samples and color renderings will be provided at
the March 15th public hearing.
The applicant has proposed two (2) alternatives to the design to reduce the glazing, which
represent an approximately 15% reduction in overall glazing and up to 25% reduction for
individual windows and doors. These include:
1. Replace a portion of the sliding glass doors with louvered metal panels, leaving the glass
railing. The applicant is exploring if the louvered metal panels would be operable.
Image 1, below, illustrates this example.
Image 1
2. Replace a portion of the sliding glass doors with a flat metal panel, and replace the glass
railings with metal railings. Image 2, below, illustrates this example.
P9
VI.A.
Lift One Lodge Amendment
3.15.2016 P&Z Memo
Page 3 of 12
Image 2
While both options reduce the amount of glazing, staff believes Option 1 provides the most
cohesive design.
The original staff memo is include below. The Staff findings and new information from the
applicant (Exhibit H) are attached as well.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff continues to believe other design changes to the
building are appropriate to ensure the building fits with the character of the area, including the
potential for pitched or sloping roofs. While staff continues to believe other changes would
improve the building’s relationship with the neighborhood, P&Z did not support more significant
roof form changes. Given the two options presented by the application, staff believes Option 1
provides some reduction in glazing therefore addressing P&Z’s comments at the March 1st
meeting.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution ____, Series 2016, approving
amendments to the Lift One Lodge.”
Or
“I move to continue the public hearing for 710/720 S Aspen Street (Lift One Lodge) to April 19,
2016.”
P10
VI.A.
Lift One Lodge Amendment
3.15.2016 P&Z Memo
Page 4 of 12
MARCH 1, 2016 P&Z MEMO:
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.)
• 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
P11
VI.A.
Lift One Lodge Amendment
3.15.2016 P&Z Memo
Page 5 of 12
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
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).
P12
VI.A.
Lift One Lodge Amendment
3.15.2016 P&Z Memo
Page 6 of 12
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
P13
VI.A.
Lift One Lodge Amendment
3.15.2016 P&Z Memo
Page 7 of 12
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
Free-Market Residential 5 spaces 5 spaces
P14
VI.A.
Lift One Lodge Amendment
3.15.2016 P&Z Memo
Page 8 of 12
Parking
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
P15
VI.A.
Lift One Lodge Amendment
3.15.2016 P&Z Memo
Page 9 of 12
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
P16
VI.A.
Lift One Lodge Amendment
3.15.2016 P&Z Memo
Page 10 of 12
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
P17
VI.A.
Lift One Lodge Amendment
3.15.2016 P&Z Memo
Page 11 of 12
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: (Bolded Exhibits are attached.)
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
P18
VI.A.
Lift One Lodge Amendment
3.15.2016 P&Z Memo
Page 12 of 12
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
Exhibit G – Information provided during March 1, 2016 hearing by Toni Kronberg
Exhibit H – New information from applicant, dated 3/8/2016
P19
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
P20
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 March 15,
2016; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 15, 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 RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1:Approvals
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves 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. All conditions outlined in all previous approvals remain
valid and in effect except as modified herein.
P21
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 generating 55.84 FTEs
Final net leasable square footage and associated FTE generation shall be verified by the zoning
officer during building permit review.
Section 4: Affordable Housing
The applicant has committed to providing 100% mitigation for the FTEs generated by this
amendment. 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
P22
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Reso No. __, Series 2016
Page 4 of 5
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.
All FTEs generated by the original approval remain subject to the terms and conditions outlined
in Ordinance 28, Series 2011.
Section 5: Planned Development – Detail Review
The materials and architecture as represented at the March 15, 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, or the Planning and Zoning
Commission 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 15th day of March, 2016.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
__________________________ ______________________________
Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Skippy Mesirow, Chair
Attest:
_______________________________
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
Attachments:
P23
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Reso No. __, Series 2016
Page 5 of 5
Exhibit A: Approved Plans
P24
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
P25
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.
P26
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.
P27
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.
P28
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.
P29
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.
P30
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.
P31
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
P32
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.
P33
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.
P34
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:
P35
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.
P36
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.
P37
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.
P38
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.
P39
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.
P40
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
P41
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,
P42
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.
P43
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
P44
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.
P45
VI.A.
G
GUERIN GLASS ARCHITECTS
Lift One Lodge
P+Z Updates
03.08.16
P
4
6
V
I
.
A
.
LIFT ONE LODGE (FACADE OPTIONS) - GUERIN GLASS ARCHITECTS, PC | 2
Lift One Park
P
4
7
V
I
.
A
.
Ea
s
t
D
e
a
n
C
o
u
r
t
Ju
a
n
i
t
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
Sn
a
r
k
S
t
r
e
e
t
Su
m
m
i
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
d r a f t
LIFT ONE LODGE (FACADE OPTIONS) - GUERIN GLASS ARCHITECTS, PC | 3
Lift One Park
Site Plan
Scale : NTS
Lift One Park
Willoughby Park
South
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
South
M
o
n
a
r
c
h
s
t
r
e
e
t
Ea
s
t
D
u
r
a
n
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ju
a
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
South
G
a
r
m
i
s
c
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ea
s
t
C
o
o
p
e
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
Wagner Park
Aspen Mountain
P
4
8
V
I
.
A
.
d r a f t
LIFT ONE LODGE (FACADE OPTIONS) - GUERIN GLASS ARCHITECTS, PC | 4
Lift One Park
View Up Ski Corridor
Scale : NTS
P
4
9
V
I
.
A
.
LIFT ONE LODGE (FACADE OPTIONS) - GUERIN GLASS ARCHITECTS, PC | 5
Materiality
P
5
0
V
I
.
A
.
LIFT ONE LODGE (FACADE OPTIONS) - GUERIN GLASS ARCHITECTS, PC | 6
Materiality
Enlarged Elevation
Scale : NTS
P
5
1
V
I
.
A
.
LIFT ONE LODGE (FACADE OPTIONS) - GUERIN GLASS ARCHITECTS, PC | 7
Glazing Reduction
P
5
2
V
I
.
A
.
LIFT ONE LODGE (FACADE OPTIONS) - GUERIN GLASS ARCHITECTS, PC | 8
Glazing Reduction
Overall West Elevation - Opt 1
Scale : 1/16" = 1'-0"
see next page
P
5
3
V
I
.
A
.
1. louvered panel
2. steel frame rail w/ glass insert
1.
2.
1.
2.
partial elevation
partial plan
materials
1.
2.
LIFT ONE LODGE (FACADE OPTIONS) - GUERIN GLASS ARCHITECTS, PC | 9
Glazing Reduction
Enlarged Elevation - Opt 1
Scale : 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
5
4
V
I
.
A
.
LIFT ONE LODGE (FACADE OPTIONS) - GUERIN GLASS ARCHITECTS, PC | 10
Glazing Reduction
Overall West Elevation - Opt 2
Scale : 1/16" = 1'-0"
see next page
P
5
5
V
I
.
A
.
1. metal panel
2. steel picket rail
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
2.
partial elevation
partial plan
LIFT ONE LODGE (FACADE OPTIONS) - GUERIN GLASS ARCHITECTS, PC | 11
Glazing Reduction
Enlarged Elevation - Opt 2
Scale : 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
5
6
V
I
.
A
.
200 S. Aspen St.
3/15/2016
Page 1 of 8
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
RE: Remand of the Planning and Zoning Commission’s approval of
Conceptual Commercial Design for 200 S. Aspen Street (Hotel
Lenado, P&Z Resolution 20, Series of 2015
MEETING DATE: March 15, 2016
NOTE ON PROCESS: When Commercial Design Review is granted by a board, the City Council is
informed of the decision and has the ability to review the decision. On January 11, 2016, City
Council called up the approval granted
by the Planning and Zoning
Commission with regard to the
redevelopment of the Hotel Lenado. At
the meeting, City Council considered
the application de novo and considered
the record established by the P&Z.
City Council had three options to
consider at the meeting:
1. Accept the decision made by the
P&Z, or
2. Remand the application to the P&Z with direction from City Council for rehearing and
reconsideration, or
3. Continue the meeting to request additional evidence, analysis or testimony as necessary to
conclude the call-up review.
Council selected Option #2 and have remanded the application back to the Commission. The
direction that Council is providing to the Commission for additional consideration includes the
following:
• The height of the upper level should be reduced to be in line with the height of the entry
and park levels.
• The mass, scale and design be amended to be compatible with the neighborhood.
Continue to work on the Hopkins façade so that it relates better to the residential
character across the street as described above. Reduce the size of the building to better
relate to the neighborhood.
P57
VI.B.
200 S. Aspen St.
3/15/2016
Page 2 of 8
• Meet the growth management requirements for above grade net livable space for the AH
units. One affordable housing unit shall be for sale.
• Verify dimensional requirements are met, specifically Floor Area calculations.
• The property relates best to the residential character across the street (Hopkins) and is
most compatible with the neighborhood as a duplex at 3,264 sq. ft. or single family home
2,928 sq. ft.
The rehearing and reconsideration of the application by P&Z is final and concludes the call-up
review. Substantial changes to the application outside of the specific topics listed in the remand
to P&Z may require a new call-up notice to City Council; however, the call up review would be
limited only to the new changes to the application. The rehearing is conducted during a duly
noticed public hearing.
The applicant has made some changes to the design since the Council meeting and staff has
organized the content of the memo based on topics bulleted previously.
Height:
The November 17th memo noted that the height limit of 28 feet was met for the building;
however, staff recommended that the third floor of the building not be higher than the entry
level. The design guidelines emphasize minimizing the impact of a third story “if located in the
center or as an accent on a corner” of the building. The higher floor to ceiling height adds
prominence to the third floor. The applicant has not proposed changes to the height of the
structure, nor in the floor-to-ceiling height for each story, and retains the third story free-market
unit with the highest ceiling height. Staff continues to recommend a reduction on the upper floor
height, particularly the southern free-market unit.
Mass, scale and design:
Since the remand conducted by City Council, the applicant has made some changes to the design
of the building (option 2), emphasizing changes to the façade along Hopkins Avenue. The
applicant has proposed a change in the structure’s roof forms, specifically by removing the flat
roof on the rear portion of the structure along Hopkins and replacing it with a gabled roof in this
location. The gabled roof relates more closely to the Victorian residences across the street and
creates more verticality in this area of the structure.
The last design iteration proposed less articulation of the structure’s Hopkins St. façade, while
the revised drawings shows better modulation of the building. The second floor balcony on the
first module (at the corner of Aspen St. and Hopkins) has been wrapped around from the S.
Aspen St. façade, creating the appearance of more outdoor space on the upper level Hopkins St.
façade.
The rear of the building faces the park. The applicant has made some changes to the third story
of the building at this façade by enclosing some of the deck area on the upper floor. Minimal
changes have been proposed at the front of the building, mostly in the form of glazing changes.
P58
VI.B.
200 S. Aspen St.
3/15/2016
Page 3 of 8
Although there have been some changes in the design, the underlying issue of overall massing
has not been addressed, rather the same footprint has been pushed and pulled without a reduction
in scale and mass. In particular the building lacks pedestrian features along the Hopkins facade
such as additional balconies creating a closed off feel to the property and the roof forms don’t
reduce the mass of the upper floor. Staff continues to find the structure to be incompatible with
the scale of the structures in the surrounding neighborhood.
The Small Lodge character area contains design objectives that include an objective to “create a
distinctive experience for lodging with a sense of being in a neighborhood.” The design objective
further states that “lodge overlay sites offer a special opportunity to experience the community
more closely, and to feel a part of a neighborhood. Therefore, these lodges should appear related
to the context in their design, while also conveying the unique character of an exciting
accommodations facility.”
Staff believes that additional refinement of the design of the project inclusive of building
elements, façade composition, and modulation of form was necessary to meet guidelines 5.5 and
5.7:
5.5 Within an established residential context, a lodge building should reflect traditional
lot widths in more than one of the following ways:
• The variation of building height.
• The modulation of building elements.
• The variation in facade heights.
• The street façade composition.
• The variation in design and materials to emphasize the building module.
5.7 A building should respect the traditional lot width and scale of the context in the
form, modulation and variation of the roofscape
Growth Management:
At the November meeting staff recommended a condition in the resolution to verify that the
growth management requirements are met with regard to the amount of net livable square
footage that is above grade for the affordable housing. This was included in Resolution No. 20
(Series of 2015) by requiring verification prior to submission of an application for Final
Commercial Design review. Secondly, staff had recommended that one affordable housing unit
be a “for sale” unit as it was mitigation for the free-market development component of the
project and one affordable housing unit be a rental as it was associated with mitigation for the
lodge component of the project. Staff continues to recommend one unit be “for sale.”
Dimensional Requirements:
Staff also recommended that all dimensional requirements, especially Floor Area, be verified.
This was included in Resolution No. 20 (Series of 2015) by requiring verification prior to
submission of an application for Final Commercial Design review. No change is recommended.
P59
VI.B.
200 S. Aspen St.
3/15/2016
Page 4 of 8
Development as a mixed use building vs. single family residence:
At the call-up by City Council, the mayor brought up his concern regarding the mass of the
building and that it did not relate well with the immediate neighborhood and character along
Hopkins Ave.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff’s position has not changed with regard to the application and believes additional changes
need to happen including restudy of the height, mass and scale. Specifically staff believes the
building should be amended to incorporate the following:
• The height of the upper level should be reduced to be in line with the height of the entry
and park levels.
• The mass, scale and design be amended to be compatible with the neighborhood.
Continue to work on the Hopkins façade so that it relates better to the residential
character across the street as described above. Reduce the size of the building to better
relate to the neighborhood.
• One affordable housing unit be for sale.
The Planning and Zoning Commission may:
• Uphold Resolution No. 20, Series of 2015 as written
• Request changes to the project
• Request additional information
ATTACHMENTS:
A. P&Z Resolution No 20 (Series of 2015)
B. P&Z Meeting Minutes, 11.17.15
C. City Council Meeting Minutes from call up process
D. Application drawings (amended)
P60
VI.B.
200 S. Aspen St.
3/15/2016
Page 5 of 8
September 2015
The design that was reviewed in September reorganized the location of the uses within the
building, added parking, and removed any requests for reductions in parking and setbacks.
Height was still requested at 32 feet through Commercial Design Review. The project included
the following components:
• 4 hotel units with 9 keys
• 2 free-market residences
• 2 affordable housing units
• 11 parking spaces
Staff recommended continued revision of the project by incorporating a reduced building height,
refinement of the building’s relationship with grade, potential removal of the two at grade
parking spaces to remove additional mass, and to continue working on the mass, scale and design
of the building to better fit the neighborhood context. The Commission still had concerns
regarding the design of the building and continued the meeting to October 20th.
October 2015
At the October 20th meeting an amended design was presented by the applicant. The design
changed the public amenity’s relationship with surrounding grade, incorporated gable roof forms
into the design of the project and requested a height of 32 feet. The project included the
following components:
• 4 hotel units with 9 keys
• 2 free-market residences
• 2 affordable housing units
• 11 parking spaces
Staff’s recommendation was similar to the September meeting with an emphasis on continued
revision of the project’s height, refinement of the building’s relationship with grade, potential
removal of the two at grade parking spaces to remove additional mass, and to continue working
on the mass, scale and design of the building to better fit the neighborhood context. The
P61
VI.B.
200 S. Aspen St.
3/15/2016
Page 6 of 8
Commission narrowed their concerns regarding the design of the building to height and
refinement of the Hopkins façade. The meeting was continued to November 17th.
November 2015, Aspen St. facade
November 2015, Hopkins Ave. façade
The Commission again discussed the project on November 17th. The public amenity space had been
further refined, the building was proposed at 28 feet, and additional massing changes occurred along
Aspen Street and Hopkins Avenue. The building was proposed with the following components:
• 4 hotel units with 9 keys
• 2 free-market residences
P62
VI.B.
200 S. Aspen St.
3/15/2016
Page 7 of 8
• 2 affordable housing units
• 9 parking spaces
Staff again suggested changes to the project, both in the design and dimensions proposed with a
recommendation of denial. After much deliberation, and based upon the direction provided at the
last hearing, the Commission voted to approve the conceptual design of project. The Commission
did include a recommendation in the approved resolution to have the applicant consider further
refinement along the Hopkins Ave. façade.
The Small Lodge character area contains design objectives that include an objective to “create a
distinctive experience for lodging with a sense of being in a neighborhood.” The design objective
further states that “lodge overlay sites offer a special opportunity to experience the community
more closely, and to feel a part of a neighborhood. Therefore, these lodges should appear related
to the context in their design, while also conveying the unique character of an exciting
accommodations facility.”
Staff stated that additional refinement of the design of the project was necessary inclusive of
building elements, façade composition, and modulation of form was necessary to meet guidelines
5.5 and 5.7:
5.5 Within an established residential context, a lodge building should reflect traditional
lot widths in more than one of the following ways:
• The variation of building height.
• The modulation of building elements.
• The variation in faced heights.
• The street façade composition.
• The variation in design and materials to emphasize the building module.
5.7 A building should respect the traditional lot width and scale of the context in the
form, modulation and variation of the roofscape
At the December 14th Notice of Call-up a council person asked about changes in the size of the
building. The following table shows changes over the course of the Commission’s review.
Additionally, all staff memos and exhibits for the Commission are available via SIRE.
MEETING
DATE
GROSS SQ.
FT.
CUMULATIVE
FLOOR AREA
LODGE
FLOOR AREA
FREE
MARKET
FLOOR AREA
AFFORDABLE
HOUSING
FLOOR AREA
ORIGINAL
HOTEL
12,084 10,901 10,006 0 895
MARCH 17TH 16,918 14,663 8,632 4,278 1,753
SEPTEMBER
15TH
20,160 10,167 4,334 4,468 1,365
OCTOBER
20TH
19,848 10,855 4,733 4,485 1,637
NOVEMBER
17TH
19,622 10,489 4566 4,485 1,438
P63
VI.B.
200 S. Aspen St.
3/15/2016
Page 8 of 8
RECOMMENDATION: As noted earlier, the final P&Z vote on this application was unanimous (5-
0); however, staff did not recommend approval of Conceptual Commercial Design Review and
still feels that additional refinement in the design is necessary and recommends remand of the
project by Council.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
“I move to remand P&Z Resolution No. 20, Series of 2015.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Approved Plans_ P&Z Architecturals_11.17.15
Exhibit B: P&Z Resolution No. 20, Series of 2015
Exhibit C: P&Z Minutes – March 17, 2015
Exhibit D: P&Z Minutes – September 15, 2015
Exhibit E: P&Z Minutes – October 20, 2015
Exhibit F: P&Z Minutes – November 17, 2015
Exhibit G: P&Z Staff Memo (without exhibits) – November 17, 2015
P64
VI.B.
P65
VI.B.
P66
VI.B.
P67
VI.B.
P68
VI.B.
P69
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015
1
Mr. Walterscheid was part of the design team for the applicant so he was not present. Mr. Goode
served as the Acting Chair. Mr. Goode called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order
at 4:30 PM with members Jason Elliott, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Skippy Mesirow, Jesse Morris and Keith
Goode.
Spencer Morris, Jasmine Tygre, and Brian McNellis were not present for the meeting.
Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan, and Justin Barker.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
There were no comments.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Ms. Phelan stated Michele Holder would like to take about 10 minutes to introduce the Citizens
Academy. Mr. Goode stated she would be provided time after public comments.
Ms. Holder, Management Analyst for the City, introduced herself. She was hired on approximately six
months ago to create a Citizens Academy for the City of Aspen. She is at the meeting this evening to let
P&Z know what she is doing with the academy. She stated the academy will serve to teach the people in
the community about how the city works. It will provide an overview of how government works
including being a home rule municipality, the City Charter, how decisions are made by Council and how
goals are determined at each annual Council retreat. It will also include structural information such as
who is the City Manager and the employee hierarchy. Different service areas will be covered such as
how the Police keep Aspen safe, how Parks and Recreation works. The idea is to inform people and it
provides an opportunity for the City to tell their story. A hopeful outcome would be to have people
more interested and involved in local government such as more applications for boards and
commissions or have more people comfortable attending council meetings to express their thoughts.
She stated they are at the end of their input gathering phase and are now determining when it may be
appropriate to start the program. She finished stating she would provide additional information when
they are ready to launch. Mr. Goode asked if it is to be a continual program and Ms. Holder replied they
are planning a pilot program next year and then continue them annually. She stated they are still trying
to identify the needs for Aspen and will be considering offering it in different formats in the future. Ms.
McNicholas Kury asked if this was inspired by some dissatisfaction expressed in community involvement.
Ms. Holder replied not that she is aware of at this time. It is her understanding it was conceived about
four years ago in a partnership with Pitkin County, Snowmass and Aspen. The partnership fizzled out and
then the City decided to pursue it by hiring someone to work on it. She stated it was Mr. Barry Crook’s
idea originally with the intent to inform people. She asked P&Z to contact her with any ideas or
concerns.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
MINUTES
October 20, 2015 Minutes - Mr. Mesirow moved to approve the minutes for October 20th and was
seconded by Mr. Elliott. All in favor, motion passed.
P70
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015
2
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There were no declarations.
200 S Aspen St (Hotel Lenado) – Commercial Design Review – Continued
Public Hearing from October 20, 2015
Mr. Goode opened the continued public hearing and turned the floor over to staff.
Ms. Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director, stated it is a continued public hearing for the Hotel
Lenado. Since the last hearing on October 20th, a number of design changes have occurred for the
project. She reviewed the application proposes to demolish the existing lodge and replace it with a new
mixed use building containing four lodge units that may be configured for a total of nine keys, two
affordable housing units, two free market units as well as lodge amenity space and underground
parking.
At the last hearing, P&Z raised some concerns on a couple of issues. One concern was the Hopkins
façade relating better with the residential character across the street. Another concern was the height
of the building. Previously proposals asked for the height to be allowed up to 32 ft, which is permitted in
the mixed use zone district.
Ms. Phelan then stated she would cover some components of the application since there have been a
number of hearings.
In regards to the Hopkins façade, there have been some changes since the last hearing. On the corner
closest to the park, the second story balcony has been removed which reduces some of the mass of the
building. The park level has been redesigned with a balcony along it and there has been a reduction in
the glazing. All these changes help reduce the mass and improve the relationship of the façade with the
residential buildings across the street and also helps to create a couple of individual modules. Staff feels
there has been good progress, but it still needs some to continued refinement. One area in particular is
the center module encompassing the gable and the flat story next to it.
With regard to height, the proposed structure has been reduced to 28 ft so it meets the underlying
mixed use zoning. The only two elements exceeding the 28 ft are the top of the rooftop stairwell and
elevator which both meet the height exemptions. Although it meets the 28 ft height, the floor to floor
ceiling heights increase as you go up the floors of the building. Staff feels this creates a top heavy feel to
the building. For a typical lodge commercial building, the first floor or entry floor should have the most
prominence in floor to floor ceiling height. Staff feels there should be continued work on the floor to
floor ceiling heights in the building.
Regarding the overall design, Staff feels this is a transitional neighborhood from the commercial core to
a residential neighborhood. There is quite a bit of residential area in the neighborhood including
designated historical landmarks across the street. There are also single family residences, multi-family
across the alley, and a small lodge nearby. The building is getting bigger, but the actual lodge rooms are
being reduced. Staff feels the overall design has improved, but does not believe the current proposed
building design does not include enough to respect the neighborhood and its surroundings, particularly
in regards to mass and scale which Staff feels should be reduced.
Ms. Phelan then discussed growth management, which she stated is essentially the required affordable
housing for the lodge and the free market component. She stated things keep moving with each
iteration of the proposal and currently the two affordable housing units being proposed more than meet
P71
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015
3
the requirement for affordable housing mitigation but they do need to be amended a bit to meet the
above grade requirements for the amount of sf required.
Staff is still recommending one unit be designated as a for sale unit and the other be a for rent unit. She
explained one of the affordable units mitigates for the lodge while the other unit mitigates for the free
market. Staff recommends the unit mitigating for the free market component be a for sale unit.
Ms. Phelan continued stating this is the fourth iteration of the project and there has been some
progress. She does feel some of the goals for the small lodge character area are to have a lodge where
the dimensions and character respect the surroundings. There are single family residences with historic
character and development pattern that should be respected. Staff believes there could be changes
made to better meet the guidelines by creating more modulation in the form of the building and by
reducing the mass. By addressing these two things, the application would meet guidelines 5.5 and 5.7 of
the small lodge character area.
At this point, Staff recommends denial as they feel the guidelines are not met. If P&Z feels comfortable
with the changes and move to approve, Staff suggests certain conditions to be considered:
1. Continue to work with the floor to floor heights to emphasize the entry level
2. Amend the mass, scale and design along Hopkins and the overall mass of the building
3. Meet the growth management requirements for the affordable housing and have one unit as a
for sale unit.
4. Verify the dimensional requirements when the next application is submitted.
Mr. Goode asked if there were any questions for Staff.
Ms. McNicholas Kury noted there is a combined 1,049 sf of affordable housing net livable area proposed
above grade where 1,080 sf is required for the above grade requirement. In regards to the growth
management review, she asked how this has changed from earlier proposals. Ms. Phelan stated with the
changes in the floor plans, the amount required to be above grade has changed. She feels it something
that can be handled if it goes to the final design because some things will move a little bit, but she
wanted to outline the requirement to be met.
Ms. McNicholas Kury then stated her understanding of the height differential between the lower story
to the upper story has been consistent throughout the design and she wanted to confirm this was the
case with Staff. Ms. Phelan stated the design has always had the top story taller than the other stories.
There have been changes with a reduction over time, but Staff feels the entry level, particularly a hotel,
should be the most prominent level. Having the height on upper floor creates a top heavy design. Ms.
McNicholas Kury asked if the reduction was fully absorbed by lowering the height of the first floor
height. Ms. Phelan replied it would be best if Mr. Wilson reviewed the heights.
Mr. Mesirow stated there are conceptually plenty of things not to like about the project, but their job is
not to figure out what is conceptually right and not design the building. He asked what specifically does
not meet the guidelines. Ms. Phelan replied Staff feels the building is too large for the site and
neighborhood and the sf should be reduced, but she could not point to a specific guideline that is not
met in this regard. Mr. Morris asked if it is in the small lodge character area design objectives. Ms.
Phelan replied the design objectives discusses projects should be sensitive to the neighborhood and to
fit into the neighborhood. She added sometimes the maximum floor area allowed is not achievable
because of the design guidelines.
Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant.
P72
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015
4
Mr. Steev Wilson, Forum Phi, represented the applicant. He initiated his presentation with a picture of
the Aspen Street façade. Ms. Phelan observed the façade does not represent what was submitted with
the most recent application, noting there was an additional gable included one level above the entry
level. Mr. Wilson remarked it was different.
Mr. Wilson feels they are getting closer with the most recent proposal. He displayed a list of items he
described as facts regarding the project. He stated the building hasn’t changed materially, they are
shuffling sf in an attempt to provide variegation on the building.
He acknowledged the need to meet the additional 31 sf of above grade space and feels it can be
achieved in the final design. He displayed a slide showing the FAR ratios and stated they are still
considerably lower than the allowable FAR.
Mr. Wilson displayed a slide depicting where the property is located and described the type of
neighboring properties. He stated everyone would agree it is a transitional neighborhood.
Mr. Wilson then described what would be included on each floor. On top is a roof deck including
mechanical units. Directly below are the two free market units. On the next two levels down there are
walk out levels to the park and on Aspen St there is a mix of lodge units and affordable housing. All the
building services including parking, mechanical, employee lounge, and catering kitchen are located in
the basement.
He then referred to the Commercial Design Standards (Staff memo: Exhibit K) and noted he would
discuss the deficiencies as identified in Staff’s memo.
A. Mixed use character area: Public amenity space. Mr. Wilson displayed pictures looking
up Aspen St of the existing and proposed public amenity spaces and described what is
included in the proposed space.
B. Small Lodge Character: For guideline 5.5, he feels they have established it is a
transitional context and the areas along Hopkins St are really what they are focusing on
making it relate to the residences across the street. He displayed a west rendering of the
building and described how the façade is broken into three distinctly separate parts. The
first part being 30 ft wide with a five ft setback, the middle portion being approximately
31 ft wide stepping down to the larger setback on Aspen St. They are also varying the
heights of the building along the modulated façade with a very much recessed deck
portion. They feel they are modulating both from a material and height perspective and
taking on more of the neighborhood character.
C. Building height: For guideline 5.6, he provided slides demonstrating the height of the
proposed building as it relates in height to neighboring buildings in each direction. For
each slide the building was either at or below the height of neighboring buildings. He
noted the higher sections of the building are not on the Hopkins St side. The higher
sections are in the back of the building along the alleyway where there is a taller
context. He also provided slides demonstrating they meet the minimum nine ft floor to
floor heights for each level showing the building from different perspectives. He noted
the modulation matches the sloping topography. Near the park, one of the ADUs has a
10 ft 1 in ceiling and the lodge units on the walkout to the park have the same height.
The Hopkins side of the building has 9 ft 9 in height respecting the lower height to that
side of the building. Along the alley, the heights move up to the 11 ft 5 in heights. From
the Hopkins St to the alley, the heights all meet the 9 ft minimum and then again taller
near the alley side of the building.
P73
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015
5
D. For guideline 5.7, he noted it has a lot to do with the same standards in guideline 5.5
respecting the modulated façade along Hopkins façade. They feel the application meets
this component.
Mr. Wilson then referred to the points identified in the minutes from the previous hearing.
A. He stated last time they heard from P&Z they need to stay at 28 ft in height. He added
they have abandoned the request for 32 ft and meet the underlying code in regards to
height.
B. The next item identified was the Hopkins façade. They have varied the materials and
including angulation to help the façade. The have been eroding the corners of the
building to give the neighbors a better view and moving elements back from the edge
and closer to the alley. He provided a slide comparing the existing, previous and current
façades. They pulled the entire corner back and created a half story balcony with a cover
to bring it back further. The amount of glass was reduced by about 25%.
Mr. Wilson then wanted to address the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA)
commentary and suggestions included in the Staff memo. APCHA recommends both units be for
rent and the applicant would like them to remain as rentals. The applicant feels passionately
about having a good rental environment for the people who will be working at the hotel.
In closing, he feels they have addressed the conditions and would prefer to address mass, scale,
and neighborhood compatibility in the final review process. He stated they know they will have
to meet the growth management net livable space considerations for affordable housing. He
would prefer to keep APCHA’s recommendation regarding the units. They’ve tried really hard to
keep this from becoming a duplex or single family home with a bunch of empty, lights turned
off, empty windows. It may not be the 19 keys, but the proposed keys are better than none.
Mr. Goode asked if there were any questions for the applicant.
Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the building is required to remain a lodge. Mr. Wilson replied no. Ms.
Phelan stated if approved, it would be approved as a lodge. She added they could demolish it and build
a single family home and a duplex on the site.
Mr. Morris asked if the key count has remained the same throughout the review process. Both Mr.
Wilson and Ms. Phelan stated it the number of keys has remained the same.
Mr. Morris asked if the decision regarding the for sale vs rental unit was subjective and not driven by
policy. Ms. Phelan stated APCHA is a recommending body and P&Z is the decision making body. She
continued stating the land use code requirements state affordable housing is to be for sale. However, if
it is a commercial lodging project, they are encouraged to be rentals. Staff’s position is that one unit
mitigates the free market component and the other mitigates the lodging component.
Mr. Mesirow asked if Staff is concerned if the units will not end up being used by a hotel employee. She
reiterated one unit is mitigating the free market and should be a for sale unit. Mr. Wilson added
although they appreciate Staff’s position, he feels there not be a whole lot of employee housing need
for the folks living in the free market units and both units would be better served for the lodging
component.
Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the height variations could change through the final review. Ms. Phelan
stated it could if identified as a condition.
P74
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015
6
Mr. Goode then opened for public comment.
Ms. Karen Day was the interior designer for the original Hotel Lenado in 1983. She feels there is huge
contingent in the community emotionally attached to the existing lodge. She stated the logs on each
side of fireplace were cut by the people who live in Lenado. There was a photograph in the hotel of the
people cutting and carrying the logs. She asked the logs be saved. On a personal note, there are a lot of
folks heartbroken that a piece of Harry Teague architecture will be demolished. She does feel the
rendering is better than she thought it would be.
Mr. Goode then closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Mr. Goode then opened for commissioner’s discussion.
Mr. Morris wanted to hear from fellow commissioners, assuming the affordable housing items could be
dealt with, where they are at on community character and mass.
Mr. Goode stated it is a lodge and will be big. He loves the improvements and noted the displays Mr.
Wilson used during his discussion included a gable that was not included in the packet. Ms. Phelan
stated the latest iteration of the proposal does not have the gable above the gabled entry level. Mr.
Goode reiterated what they approve will not have this additional gable. He feels it is not the perfect
small lodge P&Z wanted, but he would approve it as submitted.
Mr. Mesirow stated they have asked a lot and a lot has been delivered. He feels there is not a lot outside
of just mass and scale to not like about the project, but he felt they provided pretty specific directives to
the applicant who has met those directives. While he feels it is not a perfect project, it is important for
the process that not just the community, but the applicant have trust in P&Zs willingness to follow
through on their word, so he will be supportive of the application.
Ms. McNicholas also feels the project has come a long way but is sad to see photos comparing the
proposed hotel with the existing hotel. She feels Aspen is losing a quaint piece of architecture that
provided a lot more lodging for something is very modern looking and doesn’t provide any of the same
character.
Mr. Mesirow stated it is also important to take into account that while there is the paragraph that gives
P&Z some credence to adjust size, the FAR is significantly lower than what is allowed. As the applicant
pointed out it could be single family homes.
Mr. Elliott agrees with Mr. Mesirow in that the commission had previously outlined items to be
addressed and it would not be fair for P&Z to change it now. From a factual standpoint, he is fine with it.
The only remaining item he would be open to enforcing would be the affordable housing.
Mr. Goode asked the commissioners where they stand on defining the one unit for sale.
Mr. Morris stated Staff’s logic makes sense for one rental and on for sale unit given the use of the
building.
Mr. Mesirow stated he is generally comfortable with APCHA’s position and feels they have studied this
situation. Although he also agrees Staff’s position make sense given the use, he would tend to let APCHA
take the lead on it. He feels language should be added to the resolution to confirm the required amount
of above grade area is met for final review.
Mr. Goode stated he would go with Staff’s recommendation.
P75
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015
7
Ms. McNicholas Kury stated she would support APCHA’s recommendation.
Mr. Mesirow asked Mr. Goode why he defer to Staff. Mr. Goode stated he is concerned with having a for
sale unit in the building because APCHA does not have a method in place to verify who is renting
properties. He feels the guidelines are not very tight and there may not be anyone available to audit the
compliance. Mr. Mesirow asked Staff is they have similar concerns. Ms. Phelan stated she would stick
with the mitigation requirement, but she has seen compliance issues in the past on other properties.
She stated the mitigation requirement generated for the free market is actually more than one two
bedroom unit. The mitigation requirement for the lodge component is actually less than one two
bedroom unit.
Mr. Goode asked the commissioners where they stand regarding the floor to floor ceiling heights.
Ms. McNicholas Kury would like to see it retained as proposed. Mr. Mesirow agreed. She added she
would not want to see something at final that is drastically different than what has been agreed to
today.
Mr. Goode asked if the commission wanted to include conditions previously recommend by Ms. Phelan
to add to the resolution including the entry level, the Hopkins area and growth management.
Ms. Phelan wanted clarification if the commission wanted to see continued work on the Hopkins façade
or not. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated although she appreciates the varied materials used and the setbacks
provide a sense of differing widths requested by P&Z, she would like to see additional work on the
middle section. She is not sure she can persuade the applicant to change it however. Mr. Goode feels all
the commissioners are on that same page.
Mr. Elliott asked where the commissioners where they stand on APCHA’s recommendation and added
he is with APCHA and the applicant. Mr. Goode felt a majority of the board is behind APCHA. Mr. Morris
added if there is a problem with compliance it should be dealt with using another mechanism.
Ms. Phelan suggested adding a third paragraph with the following items under Section 1 of the draft
resolution. She referred them to p. 17 of the Staff memo and stated the resolution already states the
affordable housing units will be rental units.
Prior to submission of Final Commercial Design Review the Applicant shall:
• Meet the growth management requirements for above graded net livable space for the
affordable housing units.
• Verify dimensional requirements are met, specifically Floor Area Calculations.
Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the resolution could also encourage the applicant to come back with
improvements to the Hopkins façade. Mr. Mesirow asked if this would be required at which she
responded no. Ms. Phelan stated they could add that further review of the façade would be encouraged
at which Mr. Goode agreed.
Mr. Mesirow wanted to state the applicant has done a good job and it is not the job of P&Z to create
policy, but to follow the code and he feels the building meets the code. He will vote in favor of the
project, but he also feels it has to be recognized this is a poor project for this town. He feels it is
unfortunate that it goes from 19 hotel rooms to four, with less use, and less vitality. In the bigger
discussion in regards to if the code meet our values as a community, he hopes this project will be a
catalyst for further discussion around the LP overlay. He feels if this project can go forward, clearly the
code does not meet the community values. He wants to applaud the design team for their good work,
P76
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015
8
but he also feels the developer needs to have trust in the process too. He thinks it will be a positive
outcome and hopes in the future they are dealing with a different set of criteria. Mr. Goode agreed.
Mr. Elliott motioned to approve resolution #20, series 2015 adding the following conditions identified by
Ms. Phelan as a third paragraph of Section 1. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mesirow.
• Meet the growth management requirements for above graded net livable space for the
affordable housing units.
• Verify dimensional requirements are met, specifically Floor Area Calculations.
• The applicant is encouraged to further review the Hopkins façade.
Mr. Goode requested a roll call. Roll call vote: Mr. Morris, yes; Mr. Mesirow, yes; Mr. Elliott, yes; Ms.
McNicholas Kury, yes; and Mr. Goode, yes. The motion passed with a total five (5) yes – zero (0) no.
Ms. Phelan requested Mr. Wilson to provide an electronic copy of the presentation.
Mr. Goode then closed the public hearing.
OTHER BUSINESS
Residential Design Standards. Code Amendment Check-In
Mr. Justin Barker, Community Development Senior Planner, stated he wanted to check in with P&Z
regarding proposed code amendments pertaining to the City’s Residential Design Standards (RDS).
Mr. Barker provided background on the RDS and stated Council directed Staff earlier this year to look
into updating the RDS to make it more appropriate for the current designs and timeframe. Staff has
been working with a consultant as well as an advisory committee to identify possible updates.
After multiple discussions and meetings, two issues were identified with the current version of the
chapter.
• Lack of clarity in the administrative review process
• Lack of flexibility in the existing standards
Mr. Barker then reviewed the administrative review process. The process is confusing as is the standard
for the reviews that occur during the process. He referred to Exhibit A which diagrams the existing and
proposed review processes. With the new review process, they are proposing all projects come in for an
administrative review for all standards. Administratively, they would receive an approval or denial to be
included in their building permit providing them assurance they have a signed off approval. This would
also removes the three design request limitation. Staff will look at all the standards combined and
whether they are met collectively or not. If the proposal is denied, the applicant has the opportunity to
request a variation from P&Z or mend their requirements to meet the RDS.
When an application comes in, there are set standards based on the location and topography of the site
that must be met to the letter. The application may also go through an administrative or a P&Z variance
review. Staff recognizes not all the standards have equal importance and he provided an example of the
location of the structure on the lot may not be as important as the overall mass of the building. The
proposed changes prioritize the standards and identifies three standards as the nonflexible standards as
P77
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015
9
listed on p. 75 of the agenda packet. These must be met as per stated in the code and any variance must
be taken to P&Z for review. All the other standards are reviewed with flexibility in mind and Staff will
determine the intent of the standard is being is met. He discussed the two examples on pp 79 and 80 of
the packet.
There are a few more updates Staff has been working on including the following.
• Reorganizing the entire chapter to make it more readable
• Define some terms not previously defined or are unclear
• Updating and improving the graphics to be more understandable
• Adding new graphics to further assist with explaining topics
For public outreach, there was an open house at the end of September that approximately 20 people
attended. There was an overwhelming positive response to the idea of the proposed changes. The
proposed changes were also included in the Community Development Newsletter which goes out to
almost 600 professionals in the valley to which there has been mostly positive responses as well.
The next steps include the proposed changes going to Council for policy resolution in early December.
There will also be one more public open house on the same date to obtain additional feedback prior to
the meeting with Council. If the policy resolution is approved, they will proceed with an ordinance
reading for the specific language to amend the code.
Mr. Barker asked if P&Z supports the proposed amendment or has any concerns.
Mr. Mesirow asked who made up the audience at the open house. Mr. Barker answered it was a lot of
local architects and designers. Mr. Mesirow stated it seems very counter to the general feeling of the
community to hold to very specific guidelines with no flexibility in granting anything to anybody. Mr.
Morris asked if the audience receiving the newsletter was also primarily architects and designers at
which Mr. Barker stated the newsletter is viewed by architects, designers, real estate agents, attorneys
and others involved with land use code review and enforcement. Mr. Morris wondered how we could
get some from the other side to show up and participate in the review.
Ms. Phelan stated there needs to be guidelines in place and the values of the town are so high that if
there were no requirements, you would see 10 ft walls around houses turning them into compounds
and the public streetscape would be negatively impacted. What Staff heard is that some of the
requirements are not flexible. Staff is trying to identify those standards that are sacred and there can’t
be an administrative variation unless you go to a board for review.
Mr. Barker added they want to focus on the design and the overall intent of the applicants instead of
looking at the extreme details such as your window is 9 ft tall instead of 9 ft 3 in tall. Staff does not feel
it is necessary for an applicant to come to P&Z to ask for a window that is 3 in taller than allowed per the
code. Mr. Goode remarked P&Z has seen plenty of such examples.
Mr. Goode other commissioners stated they feel the changes will be good for the process. Mr. Mesirow
appreciates the direction and finding more competence in the process for everyone is important. He
also feels the intent to focus on use is really healthy oppose to it looking as though the standards are
being relaxed. Mr. Morris also feels it will be important to articulate the reasons behind amending the
code.
Mr. Mesirow does see a red flag when it comes to the prioritization. He understands why it is being
done, but is concerned they may be drawing a roadmap for architects and designers to figure out which
things they need to abide by. Ms. Phelan added the proposed process may be able to dial in the intent
P78
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015
10
to match the location more appropriately to match the development pattern of the area. She added
there are certain design principles that will be upheld. She gave the example that Staff feels very
strongly about the placement of a garage at a site. For instance, on Cemetery Lane they may allow side
loading where they typically do not allow for it.
Mr. Mesirow asked for the process to revisit this based on changing community priorities. Mr. Barker
stated it would be easier to change the priorities in the future should the need arise.
Mr. Barker stated a lot of designers have figured out a loophole process to meeting the standards which
creates a worse design in the end. These amendments will help Staff focus on the overall design and
allow the applicant to focus on a holistic design rather than just meet the standard.
Mr. Mesirow reiterated having check-in mechanisms would ultimately make the process better. It would
also encourage trust with the community.
Mr. Goode felt opening it up to look at the entire design from the beginning would be helpful. Mr.
Barker reiterated currently an applicant may present up to three items for administrative variances from
three different standards. If they request more than three, it currently goes to P&Z for review. With the
amendments, there will no longer be a limitation on the number requested for administrative review. If
the administrative review is not granted, the applicant would have the option of taking their request to
P&Z.
Mr. Mesirow asked if it was a requirement or opportunity for the applicant to currently ask for
administrative review. Mr. Barker replied currently it is reviewed for RDS when someone submits for a
building permit.
Ms. McNicholas Kury asked how Staff makes their decisions defensible in regards to intent. Ms. Phelan
stated there are some standards that are a bit loose and it is harder to define the intent but she feels
the more something can be explained, the more you can define where it meets or doesn’t meet the
standard. Mr. Barker stated there will always be subjectivity in design, but it important to gather as
much information as possible.
Ms. McNicholas Kury stated some statements raise red flags for her. She cited a statement Section
26.410.010.A.3, which states to encourage creative and contemporary architecture in keeping with
Aspen’s history. She stated statements like this are extremely difficult to interpret and noted the
application approved earlier and how it will change the character of the neighborhood impacting any
future review under that criteria is different. She feels there is a tension between what Aspen was and
what it is becoming. She is concerned the direction in which it is heading is very unclear and doesn’t feel
in terms of design, it is something that’s been articulated. Mr. Goode brought up that the aspect of
messy vitality that has driven change in Aspen. Mr. Mesirow feels Ms. McNicholas Kury wants better
confines to direct the change that will occur. He added change includes not only what it will look like,
but also what it act and feel like. Ms. McNicholas Kury feels the change should be tied to an intent
whether it be messy vitality or something else.
Mr. Barker understands Ms. McNicholas Kury’s concerns, but unfortunately it is not in the scope of the
update being discussed. He does feel the proposed amendments will help support the intent going
forward to the specific standards. He suggested perhaps the standards could be reviewed for their
relevance sometime in the future.
P79
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015
11
Elevator Overrun Code Amendment Check-In
Mr. Barker reviewed the current code allows for elevator overruns for anything but single family homes
and duplexes has the capability to be five and in some cases up to 10 ft taller than what code allows
based on the setback from the street to reduce visibility. Staff has heard complaints it is difficult to
achieve a workable design based on the requirements and Council has directed Staff to look into it. Mr.
Barker stated they asked through their newsletter for realistic numbers. From their responses, it seems
most standard elevator designs range from 14.5 to 20 ft in height for the entire assembly. This is
measured from where you exit the elevator to the very top of the roof of the enclosure. A typical height
is 16 ft for a structure available for purchase from vendors serving the valley. Staff is asking if P&Z is
interested in increasing the height for an elevator enclosure. He added one of the difficulties identified
in regards to the design is currently they end up with awkward elevator ramping systems to get to the
actual top and stay under the height limit. For an example, with a 16 ft enclosure the floor would have
to be dropped approximately 6 ft below the roof line or have a custom, expensive structure built to
achieve the five ft or 10 ft height limit.
Mr. Goode doesn’t see the cost as an issue for those who typically build in Aspen.
Mr. Morris asked for the typical costs to comply with the existing code requirements. Mr. Barker stated
he has not received any specific input regarding how much it costs for a closure requiring ramping for
the 19 ft enclosure.
Ms. Phelan reminded P&Z this is only to access the roof and this wouldn’t be an issue if they don’t need
roof access. Mr. Barker added rooftop views are a hot item lately.
Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the elevators are used to transport people or a commercial elevator. Mr.
Barker answered it is for people. Mr. Barker stated the elevator overrun example provided in the packet
is for commercial use and not residential use.
Mr. Mesirow asked if this code amendment was applicable to commercial core or other zone districts.
Mr. Barker stated the amendment discussion it is not tied specifically to zone district but he would
welcome any input from P&Z.
Mr. Mesirow looking objectively at the recently approved projects and noted they all had elevators on
top conforming to the 10 ft requirement. He feels it is clearly doable and while he doesn’t feel it makes
sense to impose superfluous costs on developers, he doesn’t feel 20 ft elevators would be popular with
the community. He felt additional height may be possibly allowed if the structure was not visible from
the closest structure at street level in each direction.
Mr. Elliott supports having roof access but feels the current standard is working. He feels taller
structures would impede the views of the mountains. Although the cost to make it possible currently
may be higher, he feels there is also a visual impact cost to the community with higher towers.
Mr. Mesirow remarked the Sky Hotel will have a roof top access. He stated if the roof takes up 200 sf for
ramps to make the 10 ft tower design work. If allowing a higher tower would improve the public
amenity space and not a visual impact from the street, he would not have a problem with it. Mr. Elliott
feels it is necessary to look for impacts other than from the street. He feels the developers have been
able to work out solutions to make it work.
Mr. Goode asked how long the rule has been in place. Ms. Phelan believes it has changed somewhat in
the last 10 years. Mr. Goode feels technology may provide for opportunities going forward.
P80
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015
12
Ms. McNicholas Kury doesn’t feel roof access is a pressing public need at this time.
In summary, P&Z does not support an increase in height.
Mr. Goode then adjourned the meeting.
Cindy Klob
City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager
P81
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 11, 2016
10
Councilman Daily said he thinks the more comprehensive solution is the long term solution but he wants
to expedite this amendment. He support the comprehensive solution.
Councilman Frisch said he is happy to support the comprehensive solution with the ability to waive some
fees.
Councilman Myrin said he would approve as staff has written and lean towards changing the zone rather
than a PD amendment.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #48, Series of 2015 with the intention to process a PD
amendment and correction to the numbering; seconded by Councilman Daily. Roll call vote.
Councilmembers Daily, yes; Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Myrin, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ACTION ITEMS – Call-Up of P&Z Approval – 200 S Aspen (Hotel Lenado)
Jennifer Phelan, community development, told the Council this call up is for conceptual commercial
design review on the redevelopment of the Hotel Lenado. Council can accept the decision, remand it
back to P&Z with direction for reconsideration or continue the meeting for additional information. On
November 17, 2016 P&Z approved conceptual commercial design review and growth management
review with a new mixed use building that will contain two free market units, two affordable housing
units, four lodge units with nine keys and nine parking spaces. The existing has 17 lodge units with 19
keys and two affordable housing units. The project had been discussed at four meetings with P&Z.
Design changes occurred each time. Staff recommended continued revisions each time including
reduction in height and mass and further refinement with grade and public amenity space and more
compatibility with the neighborhood. The commercial design standards the project is subject to are the
small lodge character area. The design objectives include how the lodge relates to the neighborhood. The
conceptual commercial review deals with placement, size and location of the building. At the final
meeting staff recommended denial and felt two standards needed more work, 5.5 – reflecting lot width by
varying the heights, modulation and façade heights. Staff also felt 5.7 needed more work where the
building should respect the traditional lot width and scale of the context in form and variation of the roof
scape with lots greater than 60 feet wide. Overall staff felt the underlying zoning was met but there was
still too much mass and it needed more articulation. Although P&Z voted to approve, Staff feels it needs
more work. It could be smaller and could fit better with the neighborhood character. She still does not
think it is there. She recommends it is remanded back to P&Z to look at the mass and scale particularly
on the Hopkins side.
Steev Wilson, representing the applicant, showed images of the Aspen Street façade. The property is
located in the mixed use zone district between the commercial core, R6, residential multi-family and
lodge zones. It is a transitional neighborhood. They looked at the uses that could go in the mixed use
district. There are a number of single family residences across the street. They looked at retail and office
and it was not what they wanted. It could be purely affordable housing or free market. They were
encouraged to do a mixed use building. They wanted to take advantage of the small lodge incentive
program with the first design. It did not go over well at P&Z. They pulled 4,500 square feet out of the
building and reduced the mass quite a bit. P&Z felt it was still too much a commercial building and felt it
did not engage the street very well and wanted more variation along Hopkins. The third design engaged
P82
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 11, 2016
11
the street more. They stepped the façade back more and added more variation. P&Z still felt there was
too much glass and it still looked like an office building. The final submission brought the height down
to 28 feet. It hid the garages along the back. There are three separate volumes along Hopkins to respect
the traditional lot widths. It backed off the total FAR around 400 square feet and reduced the height by
two feet from the existing. He showed images of the existing exterior and the proposed.
Councilman Frisch asked if there are specifications that it has to be rented out for some amount of time?
Ms. Phelan stated there are two issues. The current code says there must be a front desk and one guest
can’t stay for more than 90 days per calendar year or 30 consecutive days. In the 80’s the Lenado
requested condominimization. There are operational requirements that are carried forward from that.
There are limitations from use in the high season, on site management and on site central reservation
system specific to this property. Councilman Frisch said the use is in the process of going from a
traditional hotel on the outskirts of town. The plan was always going to be less than that. The thought
that this was going to be a traditional hotel is sad. The second thing is the building has gone from
something familiar to this. I give pause when someone comes in and can build 17,000 square feet and is
building 10,000. How often does P&Z or HPC provide a unanimous decision and Staff comes in and say
no. Ms. Phelan replied I think they recognize they have been through four meetings. Councilman Frisch
stated he appreciates that. Ms. Phelan said they recognize there is a code in place and it met that.
Councilman Frisch said how low can we expect people to go. Rarely do I see a disconnect between a
board and staff and that is what I am trying to digest. Ms. Phelan said she thinks the form could change
substantially. She thinks the gables are an attempt to reflect the form in the neighborhood.
Councilman Daily stated Staff has been consistent in its recommendation that additional work be done.
P&Z ultimately voted in favor despite Staff’s recommendation. I believe that Staff’s recommendation is
the one we ought to be looking to today. My vote is we remand to P&Z and ask the building be amended
as Staff suggest on page 194 of the packet. Those are consistent requirements that Staff has made and are
appropriate. He said he is not sure if Council has read Skippy’s comments. He voted in favor very
reluctantly. He is not sure whether additional changes can be made. I think Staff’s recommendation
continue to remain appropriate. Mass, scale and design can be amended to be compatible with the
neighborhood.
Councilman Myrin said having been on P&Z I’ve seen applications come forward where we spent
enormous amounts of time getting the mass right. I can understand why this ended up where it ended up.
The message has been consistent from Staff. We owe it to the community to do the very best we can. He
said he is supportive of Councilman Daily and Staff.
Councilwoman Mullins stated this has progressed a lot. P&Z made enormous progress. She does not
think you have gotten there yet. It is too commercial for the neighborhood. What is existing is a very
welcoming residential development. What is proposed is closed off and isolated. It is too inward focused
and closed off.
Mayor Skadron said this feels like a shell game. It seems as if the project is exploiting the floor area
allowance that may or may not be used as intended. If it is to be a lodge you are getting additional square
footage. You are getting a benefit based on the zoning. Will this function as a hotel per the operational
requirements of the city? Mr. Wilson replied of course. Mayor Skadron asked will you be working with
central reservations? Mr. Wilson replied absolutely. Mayor Skadron said the original hotel has 10,000
P83
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 11, 2016
12
square feet of floor area the proposed has 4,000. If this is a hotel and you are using central reservations
why is the priority not given to it being a hotel and why the reduction in floor area? Mr. Wilson said the
numbers work better as a boutique hotel. Mayor Skadron said the math doesn’t make sense as a lodge.
He is sensitive to the overall size of the development but is concerned with the comments of the P&Z
members.
Councilman Frisch said that goes back to his original comment. Not only has the lodging been reduced
by half but the chances of it being filled up have reduced by half.
Mayor Skadron said he would remand this back and have P&Z consider a duplex or single family home
option. He is not convinced this will operate as a hotel unless they want to guarantee these rooms will
operate as a hotel and be occupied to our current hotel occupancy rates. Mr. Wilson said we have code
that says we will operate as a hotel and extra restrictions that says we will operate as a hotel. Mayor
Skadron said they are getting a benefit based on the zoning and use. He is seeing something that doesn’t
translate to a hotel. It could be a larger hotel component with smaller free market.
Councilman Frisch said there should be some focus on the top two bullet points.
Mayor Skadron stated this relates best to the residential character across the street and is most compatible
to the neighborhood as a duplex at 3,264 or single family at 2,928.
Councilwoman Mullins said she would support that or go back to the staff recommendation.
Councilman Myrin said this was an interesting conversation and he didn’t expect it to go where it did. He
is here to back up staff.
Ms. Phelan said the focus is to review the four bullets from page 194 and the Mayors sentence relating to
residential character across the street and the single family or duplex option.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to remand back to P&Z with the stated stipulations; seconded by
Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Frisch moved to adjourn at 10:50 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Myrin. All in favor,
motion carried.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P84
VI.B.
715 W MAIN ST | SUITE 204 | ASPEN CO 81611 | 970.279.4157 | FORUMPHI.COM
LAND USE APPLICATION RESUBMISSION
200 S ASPEN STREET (HOTEL LENADO)
A LODGE PRESERVATION PROJECT FEATURING LODGING, FREE MARKET RESIDENTIAL
UNITS, AND ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS.
15 MARCH 2016
An Application for Commercial Design Review – Conceptual Review Remand
P85
VI.B.
2
PROJECT OVERVIEW
DCBD2 LLC (the “ Applicant”) resubmits this application for Commercial Design Review-Conceptual for redevelopment of
the existing Hotel Lenado. The subject site is an 8,970 SF parcel located at the corner of Hopkins Avenue and S. Aspen
Street at 200 S. Aspen Street (the “Property”). The Property lies within the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district and has a Lodge
Preservation Overlay (LP) impacting the entire parcel. The LP Overlay District determines the permitted uses and the
allowable floor areas for those permitted uses within the Property.
The proposed redevelopment will include nine (9) adjoining lodge units along with accessory lounge areas, two (2) single-
family residential units, two (2) affordable housing units, and interior parking garages containing all of the required parking
spaces for each of these uses. The building is completely within the allowable Floor Area Ratios and Net Area
Allowances for all of the uses provided within the redevelopment, also exceeding the required affordable housing needed
for the redevelopment and locating all of it onsite.
The required 10-foot front setback, 5-foot side setbacks, and the 5-foot rear setbacks are all being met. The exterior of the
upper level has been pulled back from each façade of the building below, with varied flat or gable roofs above that are all
under the 28-foot height limit. In addition, the building is held back further than required along the west property line. It
steps up and is recessed further at the park level along all sides of the building. This variation in façade depths, as well
as the heights of decks and roof elements provides a reduced appearance of massing, as required in the character area
guidelines.
The redevelopment will also provide new sidewalks along both adjoining streets, while respecting the existing cottonwood
trees. It will also increase the amount of at-grade public amenity space well beyond what is required for the property.
SUMMARY
On January 11, Aspen City Council reviewed the Planning and Zoning Commission’s unanimous approval of the
Conceptual Commercial Design of the Hotel Lenado. After considerable debate as to why the redevelopment is drastically
under the total allowable floor area by almost 8,000 square feet, and why staff would recommend denial of a project while
the Planning and Zoning Commission would vote unanimously to approve the project, council voted to remand the
approval back to Planning and Zoning for further consideration. The council requested that the commission review the
application with the option to request a single family or duplex residence on the property, or further review how the
redevelopment addresses the four bullet points in staff’s memo from the November 17th meeting when the project was
approved:
• The height of the upper level should be reduced to be in line with the height of the entry and park levels.
• The mass, scale and design be amended to be compatible with the neighborhood. Continue to work on the
Hopkins façade so that it relates better to the residential character across the street as described above. Reduce
the size of the building to better relate to the neighborhood.
• Meet the growth management requirements for above grade net livable space for the AH units. One affordable
housing unit be for sale.
• Verify dimensional requirements are met, specifically Floor Area calculations.
Staff has requested that the design be altered to respond to the Small Lodge Character Area Design Guidelines,
specifically sections 5.5 and 5.7.
P86
VI.B.
3
Small Lodges Character Area
5.5 Within an established residential context, a lodge building should reflect traditional lot widths in more than one
of the following ways:
• The variation in building height
• The modulation of the building elements
• The variation in façade heights
• The street façade composition
• The variation in design and materials to emphasize the building module
5.7 A building should respect the traditional lot width and scale of the context in the form, modulation, and
variation of the roofscape:
• On sites exceeding 60 feet in width, the building height and form should be modulated and varied across
the site.
• The width of the building or of an individual building module should reflect traditional façade widths in the
area.
RESPONSE
This property is located within the Mixed Use Zone district with a Lodge Preservation overlay on this site. By code, this
zone district allows any of the following uses:
• Single family residence
• Duplex residence
• Detached duplex residences
• Retail
• Restaurant
• Office
• Affordable multi-family housing
• Free-market multi-family housing
• Lodging
Further, the Aspen Area Community Plan recommends a minimalization in the further loss of lodging inventory and
promotes replenishing the lodging base with a variety of inventory that promotes the interaction between visitors and
residents. The uses proposed in this application fall entirely within these guidelines. Lodging is not only allowable by
code, but also recommended by the community goals that this site be maintained as lodging. The applicant feels that the
preservation of lodging on this site is more in line with the community goals as a whole, than a single-family residence on
this site. The applicant will continue to pursue a development containing a mixed use of lodging, affordable housing, and
free market residences on the site as is allowed by code.
When meeting with city council, there was some confusion regarding a perceived decrease in floor area for the lodging
use. The land use code calculates the floor area for below grade area at a reduced rate based on how much of the
perimeter is exposed above grade. The existing hotel essentially sits in a hole, with the majority of the lower level walls
exposed while the proposed hotel design has nestled the building into the sloped site and worked with the grade as it falls
naturally across the property. The grading surrounding the building has been an area of focus in order to closely integrate
the building with the surrounding pedestrian access to both the street facing entry and the parkside access to the lounge
and affordable housing units. This has resulted in a decrease in the amount of exposed wall surface at the main level of
the proposed building, thereby resulting in a decrease in the calculated Floor Area for the uses on that level, which are
primarily lodging.
Despite discussions to the contrary, the net area calculations specific to the lodging use are increasing under this
proposal. The design approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 17th showed an increase from the
P87
VI.B.
4
existing 10,888 square feet to the proposed 11,415 square feet. While the number of individual units has decreased, the
sizes of the units being proposed has increased to sizes that are more in line with the expectations of modern day hotel
guests and their desired amenities, as well as current accessible code requirements.
per Applicant Packet LU:29 November 17, 2015
As was presented at the November 17th hearing, the Small Lodge Character Area requires, in section 5.6, for a minimum
9-foot floor to ceiling height to be maintained on second stories and higher. The approved design demonstrated that the
ceiling heights on the main level and the above grade levels above all maintained a consistent 9’-1” to 9’-3” floor to ceiling
height in the areas along the street facing facades. As requested in the first bullet point from the staff memo, the ceiling
heights on all of the levels are consistent and are maintained at the lowest plate height possible to still fall under the 28-
foot height limit that was enforced by the commission. The applicant had proposed to raise the ceiling height above the 9
foot plate height only in the south facing free market unit in an attempt to access as much of the view of Aspen Mountain
as possible over the taller condominium buildings across the alley.
The design previously approved had explored a number of adjustments based on the commissioner and staff comments
to be more compatible with the neighborhood, as noted in the second bullet point. This effort had been encouraged by
staff to blend with the size and scale of the four houses directly across Hopkins Street to the north, despite the fact that a
taller and larger condominium building exists to the south of the property, across the alley, impeding the potential views of
Aspen Mountain. Throughout the review process, the height of the building was reduced to fall in line with the lower
height limit of 28 feet. The forms of the building transitioned from a more streamlined contemporary building to one that
integrated residential-type gable roofs and facades that varied in height and depth along each elevation. These variations
in the facades were generally held to dimensions of 30 feet width or less, which were typical of the traditional lot widths in
the city of Aspen. The materials represented on each façade were also varied to further demonstrate the undulation in the
façade composition and emphasize the historic lot width module. As this process continued, the building resulted in
facades that were more variegated with set backs in multiple areas, and roofs that were lower in height. Despite the
numerous attempts by the applicant and requests for specific direction, it remained the subjective determination by staff
that these variations and reduction in height still did not blend with the neighborhood, all while producing a design that was
lower in height and more varied on each façade than the existing hotel structure.
The third bullet point in the staff memo required the affordable housing units be adjusted to meet the growth management
requirements for above grade livable areas, as well as one be a rental unit. The GMQS requires that more than half of
affordable housing net livable area be above grade; as well as at least 30% of the area provided for free market units
above grade also be provided for affordable housing above grade. The design had been modified to bring the storage for
the affordable housing units out of the basement and locate them within the units. These areas are fully compliant with
the GMQS requirements. The applicant had proposed for the two affordable housing units to be rental units, as
recommended and approved by APCHA. Considering that it is a requirement that there be onsite management, it was
decided to provide the affordable housing units for rental housing to staff of the hotel. It has also been determined that the
mixing of for sale affordable housing units with condominiumized hotel units that are not occupied full time, creates a very
difficult financing situation, essentially lumping the affordable housing units into the same consideration by the bank as
P88
VI.B.
5
second homes and vacation properties and limits them to ARM’s and portfolio loans. APCHA ultimately recommended
the units be rental units, with the occupants being overseen and evaluated through their guidelines.
Staff requested in their final bullet point that the dimensional requirements be met, specifically floor area calculations.
While there were a couple minimal discrepancies in the way the applicant calculated floor area compared with that of staff,
the applicant will continue to work with staff to verify that all floor area calculations are fully compliant with the zoning
allowances at both final review and ultimately at permit submission as well.
CONCLUSION
Considering that the Commission unanimously approved the design presented to them at the hearing on November 17th,
the applicant would like to request that the commission entertain reapproval of the submitted package as presented and
discussed on that date, without modifications. The applicant has followed the multiple directives given by the commission
over the previous year to make refinements that brought the building inline with the specific requirements of the code and
the wishes of the commissioners and staff. The proposed building, ultimately unanimously approved by the commission,
meets all of the objective requirements of the land use code, with the primary area of continued debate focusing on the
subjective opinion that the design does not blend with the neighborhood immediately surrounding the property, despite the
fact that the building is shorter than the houses across the street and the condominium building across the alley, as well
as being considerably smaller than the allowable floor area for this use and zoning district.
The approved proposal is maintaining a lodging use as promoted by the Aspen Area Community Plan. While the number
of units is decreasing, they are each increasing in size to be more in line with hotel rooms that occupants would be
accustomed to staying in currently. The amenities that have been provided in the existing lodge will continue to be
provided in the proposed development within the lounge spaces provided, as required through both the lodging
requirements and the subdivision approvals recorded when the existing hotel was developed. The combination of hotel
units, free market units, and affordable housing units in one building promotes the interaction of both residents and
visitors. With this property being located only half of a block, across an open park, from the commercial core, it is
inconceivable that this updated lodge would not be one of the most distinctive and desired locations to stay within Aspen.
OPTIONS
If the commission determines that the approval they granted in November was not fully vetted and they feel additional
revisions are again necessary, the applicant has also submitted another further revised design option for the commission
to review. Considering the commission suggested further review of the Hopkins Street façade, the applicant has taken
those comments into consideration and has once again studied how the street facing elevations could be further refined to
blend with the residences across the street.
The northern façade has been adjusted to very specifically comply with the 30’ traditional lot width as discussed in the
Small Lodges Character Area Guidelines. The forms have been modified to be simple traditional gable forms, with less of
the contemporary elements proposed previously. The left portion of the façade contains a small entry porch and two story
element, whose proportions mimic those of the size and scale of various historic homes throughout Aspen and the
surrounding neighborhood. The middle portion steps back from the front façade entirely, allowing for a recessed central
porch, and additional variegation from the surrounding façade. The upper level continues to step back from the lower
level façade in an effort to minimize the perception of massing from the pedestrian experience.
The additional gable elements surrounding the building have been adjusted to fall within these proportions as well, with
further adjustments made to the window patterns to mimic traditional window proportions more closely. Each façade is
broken up into various stepped facades and heights, defining various spaces within the building, while maintaining a
consistent and cohesive design concept.
P89
VI.B.
6
In addition to the refinements to the massing, the applicant has revised the material palette to be more typical of those
found on residential properties, with traditional detailing. The lower portions of each elevation have been grounded with a
traditional stone wainscot and masonry caps. The upper level materials have been simplified into two siding selections,
one a lighter gray and one a darker gray, both complementing the stone selection. While these are items typically
reviewed at final, the applicant felt that this assisted to demonstrate the residential feel and proportions of form,
modulation, and scale.
The proposed design meets setback and height restrictions. The building falls completely within the allowable floor areas.
All of the required parking and affordable housing is provided onsite. The uses contained within are all allowed by the
land use code and promoted by the Aspen Area Community Plan. The exterior facades have been varied in form,
setbacks, and heights to conform to traditional residential massing, scale, and height found in the neighborhood. The
building meets all of the requirements from the Mixed Use Zone, Lodging Preservation Overlay, Small Lodges Character
Area, Central Mixed Use Character Area, and the Commercial Design Guidelines. The applicant has spent considerable
effort to respond to the directions given by the commission, staff, and the city council.
P90
VI.B.
P
9
1
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN
RENDERINGS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.01
P
9
2
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN
RENDERINGS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.02
P
9
3
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN
RENDERINGS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.03
P
9
4
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN
RENDERINGS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.04
P
9
5
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN
RENDERINGS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.05
P
9
6
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN
EXTERIOR
PERSPECTIVE
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.06
P
9
7
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN
EXTERIOR
PERSPECTIVE
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.07
P
9
8
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN
EXTERIOR
PERSPECTIVE
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.08
P
9
9
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN
EXTERIOR
PERSPECTIVE
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.09
P
1
0
0
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN
LOWER LEVEL
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.10
F
UP
RG
RG
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
I
D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
I
D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PARKING GARAGE
CAR LIFT LODGE MECHANICAL
STAIR 2
LODGE STORAGE
STAIR 1ELEVATOR
CATERING KITCHEN
LOBBY ELEV.
MECH.
LU.20
LU.17
LU.18
LU.19
F
F
F
EMPLOYEE
LOUNGE
EMPLOYEE
R/R
LU.23
LU.23
LU.21LU.21
LU.22
LU.22
P
1
0
1
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN
MAIN LEVEL
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.11
F F F F
F UP
U
P
W
W
W W
LU.20
LU.17
LU.18
LU.19
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
I
D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
I
D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
UNIT 104 UNIT 105 UNIT 106
ELEVATOR
STAIR 1
MAIN
ENTRY
CAR LIFT
BATH
WETBAR WETBAR
UNIT 103
MGMNT
VALET
BATH
UNIT 102
BATH
UNIT 107
LIBRARY
BATH
UNIT 203
UNIT 204
HOUSE
KEEPING
WETBAR WETBAR
WETBAR
STAIR 2
BATH
BATH
BATH
BATH
BATH
F
F
LU.23
LU.23
OPEN TO BELOW
OPEN TO
STAIR BELOW
OPEN TO
STAIR BELOW
UNIT 101
WETBAR
WETBAR
LU.21LU.21
LU.22
LU.22
P
1
0
2
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN
PARK LEVEL
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.12
OPEN TO
STAIR BELOW
OPEN TO
STAIR BELOW
UP
DW
RG DW
RG
W
W
W
LU.20
LU.17
LU.18
LU.19
201.75 sq ft
ELECTRICAL
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
I
D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
I
D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
UNIT 202
UNIT 201
GARAGE
CAR LIFT
STAIR 1
STAIR
TRASH ENCLOSURE
TRANSFORMER
GAME LOUNGE / BAR
UNIT 203
UNIT 204
WETBAR
ELEVATORHALL
ENTRY
BATH
BATH
RESTROOM
BATH
BATH
RESTROOM
LOUNGE
LOBBY
UNIT 204
STORAGE
UNIT 203
STORAGE
DECK
F F
F
OPEN TO
STAIR BELOW
LU.23
LU.23
DW
F
LU.21LU.21
LU.22
LU.22
GAS
OPEN TO BELOW
HOUSE-
KEEPING
P
1
0
3
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN
UPPER LEVEL
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.13
OPEN TO
STAIR BELOW
OPEN TO
STAIR BELOW
U
P
LU.20
LU.17
LU.18
LU.19
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
I
D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
I
D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
UNIT 302
STAIR 1
ELEVATOR
HALL
UNIT 301
STAIR
BATH
BATH
DECK
DECK
DECK
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
F
W
DW
W
LU.23
LU.23
LU.21LU.21
LU.22
LU.22
F
DW
FP
P
1
0
4
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN
ROOFTOP
LEVEL
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.14
F
OPEN TO
STAIR BELOW
U
P
UP
U
P
LU.20
LU.17
LU.18
LU.19
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
I
D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
I
D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
ELEVATOR
DECK
DECK DECK
STAIR 1
MECHANICAL
LU.23
LU.23
LU.21LU.21
LU.22
LU.22
P
1
0
5
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN
ROOF PLAN
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.15
F
U
P
UP
U
P
UP
U
P
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
I
D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
I
D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
OUTLINE OF PERIMETER
WALL BELOW ROOF
DECK BELOW
0:12
0:120:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12 8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
0:12 0:12
8:12
0:12
0:12
P
1
0
6
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN
PROPOSED SITE
PLAN
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.16
F
U
P
UP
U
P
5'-0"
1
0
'
-
0
"
5'-0"
5
'
-
0
"
SS LINE
GAS LINE
W LINE
SETBACK LINE
PROPERTY LINE
790679057904
7
9
0
3
7
9
0
2
79
0
1
79
0
7
7900
7899
78
9
8
7897
7896 OUTLINE OF PERIMETER
WALL BELOW ROOF
S
.
A
S
P
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
E. HOPKINS AVENUE
ALLEY
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
W
H
I
T
A
K
E
R
P
A
R
K
S
I
D
E
Y
A
R
D
FRONT
YARD
REAR
YARD
S
I
D
E
Y
A
R
D
N
P
1
0
7
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN
WEST
ELEVATION
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.17
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINE
MIXED WEATHERED WOOD
WIRE RAILING
GLASS
WOOD SIDING
WIRE RAILING
PLASTER FINISH
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
133'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
133'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
134'-8"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
134'-8"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
131'-6"
T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK
131'-6"
T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK
122'-0"
T.O. F.F. SOUTH PENTHOUSE
122'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
HISTORIC GRADE
FINISH GRADE
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
P
1
0
8
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN
NORTH
ELEVATION
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.18
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINE
MIXED WEATHERED WOOD
WIRE RAILING
GLASS
WOOD SIDING
PLASTER FINISH
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
133'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
133'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
134'-8"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
134'-8"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
131'-6"
T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK
131'-6"
T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK
122'-0"
T.O. F.F. SOUTH PENTHOUSE
122'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE
FINISH GRADE
HISTORIC GRADE
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
P
1
0
9
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN
EAST
ELEVATION
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.19
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINE
WOOD SIDING
WIRE RAILING
GLASS
MIXED WEATHERED WOOD
WIRE RAILING
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
133'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
133'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
134'-8"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
134'-8"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
131'-6"
T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK
131'-6"
T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK
122'-0"
T.O. F.F. SOUTH PENTHOUSE
122'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE
HISTORIC GRADE
FINISH GRADE
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
P
1
1
0
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN
SOUTH
ELEVATION
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.20
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINE
MIXED WEATHERED WOOD
WIRE RAILING
GLASS
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
133'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
133'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
WIRE RAILING
PLASTER FINISH
WOOD SIDING
134'-8"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
134'-8"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
131'-6"
T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK
131'-6"
T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK
122'-0"
T.O. F.F. SOUTH PENTHOUSE
122'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE
FINISH GRADE
HISTORIC GRADE
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
P
1
1
1
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN
SECTIONS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.21
9
'
-
1
"
1
1
'
-
7
"
9
'
-
1
"
9
'
-
3
"
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
133'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
133'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
134'-8"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
134'-8"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
131'-6"
T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK
131'-6"
T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK
122'-0"
T.O. F.F. SOUTH PENTHOUSE
122'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE
PARKING GARAGE CATERING KITCHENLOBBY
FINISH GRADE
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
MAIN ENTRY HALL HOUSE-
KEEPING
UNIT 202 LOUNGE LOBBY ENTRY
UNIT 301 HALL UNIT 301
RESTROOM
MANAGEMENT
VALET
LU.21 NORTH SECTION
P
1
1
2
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN
SECTIONS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.22
1
1
'
-
7
"
9
'
-
1
"
1
0
'
-
3
"
9
'
-
9
"
1
0
'
-
1
"
1
1
'
-
5
"
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
133'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
133'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
134'-8"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
134'-8"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
131'-6"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
131'-6"
T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK
131'-6"
T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK
122'-0"
T.O. F.F. SOUTH PENTHOUSE
122'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE
PARKING GARAGE
FINISH GRADE
FINISH GRADE
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
100'-0" = 7896'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
UNIT 302 UNIT 302STAIR
STAIR HALL
LIBRARY UNIT 204
UNIT 204
UNIT 102
LU.22 SOUTH SECTION
P
1
1
3
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN
SECTIONS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.23
1
1
'
-
7
"
9
'
-
1
"
9
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
1
"
1
0
'
-
3
"
1
1
'
-
7
"
9
'
-
1
"
9
'
-
1
"
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
133'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
133'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK
134'-8"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
134'-8"
T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
131'-6"
T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK
131'-6"
T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK
122'-0"
T.O. F.F. SOUTH PENTHOUSE
122'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE
FINISH GRADE
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
LODGE STORAGE PARKING GARAGE
CAR LIFTUNIT 105 HALL
HALL
HALL
GAME LOUNGE / BAR HOUSEKEEPING
UNIT 302
UNIT 301 CLOSET
LIBRARY
REST
ROOM
LU.23 EAST SECTION
P
1
1
4
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN
WEST HEIGHT
COMPARISON
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.24
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINE
PARK CENTRAL WEST
PEAK @ 7938'-10" (32' -0")208 HOPKINS PEAK @ 7932'-5" (32'-6")
116 ASPEN ST. PEAK @ 7929'-8" (32'-8")
214 HOPKINS PEAK @ 7935'-10" (32'-0")
200 SOUTH ASPEN
PEAK @ 7931'-1" (27'-8")
200 SOUTH ASPEN
PEAK @ 7934'-8" (28'-9")
P
1
1
5
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN
EAST HEIGHT
COMPARISON
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.25
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINE
PARK CENTRAL WEST
PEAK @ 7938'-10" (32' -0")
208 HOPKINS PEAK @ 7932'-5" (32'-6")
116 ASPEN ST. PEAK @ 7929'-8" (32'-8")
214 HOPKINS PEAK @ 7935'-10" (32'-0")200 SOUTH ASPEN
PEAK @ 7934'-8" (28'-9")200 SOUTH ASPEN
PEAK @ 7931'-1" (27'-8")
P
1
1
6
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN
HEIGHTS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.26
F
U
P
UP
U
P
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
I
D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
I
D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
79
0
0
7906
79
0
5
7904
79
0
2
79
0
1
7899
7898
78
9
7
8
1
1312
5
4
3
2
6
1718
16
15
23
22
21
14
8
20
10
9
19
7
11
BUILDING OUTLINE
AT GRADE
OUTLINE OF PERIMETER
WALL BELOW ROOF
15' OFFSET
0:12
0:120:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12 8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
0:12 0:12
8:12
0:12
8:12
0:12
79
0
3
Elevation Label Elevation of Historic Grade Elevation of Proposed Grade Most Restrictive Roof Height over
Topography
Actual Roof Height over
Most Restrictive
1 7905'-5"7906'-6"HISTORIC 7927'-0"21-'7"
2 7905'-6"7906'-6"HISTORIC 7927'-7 5/8"22'-1 5/8"
3 7905'-3"7906'-6"PROPOSED 7928'-11 1/4"22'-5 1/4"
4 7904'-4"7903'-5"PROPOSED 7927'-3 1/2"23'-10 1/2"
5 7901'-0"7901'-6"HISTORIC 7927'-0"26'-0"
6 7900'-8"7901'-6"HISTORIC 7927'-7"26'-11"
7 7899'-8"7901'-3"HISTORIC 7927'-8"28'-0"
8 7899'-3"7900'-6"HISTORIC 7927'-3"28'-0"
9 7900'-2"7901'-1"HISTORIC 7928'-2"28'-0"
10 7901'-0"7901'-10"HISTORIC 7928'-1"27'-1"
11 7902'-0"7902'-0"HISTORIC 7930'-0"28'-0"
12 7904'-1"7905'-2"HISTORIC 7931'-3"27'-2"
13 7904'-6"7906'-4"HISTORIC 7931'-2"26'-8"
14 7906'-3"7906'-6"HISTORIC 7931'-5"25'-2"
15 7906'-6"7906'-6"HISTORIC 7931-2 3/8"24'-8 3/8"
16 7906'-3"7906'-6"HISTORIC 7930-11 3/8"24'-8 3/8"
17 7903'-9"N/A HISTORIC 7937'-10"34'-1" (OVERRUN)
18 7902'-8"N/A HISTORIC 7939'-7" 36'-11" (OVERRUN)
19 7901'-9"N/A HISTORIC 7928'-0"26'-3"
20 7900'-11"N/A HISTORIC 7928'-7"27'-8"
21 7901'-11"N/A HISTORIC 7929'-11"28'-0"
22 7903'-3"7904'-1'HISTORIC 7929'-7 1/2"25'-10"
23 7903'-6"N/A HISTORIC 7930'-8"27'-2"
Height Over Topography (Proposed)
200 S. Aspen Street
HEIGHTS OVER TOPOGRAPHY
P
1
1
7
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN EXISTING
SUBGRADE
WALL CALCS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.27
FAR (Existing)
200 S. Aspen Street
Lodge AHU Non-Unit
Lower Level unit area totals by use 2,878.25 1,056.50 867.00
Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed -922.26 -338.53 -277.81
Lower Level FAR totals by use 1,955.99 717.97 589.19
Lodge AHU Non-Unit
Main Level unit area totals by use 3,374.00 0.00 573.00
Main Level FAR totals by use 3,374.00 0.00 573.00
Lodge AHU Non-Unit
Upper Level unit area totals by use 3,101.00 0.00 590.75
Upper Level FAR totals by use 3,101.00 0.00 590.75
Square Feet (Sq Ft)
Gross Lodge (Sq Ft)9,353.25
Gross AHU (Sq Ft)1,056.50
Total Unit Floor Area (Sq Ft) excludes non-unit area 10,409.75
Application of Use Category Percentages to Non-Unit Floor Area
Lodge Floor Area (Sq Ft)Non-Unit @ 89.96%Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)1,955.99 529.40 2,485.39
Main Level (Sq Ft)3,374.00 514.85 3,888.85
Upper Level (Sq Ft)3,101.00 530.79 3,631.79
Gross Lodge (Sq Ft)10,006.03
AHU Floor Area (Sq Ft)Non-Unit @ 10.04%Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)717.97 59.80 777.77
Main Level (Sq Ft)0.00 58.15 58.15
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 59.96 59.96
Total AHU FAR (Sq Ft)895.88
Total FAR (Sq Ft)10,901.91
Allowable Limit (Sq Ft)Existing (Sq Ft)Proposed (Sq Ft)
Lodge (.75:1) 8,970 10,006.03 4,566.55
AHU (2:1) 17,940 895.88 1,438.86
Free Market (.50:1) 4,485 ------4,450.26
Cumulative (2:1) 17940 10,901.91 10,455.68
Lower Level
Main Level
Upper Level
Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category (referenced from “Gross Unit Area” chart)
Percentage (%)
89.85%
10.15%
100.00%
Lodge FAR
AHU FAR
Total Lodge FAR Summary
Subgrade Wall Area (Existing)
200 S. Aspen Street
Existing Lower Level Wall Calculations
Lower Level Wall Label Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)Unex. Wall Area (Sq Ft)
1 664.75 87.50 577.25
2 112.25 112.25 0
3 32.25 32.25 0
4 104.25 104.25 0
5 32.25 32.25 0
6 104.25 104.25 0
7 32.25 32.25 0
8 104.25 104.25 0
9 32.25 32.25 0
10 112.50 72.25 40.25
11 112.25 57.25 55
12 32.00 12.75 19.25
13 92.25 30.75 61.5
14 32.00 8.00 24
15 415.25 25.75 389.5
16 637.75 1.75 636
Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft)2,652.75
Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)850.00
% of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)32.0%
Unexposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)1802.75
% of Unexposed Wall (Unexposed / Total)68.0%
9
'
-
6
"
8
'-0
1 /4 "
8
'-0 1
/4
"
9
'-6 1 /4
"
74'-8"
44'-8"
14'-0"
4'-0"13'-0"4'-0"13'-0"4'-0"13'-0"4'-0"14'-0"
35'-2"4'-0"11'-6"4'-0"14'-0"
67'-0"
8
'-0 1 /4
"
166.75 sq ft 410.50 sq ft
40.25 sq ft
389.50 sq ft24.00 sq ft61.50 sq ft19.25 sq ft55.00 sq ft
636.00 sq ft
14.75 sq ft
58.75 sq ft
7.00 sq ft 7.00 sq ft
112.25 sq ft
32.25 sq ft 104.25 sq ft 32.25 sq ft 104.25 sq ft 32.25 sq ft 104.25 sq ft 32.25 sq ft 72.25 sq ft
25.75 sq ft8.00 sq ft30.75 sq ft12.75 sq ft57.25 sq ft
1.75 sq ft
8 '-0
1 /4 "
001 002
003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010
011 012 013 014 015
016
EXPOSED WALL AREA
UNEXPOSED WALL AREA
SUBGRADE WALL AREA
EXISTING LOWER LEVEL SUBGRADE WALL
P
1
1
8
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN EXISTING
FLOOR AREA
CALCS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.28
Allowable Limit (Sq Ft)Existing (Sq Ft)Proposed (Sq Ft)
Lodge (.75:1) 8,970 10,006.03 4,565.68
AHU (2:1) 17,940 895.88 1,438.58
Free Market (.50:1) 4,485 ------4,484.98
Cumulative (2:1) 17940 10,901.91 10,489.24
Total Lodge FAR Summary
Percentage (%)
Lodge Area (Sq Ft)89.85%
AHU Unit Area (Sq Ft)10.15%
Total Unit Area (Sq Ft) excludes non-unit area 100.00%
Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft) excluded from gross n/a
Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category
10,409.75
2,030.75
Square Feet (Sq Ft)
9,353.25
1,056.50
013
867.00 sq ft
491.25 sq ft
565.25 sq ft
355.00 sq ft
186.75 sq ft
2,336.50 sq ft
UP
UP
PROPERTY LINE
LINE OF SETBACK
01
6
011
00
6
001
003
005
007
009
01
2
01
4
00
2
01
0
00
4
00
8
015
900.25 sq ft
35.25 sq ft
102.50 sq ft
441.50 sq ft
1,473.25 sq ft
1,118.25 sq ft
UP UP
UP
DN
DN
UP
PROPERTY LINE
LINE OF SETBACK
3,101.00 sq ft
590.75 sq ft
DN
DN
DN
PROPERTY LINE
LINE OF SETBACK
DECK BELOW
PROPERTY LINE
LINE OF SETBACK
NON UNIT AREA
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT AREA
LODGE AREA
FREE MARKET AREA
DECK AREA
AREA USE BY CATEGORY
EXISTING LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS EXISTING MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
EXISTING UPPER LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS EXISTING ROOF LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
P
1
1
9
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN EXISTING NET
LEASABLE
PLANS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.29
858.00 sq ft
35.25 sq ft
1,090.00 sq ft
102.50 sq ft
438.25 sq ft
1,397.75 sq ft
UP UP
UP
DN
DN
UP
PROPERTY LINE
LINE OF SETBACK
2,254.75 sq ft
532.25 sq ft
458.75 sq ft
180.00 sq ft
351.50 sq ft
847.75 sq ft
UP
UP
PROPERTY LINE
LINE OF SETBACK
DECK BELOW
REAR PROPERTY LINE
REAR SETBACK
Net Leasable & Net Livable (Existing)
200 S. Aspen Street
Lodge (Leasable)AHU (Livable)Non-Unit
351.50 458.75 847.75
180.00 532.25 ------
2,254.75 ------------
Lower Level area totals by use 2,786.25 991.00 847.75
Lodge (Leasable)AHU (Livable)Non-Unit
1,397.75 ------438.25
1,090.00 ------102.50
858.00 ------35.25
Main Level area totals by use 3,345.75 0.00 576.00
Lodge (Leasable)AHU (Livable)Non-Unit
2,950.25 ------587.00
Upper Level area totals by use 2,950.25 0.00 587.00
Area totals by use 9,082.25 991.00 2010.75
Square Feet (Sq Ft)
Gross Lodge (Sq Ft)9,353.25
Gross AHU (Sq Ft)1,056.50
Total Unit Floor Area (Sq Ft) excludes non-unit area 10,409.75
Application of Use Category Percentages to Non-Unit Floor Area
Lodge (Leasable)Non-Unit @ 89.96%Total
Main Level (Sq Ft)2,786.25 761.71 3,547.96
Upper Level (Sq Ft)3,345.75 517.54 3,863.29
Upper Level (Sq Ft)2,950.25 527.42 3,477.67
10,888.93
AHU (Livable)Non-Unit @ 10.04%Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)991.00 86.04 1,077.04
Main Level (Sq Ft)0.00 58.46 58.46
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 59.58 59.58
1,195.07
Allowable Limit (Sq Ft)Existing (Sq Ft)Proposed (Sq Ft)
Lodge ------10,888.93 11,415.61
AHU ------1,195.07 2,667.50
Free Market ------------5,537.14
Cumulative ------12,084.00 19,620.25
Lower Level
Main Level
Upper Level
Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category (referenced from “Gross Unit Area” chart)
Percentage (%)
89.85%
10.15%
100.00%
Lodge Net Leasable
Total Lodge Net Leasable & Net Livable Summary
Total Lodge Net Leasable (Sq Ft)
Total AHU Net Leasable (Sq Ft)
NON UNIT AREA
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT AREA
LODGE AREA
FREE MARKET AREA
DECK AREA
AREA USE BY CATEGORY
EXISTING MAIN LEVEL NET LEASABLE / LIVABLE
EXISTING UPPER LEVEL NET LEASABLE / LIVABLE
EXISTING LOWER LEVEL NET LEASABLE / LIVABLE
EXISTING ROOF LEVEL NET LEASABLE / LIVABLE
P
1
2
0
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN PROPOSED
GROSS AREA
CALCS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.30
45.50 sq ft
UP
UP
UP
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
4,205.50 sq ft
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
OPEN TO
STAIR BELOW
OPEN TOSTAIR BELOW
2,649.00 sq ft
143.00 sq ft
73.75 sq ft
990.25 sq ft169.75 sq ft
90.50 sq ft
88.75 sq ft
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
OPEN TO
STAIR BELOW
OPEN TO
STAIR BELOW
2,150.75 sq ft
1,939.25 sq ft
1,064.50 sq ft
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
OPEN TOSTAIR BELOW
OPEN TO BELOW
OPEN TO
STAIR BELOW
1,951.50 sq ft
566.50 sq ft
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
Lodge AHU Free Market
1,951.50 ------------
566.50 ------------
------------------
Total Subgrade Level Unit Area by use 2,518.00 0.00 0.00
Lodge AHU Free Market
1,939.25 1,064.50 ------
2,150.75 ------------
------------------
Total Entry Level Unit Area by use 4,090.00 1,064.50 0.00
Lodge AHU Free Market
2,649.00 990.25 143.00
169.75 178.75 73.75
Total Second Level Unit Area by use 2,818.75 1,169.00 216.75
Lodge AHU Free Market
------------4,205.50
Total Third Level Unit Area by use 0.00 0.00 4,205.50
Lodge AHU Free Market
------------45.50
Total Roof Level Unit Area by use 0.00 0.00 45.50
Gross Lodge (Sq Ft)
Gross AHU (Sq Ft)
Gross Free Market (Sq Ft)
Lodge Area (Sq Ft)
AHU Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Free Market Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Total Lodge, AHU, FM Area (Sq Ft)
Total Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Gross Area (Sq Ft)
UPPER LEVEL
ROOF DECK LEVEL
4,467.75
Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category
Gross Summary
9,426.75
2,233.50
4,467.75
9,426.75
2,233.50
Gross Unit Area (Proposed)
200 S. Aspen Street
22,392.00
Percentage (%)
58.45%
13.85%
27.70%
100.00%
n/a
n/a
Square Feet (Sq Ft)
MAIN LEVEL
LOWER LEVEL
PARK LEVEL
16,128.00
6,264.00
PROPOSED ROOFTOP LEVEL GROSS AREA CALCULATIONSPROPOSED UPPER LEVEL GROSS AREA CALCULATIONS
PROPOSED PARK LEVEL GROSS AREA CALCULATIONSPROPOSED MAIN LEVEL GROSS AREA CALCULATIONSPROPOSED LOWER LEVEL GROSS AREA CALCULATIONS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT AREA
LODGE UNITS AREA
FREE MARKET AREA
EXEMPT AREA
AREA USE BY CATEGORY
P
1
2
1
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN PROPOSED
SUBGRADE
WALL CALCS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.31
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Lower Level unit area totals by use 2,488.25 ------------3,649.50
Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed -2,488.25 -------------3,649.50
Lower Level FAR totals by use 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Main Level unit area totals by use 3,987.50 1,063.25 ------857.75
Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed -2,747.09 -732.50 -------590.93
Main Level FAR totals by use 1,240.41 330.75 0.00 266.82
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Park Level unit area totals by use 2,610.25 978.25 146.50 669.00
Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed 167.25 163.25 79.00 ------
Park Level FAR totals by use 2,777.50 978.25 225.50 669.00
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Upper Level unit area totals by use ------------3,955.00 ------
Upper Level FAR totals by use 0.00 0.00 3,955.00 0.00
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Roof Deck Level unit area totals by use ------------45.25 ------
Roof Deck Level FAR totals by use 0.00 0.00 45.25 0.00
Square Feet (Sq Ft)
Gross Lodge (Sq Ft)9,427.50
Gross AHU (Sq Ft)2,233.25
Gross Free Market (Sq Ft)4,467.75
Total Unit Floor Area (Sq Ft) excludes non-unit area 16,128.50
Non-Unit Area Subgrade Exemption Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)3,649.50 -3,649.50 0.00
Main Level (Sq Ft)857.75 -590.93 266.82
Park Level (Sq Ft)669.00 0.00 669.00
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Roof Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
-4,240.43
935.82
Lodge Floor Area Non-Unit @ 58.45%Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Main Level (Sq Ft)1,240.41 155.97 1,396.38
Park Level (Sq Ft)2,777.50 391.05 3,168.55
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Roof Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
547.01
Total Lodge FAR (Sq Ft)4,564.93
AHU Floor Area Non-Unit @13.85%Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Main Level (Sq Ft)330.75 36.95 367.70
Park Level (Sq Ft)978.25 92.63 1,070.88
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Roof Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
129.58
Total Affordable Housing Unit FAR (Sq Ft)1,438.58
Free Market Floor Area Non-Unit @ 27.7%Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Main Level (Sq Ft)0.00 73.91 73.91
Park Level (Sq Ft)225.50 185.32 410.82
Upper Level (Sq Ft)3,955.00 0.00 3,955.00
Roof Level (Sq Ft)45.25 0.00 45.25
259.23
Total Free Market FAR (Sq Ft)4,484.98
Total FAR (Sq Ft)10,488.49
Allowable Limit (Sq Ft)Existing (Sq Ft)Proposed (Sq Ft)
Lodge (.75:1) 8,970 9,081.60 4,564.93
AHU (2:1) 17,940 342.86 1,438.58
Free Market (.50:1) 4,485 0.00 4,484.98
Cumulative (2:1) 17,940 9,424.46 10,488.49
200 S. Aspen Street
FAR (Proposed)
UPPER LEVEL
ROOF DECK LEVEL
PARK LEVEL
MAIN LEVEL
LOWER LEVEL
58.45%
Percentage (%)
Total Lodge FAR Summary
Free Market FAR
Applied Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Applied Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category (referenced from “Gross Unit Area” chart)
100.00%
13.85%
27.70%
Applied Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Affordable Housing Unit FAR
Lodge FAR
Application of Use Category Percentages to Non-Unit Floor Area
Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Total Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Applied Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
EXPOSED WALL AREA
UNEXPOSED WALL AREA
SUBGRADE WALL AREA
Subgrade Wall Area (Proposed)
200 S. Aspen Street
Existing Lower Level Wall Calculations
Lower Level Wall Label Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)Unex. Wall Area (Sq Ft)
1 841.75 0.00 841.75
2 961.50 0.00 961.50
3 841.75 0.00 841.75
4 961.50 0.00 961.50
Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft)3,606.50 3,606.50
Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)0.00
% of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)0.00%
Unexposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)3,606.50
% of Unexposed Wall (Unexposed / Total)100.00%
Main Level Wall Label
5 403.00 135.25 267.75
6 7.00 2.75 4.25
7 86.25 35.50 50.75
8 7.00 3.25 3.75
9 163.00 97.50 65.50
10 134.25 119.50 14.75
11 40.00 35.50 4.50
12 161.50 143.75 17.75
13 40.00 35.50 4.50
14 72.50 57.75 14.75
15 7.00 4.00 3.00
16 113.25 57.75 55.50
17 7.00 3.25 3.75
18 289.75 88.00 201.75
19 662.00 0.00 662.00
20 768.00 102.00 666.00
Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft)2,961.50
Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)921.25
% of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)31.11%
Unexposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)2,040.25
% of Unexposed Wall (Unexposed / Total)68.89%
14.75 sq ft
119.50 sq ft
55.50 sq ft
57.75 sq ft
267.75 sq ft
135.25 sq ft 35.50 sq ft
50.75 sq ft
97.50 sq ft
65.50 sq ft4.25 sq ft
2.75 sq ft
3.75 sq ft
3.25 sq ft 88.00 sq ft
201.75 sq ft
3.00 sq ft
4.00 sq ft
3.75 sq ft
3.25 sq ft19.75 sq ft
14.75 sq ft
11
'
-
7
"
72'-8"83'-0"
72'-8"83'-0"
4'-45/8"17'-93/8"4'-45/8"14'-93/8"
11
'
-
7
"
9'
-
1
"
9'
-
3
"
44'-43/8"
71'-361/64"82'-813/32"
91/4"9'-6"91/4"17'-93/4"3'-95/8"91/4"12'-5"91/4"31'-1025/32"
841.75 sq ft 961.50 sq ft
841.75 sq ft 961.50 sq ft
35.50 sq ft 143.75 sq ft 35.50 sq ft
25.50 sq ft 25.50 sq ft 25.50 sq ft 25.50 sq ft 666.00 sq ft662.00 sq ft
005 006 007 008 009 010
019 020
001 002
003 004
011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018
4.50 sq ft 17.75 sq ft 4.50 sq ft
PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL AND MAIN LEVEL SUBGRADE WALL CALCULATIONS
P
1
2
2
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN PROPOSED
FLOOR AREA
CALCS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.32
45.25 sq ft
UP
UP
UP
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
OPEN TO
STAIR BELOW
3,955.00 sq ft
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
OPEN TOSTAIR BELOW
OPEN TOSTAIR BELOW
2,610.25 sq ft
146.50 sq ft
79.00 sq ft
500.00 sq ft
978.25 sq ft167.25 sq ft
669.00 sq ft
82.50 sq ft
80.75 sq ft
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
OPEN TOSTAIR BELOW
OPEN TO BELOW
005
020
019
018
013
012
011
010
015
014
016
017
006
007
008
009
2,083.25 sq ft
1,904.25 sq ft
1,063.25 sq ft
857.75 sq ft
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
OPEN TO
STAIR BELOW
OPEN TO
STAIR BELOW
OPEN TO BELOW
3,649.50 sq ft
1,921.75 sq ft
566.50 sq ft
004
001
003
002
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Lower Level unit area totals by use 2,488.25 ------------3,649.50
Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed -2,488.25 -------------3,649.50
Lower Level FAR totals by use 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Main Level unit area totals by use 3,987.50 1,063.25 ------857.75
Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed -2,747.09 -732.50 -------590.93
Main Level FAR totals by use 1,240.41 330.75 0.00 266.82
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Park Level unit area totals by use 2,610.25 978.25 146.50 669.00
Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed 167.25 163.25 79.00 ------
Park Level FAR totals by use 2,777.50 978.25 225.50 669.00
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Upper Level unit area totals by use ------------3,955.00 ------
Upper Level FAR totals by use 0.00 0.00 3,955.00 0.00
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Roof Deck Level unit area totals by use ------------45.25 ------
Roof Deck Level FAR totals by use 0.00 0.00 45.25 0.00
Square Feet (Sq Ft)
Gross Lodge (Sq Ft)9,427.50
Gross AHU (Sq Ft)2,233.25
Gross Free Market (Sq Ft)4,467.75
Total Unit Floor Area (Sq Ft) excludes non-unit area 16,128.50
Non-Unit Area Subgrade Exemption Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)3,649.50 -3,649.50 0.00
Main Level (Sq Ft)857.75 -590.93 266.82
Park Level (Sq Ft)669.00 0.00 669.00
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Roof Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
-4,240.43
935.82
Lodge Floor Area Non-Unit @ 58.45%Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Main Level (Sq Ft)1,240.41 155.97 1,396.38
Park Level (Sq Ft)2,777.50 391.05 3,168.55
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Roof Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
547.01
Total Lodge FAR (Sq Ft)4,564.93
AHU Floor Area Non-Unit @13.85%Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Main Level (Sq Ft)330.75 36.95 367.70
Park Level (Sq Ft)978.25 92.63 1,070.88
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Roof Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
129.58
Total Affordable Housing Unit FAR (Sq Ft)1,438.58
Free Market Floor Area Non-Unit @ 27.7%Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Main Level (Sq Ft)0.00 73.91 73.91
Park Level (Sq Ft)225.50 185.32 410.82
Upper Level (Sq Ft)3,955.00 0.00 3,955.00
Roof Level (Sq Ft)45.25 0.00 45.25
259.23
Total Free Market FAR (Sq Ft)4,484.98
Total FAR (Sq Ft)10,488.49
Allowable Limit (Sq Ft)Existing (Sq Ft)Proposed (Sq Ft)
Lodge (.75:1) 8,970 9,081.60 4,564.93
AHU (2:1) 17,940 342.86 1,438.58
Free Market (.50:1) 4,485 0.00 4,484.98
Cumulative (2:1) 17,940 9,424.46 10,488.49
200 S. Aspen Street
FAR (Proposed)
UPPER LEVEL
ROOF DECK LEVEL
PARK LEVEL
MAIN LEVEL
LOWER LEVEL
58.45%
Percentage (%)
Total Lodge FAR Summary
Free Market FAR
Applied Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Applied Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category (referenced from “Gross Unit Area” chart)
100.00%
13.85%
27.70%
Applied Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Affordable Housing Unit FAR
Lodge FAR
Application of Use Category Percentages to Non-Unit Floor Area
Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Total Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Applied Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
PROPOSED ROOFTOP LEVEL FAR CALCULATIONSPROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FAR CALCULATIONS
PROPOSED PARK LEVEL FAR CALCULATIONSPROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FAR CALCULATIONSPROPOSED LOWER LEVEL FAR CALCULATIONS
AREA USE BY CATEGORY
NON UNIT AREA
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT AREA
LODGE UNITS AREA
FREE MARKET AREA
DECK AREA
EXEMPT AREA
P
1
2
3
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN PROPOSED NET
LEASABLE
PLANS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.33
UP
UP
UP
40.00 sq ft
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
OPEN TO
STAIR BELOW
481.50 sq ft1,622.50 sq ft
1,730.75 sq ft
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
OPEN TOSTAIR BELOW
OPEN TOSTAIR BELOW
401.00 sq ft 455.00 sq ft
457.25 sq ft
659.25 sq ft
79.00 sq ft
151.75 sq ft
663.25 sq ft
68.75 sq ft
69.00 sq ft
1,410.75 sq ft
144.00 sq ft
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
OPEN TO
STAIR BELOW
OPEN TO BELOW
348.00 sq ft
453.00 sq ft
457.00 sq ft
341.75 sq ft 345.00 sq ft 338.50 sq ft
168.50 sq ft
542.25 sq ft
350.25 sq ft
555.00 sq ft
389.25 sq ft
79.25 sq ft70.75 sq ft856.50 sq ft
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
OPEN TO
STAIR BELOW
OPEN TO
STAIR BELOW
OPEN TO BELOW
1,784.25 sq ft
488.75 sq ft
153.50 sq ft
275.75 sq ft
246.00 sq ft
2,921.75 sq ft
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
Net Leasable & Net Livable (Proposed)
200 S. Aspen Street
Lodge (Livable)AHU (Livable)Free Market (Livable)Non-Unit
1784.25 ------------153.50
488.75 ------------275.75
------------------246.00
------------------2,921.75
Lower Level area totals by use 2,273.00 0.00 0.00 3,597.00
Lodge (Livable)AHU (Livable)Free Market (Livable)Non-Unit
168.50 453.00 ------856.50
70.75 457.00 ------------
341.75 ------------------
345.00 ------------------
338.50 ------------------
348.00 ------------------
79.25 ------------------
542.25 ------------------
389.25 ------------------
555.00 ------------------
350.25 ------------------
Main Level area totals by use 3,528.50 910.00 0.00 856.50
Lodge (Livable)AHU (Livable)Free Market (Livable)Non-Unit
1,410.75 455.00 144.00 663.25
659.25 457.25 79.00 ------
401.00 68.75 ------------
151.75 69.00 ------------
Park Level area totals by use 2,622.75 1,050.00 223.00 663.25
Lodge (Livable)AHU (Livable)Free Market (Livable)Non-Unit
------------1,622.50 ------
------------1,730.75 ------
------------481.50 ------
Upper Level area totals by use 0.00 0.00 3,834.75 0.00
Lodge (Livable)AHU (Livable)Free Market (Livable)Non-Unit
------------40.00 ------
Roof Deck Level area totals by use 0.00 0.00 40.00 0.00
Area totals by use 8,424.25 1,960.00 4,097.75 5,116.75
Areas by Use Category
Lodge
AHU
Free Market
Total Gross Sq Ft
Lower Level (Sq Ft)
Main Level (Sq Ft)
Park Level (Sq Ft)
Upper Level (Sq Ft)
Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)
Total Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Non-Unit @ 0.5845 Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)2,102.43 4,375.43
Main Level (Sq Ft)500.62 4,029.12
Park Level (Sq Ft)387.67 3,010.42
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00
Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00
Total Lodge Net Livable (Sq Ft)11,414.97
Non-Unit @ 0.1385 Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)498.13 498.13
Main Level (Sq Ft)118.61 1,028.61
Park Level (Sq Ft)91.85 1,141.85
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00
Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00
Total ADU Net Livable (Sq Ft)2,668.60
Non-Unit @ 0.277 Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)996.43 996.43
Main Level (Sq Ft)237.27 237.27
Park Level (Sq Ft)183.73 406.73
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 3,834.75
Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)0.00 40.00
Total ADU Net Livable (Sq Ft)5,515.18
100.00%16,128.00
ROOF DECK LEVEL
UPPER LEVEL
13.85%2,233.50
58.45%9,426.75
Percentage (%)Gross Square Feet (Sq Ft)
Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category (referenced from “Gross Unit Area” chart)
4,467.75 27.70%
0.00
AHU (Livable)
AHU Net Livable
Lodge Net Livable
0.00
2,622.75
0.00
Free Market (Livable)
0.00
0.00
1,050.00
910.00
PARK LEVEL
MAIN LEVEL
LOWER LEVEL
Free Market Net Livable
40.00
3,834.75
223.00
0.00
0.00
Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Non-Unit Floor Area per Level
Lodge (Livable)
2,273.00
3,528.50
0.00
0.00
663.25
856.50
3,597.00
5,116.75
PROPOSED ROOFTOP LEVEL NET LEASABLE CALCULATIONSPROPOSED UPPER LEVEL NET LEASABLE CALCULATIONS
PROPOSED PARK LEVEL NET LEASABLE CALCULATIONSPROPOSED MAIN LEVEL NET LEASABLE CALCULATIONSPROPOSED LOWER LEVEL NET LEASABLE CALCULATIONS
NON UNIT AREA
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT AREA
LODGE UNITS AREA
FREE MARKET AREA
DECK AREA
EXEMPT AREA
AREA USE BY CATEGORY
P
1
2
4
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN
AHU MITIGATION
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.34
Affordable Housing Mitigation Credit
200 S. Aspen Street
Proposed Affordable Housing Floor Area Calculations
AHU Space Floor Area (Sq Ft)Employees Mitigated
2-BD Unit 908.00 2.25
2-BD Unit 914.25 2.25
Total Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,822.25
Total Employees Mitigated 4.50
Proposed Free Market Net Leasable Employees Generated
Residential Net Leasable Floor Area (Sq Ft)Applicable Residential Area %Area After Reduction (Sq Ft)Employees Generated/400 Sq Ft Employees Generated
Upper Level 3,478.25 30%1,043.48 1.00 2.61
Employees Generated 2.61
Proposed Lodge Unit Employees Generated
Number of Units Employees Generated per Bedroom Employees Generated
9.00 0.30 2.70
Reduction % Due to Lodge Unit Size 60%
Calculated Credit 1.62
Proposed Total Employees Generated 4.23
Total Mitigation Credit Calculation
Employees Generated
Total Employees Mitigated 4.50
Total Employees Generated 4.23
Additional Credits Required -0.27
P
1
2
5
V
I
.
B
.
200 S ASPEN
PUBLIC
AMENITY PLANS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
Monday, November 16, 2015
LU.35
PROPOSED PUBLIC AMENITY SPACE =
2,113.25 SF
23.56% OF LOT AREA
EXISTING SITE AMENITY PLAN PROPOSED SITE AMENITY PLAN
P
1
2
6
V
I
.
B
.
2
0
0
S
A
s
p
e
n
A
R
C
H
I T
E
C
T
U
R
E
| I N
T
E
R
I O
R
S
| P
L
A
N
N
I N
G
F
O
R
U
M
P
H
I
.C
O
M
Cover
FORUM PHI
OPTION 2
REVISED SUBMISSION
P
1
2
7
V
I
.
B
.
2
0
0
S
A
s
p
e
n
A
R
C
H
I T
E
C
T
U
R
E
| I N
T
E
R
I O
R
S
| P
L
A
N
N
I N
G
F
O
R
U
M
P
H
I
.C
O
M
EXTERIOR
PERSPECTIVE
FORUM PHI
NORTHWEST PERSPECTIVE
P
1
2
8
V
I
.
B
.
2
0
0
S
A
s
p
e
n
A
R
C
H
I T
E
C
T
U
R
E
| I N
T
E
R
I O
R
S
| P
L
A
N
N
I N
G
F
O
R
U
M
P
H
I
.C
O
M
EXTERIOR
PERSPECTIVE
FORUM PHI
NORTHEAST PERSPECTIVE
P
1
2
9
V
I
.
B
.
2
0
0
S
A
s
p
e
n
A
R
C
H
I T
E
C
T
U
R
E
| I N
T
E
R
I O
R
S
| P
L
A
N
N
I N
G
F
O
R
U
M
P
H
I
.C
O
M
EXTERIOR
PERSPECTIVE
FORUM PHI
SOUTHEAST PERSPECTIVE
P
1
3
0
V
I
.
B
.
2
0
0
S
A
s
p
e
n
A
R
C
H
I T
E
C
T
U
R
E
| I N
T
E
R
I O
R
S
| P
L
A
N
N
I N
G
F
O
R
U
M
P
H
I
.C
O
M
EXTERIOR
PERSPECTIVE
FORUM PHI
SOUTHWEST PERSPECTIVE
P
1
3
1
V
I
.
B
.
2
0
0
S
A
s
p
e
n
A
R
C
H
I T
E
C
T
U
R
E
| I N
T
E
R
I O
R
S
| P
L
A
N
N
I N
G
F
O
R
U
M
P
H
I
.C
O
M
LOWER LEVEL
FORUM PHI
F
DN
UP
DN
UP
DN
UP
1
LU.12
2
LU.13
3
LU.14
4
LU.15
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
I
D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
I D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
I D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I N
E
LODGE MECHANICAL
011
CAR LIFT
012
PARKING GARAGE
013
STAIR 2
014 EMPLOYEE R/R
005
LODGE STORAGE
006
EMPLOYEE LOUNGE
004
LOBBY
002
CATERING KITCHEN
007
ELEV.
MECH
011
PANTRY
008LOBBY
003
ELEVATOR
001
STAIR 1
010
F
F
CC
LU.18
CC
LU.18
BB
LU.17
BB
LU.17
AA
LU.16
AA
LU.16
F
P
1
3
2
V
I
.
B
.
2
0
0
S
A
s
p
e
n
A
R
C
H
I T
E
C
T
U
R
E
| I N
T
E
R
I O
R
S
| P
L
A
N
N
I N
G
F
O
R
U
M
P
H
I
.C
O
M
MAIN LEVEL
FORUM PHI
U P
F F F F
F
DN
DN
DN
W W
W W
UP
UP
1
LU.12
2
LU.13
3
LU.14
4
LU.15
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
I
D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
I D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
I D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I N
E
OPEN TO
BELOW
STAIR 2
103
MAIN ENTRY
101
UNIT 103
127 BATH
128
UNIT 102
125
BATH
126
UNIT 101
123 BATH
124
CAR LIFT
122
UNIT 104
104
UNIT 105
106
BATH
105
BATH
107
BATH
109 BATH
111
UNIT 106
108
UNIT 107
110
HOUSE-KEEPING
112
STAIR 1
113ELEVATOR
114
UNIT 203
117
UNIT 204
119
BATH
120
LIBRARY
116
STORAGE
121
HALL
115
BATH
118
F
7900
7899
7907 7908
CC
LU.18
CC
LU.18
BB
LU.17
BB
LU.17
AA
LU.16
AA
LU.16
F
MGMNT VALET
102
P
1
3
3
V
I
.
B
.
2
0
0
S
A
s
p
e
n
A
R
C
H
I T
E
C
T
U
R
E
| I N
T
E
R
I O
R
S
| P
L
A
N
N
I N
G
F
O
R
U
M
P
H
I
.C
O
M
PARK LEVEL
FORUM PHI
DN
W
W
W
UP
D
W
RG DW
RG
DN
DN
UP
1
LU.12
2
LU.13
3
LU.14
4
LU.15
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
I
D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
I D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
I D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I N
E
OPEN TO
BELOW
UNIT 202
216
BATH
217
RESTROOM
219
GAME LOUNGE / BAR
218
HALL
222
UNIT 201
214
BATH
215
STAIR
213
GARAGE
212
CAR LIFT
211
TRASH ENCLOSURE
210
UNIT 204
207
BATH
209
UNIT 203
203
STORAGE
204
STAIR 1
202ELEVATOR
221
ENTRY
201
BATH
205
DECK
F
CC
LU.18
CC
LU.18
BB
LU.17
BB
LU.17
AA
LU.16
AA
LU.16
F
DW
F
F
LOUNGE LOBBY
220
HOUSE-KEEPING
206
STORAGE
208
P
1
3
4
V
I
.
B
.
2
0
0
S
A
s
p
e
n
A
R
C
H
I T
E
C
T
U
R
E
| I N
T
E
R
I O
R
S
| P
L
A
N
N
I N
G
F
O
R
U
M
P
H
I
.C
O
M
UPPER LEVEL
FORUM PHI
W
W
DN
DN
1
LU.12
2
LU.13
3
LU.14
4
LU.15
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
I
D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
I D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
I D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I N
E
DECK
BATH
311
BEDROOM
312
DECK
STAIR 1
303
BATH
306
STAIR
307
DECK
ELEVATOR
301
HALL
302
UNIT 302
304
DINING ROOM
309
CLOSET
310
DECK
BEDROOM
305
F
CC
LU.18
CC
LU.18
BB
LU.17
BB
LU.17
AA
LU.16
AA
LU.16
F
DW
UP
UNIT 301
308
P
1
3
5
V
I
.
B
.
2
0
0
S
A
s
p
e
n
A
R
C
H
I T
E
C
T
U
R
E
| I N
T
E
R
I O
R
S
| P
L
A
N
N
I N
G
F
O
R
U
M
P
H
I
.C
O
M
ROOFTOP LEVEL
FORUM PHI
F
UP
UP
1
LU.12
2
LU.13
3
LU.14
4
LU.15
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
I
D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
I D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I N
E
STAIR 1
402ELEVATOR
401
DECK BELOW
DECK BELOW
DECK
DECK
DECK BELOW
DECK BELOW
DECK BELOW
MECHANICAL
CC
LU.18
CC
LU.18
BB
LU.17
BB
LU.17
AA
LU.16
AA
LU.16
DNOUTLINE OF PERIMETER
WALL BELOW ROOF
P
1
3
6
V
I
.
B
.
2
0
0
S
A
s
p
e
n
A
R
C
H
I T
E
C
T
U
R
E
| I N
T
E
R
I O
R
S
| P
L
A
N
N
I N
G
F
O
R
U
M
P
H
I
.C
O
M
ROOF PLAN
FORUM PHI
F
UP
UP
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
I
D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
I D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I N
E
CC
LU.18
CC
LU.18
BB
LU.17
BB
LU.17
AA
LU.16
AA
LU.16
DN
.25:12OUTLINE OF PERIMETER
WALL BELOW ROOF
8:128:128:12 8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:128:12
8:12
8:12
.25:12
8:12
.25:12
.25:12
8:12
.25:12
.25:12
8:128:12
.25:12
P
1
3
7
V
I
.
B
.
2
0
0
S
A
s
p
e
n
A
R
C
H
I T
E
C
T
U
R
E
| I N
T
E
R
I O
R
S
| P
L
A
N
N
I N
G
F
O
R
U
M
P
H
I
.C
O
M
SITE PLAN
FORUM PHI
F
UP
UP
1
0
'
5'
5
'
5'
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
WATER LINE
SS LINE
GAS LINE
LEGAL ADDRESS: 200 South Aspen
ZONE DISTRICT : Mixed Use (MU)
LOT SIZE: 8,970 SQFT
7900
7906790479027901
7899
789878977896
7907 7908
OUTLINE OF PERIMETER
WALL BELOW ROOF
OUTLINE OF PERIMETER
WALL AT GRADE
UPUPS
.
A
S
P
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
E. HOPKINS AVENUE
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
W
H
I
T
A
K
E
R
P
A
R
K
REAR YARD
FRONT YARD
79057903
EXISTING CONIFEROUS TREE
EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE
NEW DECIDUOUS TREE
NEW SHRUB
PERVIOUS PAVING
NEW CONIFEROUS TREE
SITE PLAN LEGEND
ASPHALT/PAVEMENT
EXISTING SHRUB
RETAINING WALL
BENCH
N
PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1/16" = 1'-0"
P
1
3
8
V
I
.
B
.
2
0
0
S
A
s
p
e
n
A
R
C
H
I T
E
C
T
U
R
E
| I N
T
E
R
I O
R
S
| P
L
A
N
N
I N
G
F
O
R
U
M
P
H
I
.C
O
M
WEST ELEVATION
FORUM PHI
STONE
DARK WOOD
GLASS
WIRE RAILING
HISTORIC GRADE
FINISH GRADE
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
131'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK
135'-2"
T.O. F.F. @ UPPER ROOF DECK
135'-2"
T.O. F.F. @ UPPER ROOF DECK
131'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
LIGHT WOOD
BUILDING OUTLINE
ALLEY
HOPKINS AVENUE
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
P
1
3
9
V
I
.
B
.
2
0
0
S
A
s
p
e
n
A
R
C
H
I T
E
C
T
U
R
E
| I N
T
E
R
I O
R
S
| P
L
A
N
N
I N
G
F
O
R
U
M
P
H
I
.C
O
M
NORTH ELEVATION
FORUM PHI
LIGHT WOOD
STONE
DARK WOOD
GLASS
WIRE RAILING
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
HISTORIC GRADE
FINISH GRADE
BUILDING OUTLINE
131'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK
135'-2"
T.O. F.F. @ UPPER ROOF DECK
135'-2"
T.O. F.F. @ UPPER ROOF DECK
131'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
P
1
4
0
V
I
.
B
.
2
0
0
S
A
s
p
e
n
A
R
C
H
I T
E
C
T
U
R
E
| I N
T
E
R
I O
R
S
| P
L
A
N
N
I N
G
F
O
R
U
M
P
H
I
.C
O
M
EAST ELEVATION
FORUM PHI
LIGHT WOOD
STONE
DARK WOOD
GLASS
WIRE RAILING
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
FINISH GRADE
BUILDING OUTLINE
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
131'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK
135'-2"
T.O. F.F. @ UPPER ROOF DECK
135'-2"
T.O. F.F. @ UPPER ROOF DECK
131'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
ALLEY
HOPKINS AVENUE
HISTORIC GRADE
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
P
1
4
1
V
I
.
B
.
2
0
0
S
A
s
p
e
n
A
R
C
H
I T
E
C
T
U
R
E
| I N
T
E
R
I O
R
S
| P
L
A
N
N
I N
G
F
O
R
U
M
P
H
I
.C
O
M
SOUTH ELEVATION
FORUM PHI
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
131'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
135'-2"
T.O. F.F. @ UPPER ROOF DECK
135'-2"
T.O. F.F. @ UPPER ROOF DECK
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
131'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK
LIGHT WOOD
STONE
DARK WOOD
GLASS
WIRE RAILING
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
FINISH GRADE
BUILDING OUTLINE
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
HISTORIC GRADE
P
1
4
2
V
I
.
B
.
2
0
0
S
A
s
p
e
n
A
R
C
H
I T
E
C
T
U
R
E
| I N
T
E
R
I O
R
S
| P
L
A
N
N
I N
G
F
O
R
U
M
P
H
I
.C
O
M
SECTION AA
FORUM PHI
9
'
9
'-
1
3 /8
"
1 1
'-
7
3 /8
"
9
'-3
/8
"
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
131'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK
135'-2"
T.O. F.F. @ UPPER ROOF DECK
135'-2"
T.O. F.F. @ UPPER ROOF DECK
131'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK
BATH CLOSET HALL ELEVATOR LOBBY HALL LIVING
LOUNGE LOBBYLOUNGE HOUSE KEEPING BATH
CAR LIFTUNIT 105 HALL LIBRARY
PARKING GARAGE
ELEVATOR
LOBBYLOBBYLODGE STORAGE
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
P
1
4
3
V
I
.
B
.
2
0
0
S
A
s
p
e
n
A
R
C
H
I T
E
C
T
U
R
E
| I N
T
E
R
I O
R
S
| P
L
A
N
N
I N
G
F
O
R
U
M
P
H
I
.C
O
M
SECTION BB
FORUM PHI
9 '
9 '-1
3 /8 "
9 '-3 /8 "
1 1
'-1
0 3 /8 "
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
131'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK
135'-2"
T.O. F.F. @ UPPER ROOF DECK
135'-2"
T.O. F.F. @ UPPER ROOF DECK
131'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK
UNIT 301 LIVING ELEVATOR HALL FIREPLACE CHASE
UNIT 202 RESTROOMS LOUNGE LOBBY ENTRY
MAIN ENTRY VALLET HALL
HOUSE
KEEPING
PARKING GARAGE LOBBY CATERING KITCHEN PANTRY
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
P
1
4
4
V
I
.
B
.
2
0
0
S
A
s
p
e
n
A
R
C
H
I T
E
C
T
U
R
E
| I N
T
E
R
I O
R
S
| P
L
A
N
N
I N
G
F
O
R
U
M
P
H
I
.C
O
M
SECTION CC
FORUM PHI
9
'-1
3 /8 "
9 '-1 3 /8 "
9 '-3 /8 "
1 1
'-1
0 3 /8 "
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
110'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL
121'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE
131'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK
135'-2"
T.O. F.F. @ UPPER ROOF DECK
135'-2"
T.O. F.F. @ UPPER ROOF DECK
131'-6"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER ROOF DECK
DINNING UNIT 302 STAIR
STAIRHALLBATHBATHUNIT 204
UNIT 203 BATH LIBRARY UNIT 102
PARKING GARAGE
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
87'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
100'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL
P
1
4
5
V
I
.
B
.
2
0
0
S
A
s
p
e
n
A
R
C
H
I T
E
C
T
U
R
E
| I N
T
E
R
I O
R
S
| P
L
A
N
N
I N
G
F
O
R
U
M
P
H
I
.C
O
M
WEST HEIGHT
COMPARISON
FORUM PHI
PARK CENTRAL WEST
PEAK @ 7938'-10" (32' -0")
208 HOPKINS PEAK @ 7932'-5" (32'-6")
116 ASPEN ST. PEAK @ 7929'-8" (32'-8")
214 HOPKINS PEAK @ 7935'-10" (32'-0")200 SOUTH ASPEN
PEAK @ 7932' (30'-2")
200 SOUTH ASPEN
PEAK @ 7932'- 4 1/2" (26'-4")
PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE
PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE
ALLEY
HOPKINS AVENUE
P
1
4
6
V
I
.
B
.
2
0
0
S
A
s
p
e
n
A
R
C
H
I T
E
C
T
U
R
E
| I N
T
E
R
I O
R
S
| P
L
A
N
N
I N
G
F
O
R
U
M
P
H
I
.C
O
M
EAST HEIGHT
COMPARISON
FORUM PHI
PARK CENTRAL WEST
PEAK @ 7938'-10" (32' -0")
208 HOPKINS PEAK @ 7932'-5" (32'-6")
116 ASPEN ST. PEAK @ 7929'-8" (32'-8")
214 HOPKINS PEAK @ 7935'-10" (32'-0")
200 SOUTH ASPEN
PEAK @ 7932'- 4 1/2" (26'-4")
200 SOUTH ASPEN
PEAK @ 7932' (30'-2")
PROPERTY LINESETBACKSETBACKPROPERTY LINE
ALLEY
HOPKINS AVENUE
P
1
4
7
V
I
.
B
.
2
0
0
S
A
s
p
e
n
A
R
C
H
I T
E
C
T
U
R
E
| I N
T
E
R
I O
R
S
| P
L
A
N
N
I N
G
F
O
R
U
M
P
H
I
.C
O
M
HEIGHTS
FORUM PHI
F
UP
U
P
UP
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
I
D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
I D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I N
E
7 9 0 0
7 9 0 6
7 9 0 47902
7 9 0 1
7 8 9 9
7898
7 8 9 7
CC
LU.18
CC
LU.18
BB
LU.17
BB
LU.17
AA
LU.16
AA
LU.16
DN
1
13
12
5 4
3
2
6
17
18
16
15
14
8
10
9
7
11
19
BUILDING OUTLINE
AT GRADE
OUTLINE OF PERIMETER
WALL BELOW ROOF
15' OFFSET
OUTLINE OF PERIMETER
WALL BELOW ROOF
7 9 0 5
7 9 0 3
Elevation Label Elevation of Historic Grade Elevation of Proposed Grade Most Restrictive Roof Height over
Topography
Actual Roof Height over
Most Restrictive
1 7905'-0"7905'-0"HISTORIC 7927'-10 1/2"22'-10 1/2"
2 7902-11 1/4"7904'-1 1/2"HISTORIC 7927'-1/4"24'-1"
3 7902'-10 3/4"7902'-2 3/8"PROPOSED 7928'-3 1/8"26'-3/4"
4 7900'-11 1/4"7900'-6 1/2"HISTORIC 7927'-1/4"26'-5 3/4"
5 7899'-9 3/4"7899'-10 1/2"HISTORIC 7927'-9 3/4"28'-0"
6 7899'-5 1/2"N/A PROPOSED 7927'-3"27'-9 1/2"
7 7902'-8 3/4"7896'-11 1/4"PROPOSED 7916'-9 1/8"19'-9 7/8"
8 7897'-3 7/8"7895'-11"PROPOSED 7912'-1"16'-2"
9 7897'-10 3/4"7896'-9 3/4"PROPOSED 7906'-2 3/8"9'-4 5/8"
10 7900'-2 1/2"7900'-1 1/2"PROPOSED 7928'-1 1/2"28'-0"
11 7900'-11"7900'-11"PROPOSED 7916'-8"15'-9"
12 7901'-3 5/8"7901'-6"HISTORIC 7927'-2 7/8"25'-11 1/4"
13 7904'-2 1/2"7903'-9 1/4"PROPOSED 7928'-9 1/4"25'-0"
14 7905'-0"7905'-3 1/4"HISTORIC 7916'-8"11'-8"
15 7906'-0"7905'-4 1/4"PROPOSED 7927'-10 1/2"22'-6 1/4"
16 7905'-2"7902'-8 1/2"PROPOSED 7938'- 1/4"35'-3 3/4" (OVERRUN)
17 7903'-1 1/4"N/A HISTORIC 7941'-1 1/4"38'-0" (OVERRUN)
18 7901'-4 3/4"N/A HISTORIC 7927'- 1/4"25'-7 1/2"
19 7903'-3 1/2"N/A HISTORIC 7930'-11 1/4"27'-7 3/4"
Height Over Topography (Proposed)
200 S. Aspen Street
P
1
4
8
V
I
.
B
.
2
0
0
S
A
s
p
e
n
A
R
C
H
I T
E
C
T
U
R
E
| I N
T
E
R
I O
R
S
| P
L
A
N
N
I N
G
F
O
R
U
M
P
H
I
.C
O
M
EXISTING SUBGRADE
CALCS
FORUM PHI
FAR (Existing)
200 S. Aspen Street
Lodge AHU Non-Unit
Lower Level unit area totals by use 2,878.25 1,056.50 867.00
Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed -922.26 -338.53 -277.81
Lower Level FAR totals by use 1,955.99 717.97 589.19
Lodge AHU Non-Unit
Main Level unit area totals by use 3,374.00 0.00 573.00
Main Level FAR totals by use 3,374.00 0.00 573.00
Lodge AHU Non-Unit
Upper Level unit area totals by use 3,101.00 0.00 590.75
Upper Level FAR totals by use 3,101.00 0.00 590.75
Square Feet (Sq Ft)
Gross Lodge (Sq Ft)9,353.25
Gross AHU (Sq Ft)1,056.50
Total Unit Floor Area (Sq Ft) excludes non-unit area 10,409.75
Application of Use Category Percentages to Non-Unit Floor Area
Lodge Floor Area (Sq Ft)Non-Unit @ 89.96%Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)1,955.99 529.40 2,485.39
Main Level (Sq Ft)3,374.00 514.85 3,888.85
Upper Level (Sq Ft)3,101.00 530.79 3,631.79
Gross Lodge (Sq Ft)10,006.03
AHU Floor Area (Sq Ft)Non-Unit @ 10.04%Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)717.97 59.80 777.77
Main Level (Sq Ft)0.00 58.15 58.15
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 59.96 59.96
Total AHU FAR (Sq Ft)895.88
Total FAR (Sq Ft)10,901.91
Allowable Limit (Sq Ft)Existing (Sq Ft)Proposed (Sq Ft)
Lodge (.75:1) 8,970 10,006.03 4,972.51
AHU (2:1) 17,940 895.88 1,554.32
Free Market (.50:1) 4,485 ------4,435.85
Cumulative (2:1) 17940 10,901.91 10,962.69
Lower Level
Main Level
Upper Level
Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category (referenced from “Gross Unit Area” chart)
Percentage (%)
89.85%
10.15%
100.00%
Lodge FAR
AHU FAR
Total Lodge FAR Summary
Subgrade Wall Area (Existing)
200 S. Aspen Street
Existing Lower Level Wall Calculations
Lower Level Wall Label Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)Unex. Wall Area (Sq Ft)
1 664.75 87.50 577.25
2 112.25 112.25 0
3 32.25 32.25 0
4 104.25 104.25 0
5 32.25 32.25 0
6 104.25 104.25 0
7 32.25 32.25 0
8 104.25 104.25 0
9 32.25 32.25 0
10 112.50 72.25 40.25
11 112.25 57.25 55
12 32.00 12.75 19.25
13 92.25 30.75 61.5
14 32.00 8.00 24
15 415.25 25.75 389.5
16 637.75 1.75 636
Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft)2,652.75
Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)850.00
% of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)32.0%
Unexposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)1802.75
% of Unexposed Wall (Unexposed / Total)68.0%
9
'-6
"
8
'-0 1
/4
"
8
'-0
1 /4 "
9
'-6
1 /4 "
74'-8"
44'-8"
14'-0"
4'-0"13'-0"4'-0"13'-0"4'-0"13'-0"4'-0"14'-0"
35'-2"4'-0"11'-6"4'-0"14'-0"
67'-0"
8
'-0
1 /4 "
166.75 sq ft 410.50 sq ft
40.25 sq ft
389.50 sq ft24.00 sq ft61.50 sq ft19.25 sq ft55.00 sq ft
636.00 sq ft
14.75 sq ft
58.75 sq ft
7.00 sq ft 7.00 sq ft
112.25 sq ft
32.25 sq ft 104.25 sq ft 32.25 sq ft 104.25 sq ft 32.25 sq ft 104.25 sq ft 32.25 sq ft 72.25 sq ft
25.75 sq ft8.00 sq ft30.75 sq ft12.75 sq ft57.25 sq ft
1.75 sq ft
8
'-0
1 /4 "
001 002
003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010
011 012 013 014 015
016
EXPOSED WALL AREA
UNEXPOSED WALL AREA
SUBGRADE WALL AREA
EXISTING LOWER LEVEL SUBGRADE WALL
P
1
4
9
V
I
.
B
.
2
0
0
S
A
s
p
e
n
A
R
C
H
I T
E
C
T
U
R
E
| I N
T
E
R
I O
R
S
| P
L
A
N
N
I N
G
F
O
R
U
M
P
H
I
.C
O
M
EXISTING FLOOR
AREA CALCS
FORUM PHI
FAR (Existing)200 S. Aspen Street Lodge AHU Non-UnitLower Level unit area totals by use 2,878.25 1,056.50 867.00Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed -922.26 -338.53 -277.81Lower Level FAR totals by use 1,955.99 717.97 589.19LodgeAHUNon-UnitMain Level unit area totals by use 3,374.00 0.00 573.00Main Level FAR totals by use 3,374.00 0.00 573.00LodgeAHUNon-UnitUpper Level unit area totals by use 3,101.00 0.00 590.75Upper Level FAR totals by use 3,101.00 0.00 590.75Square Feet (Sq Ft)Gross Lodge (Sq Ft)9,353.25Gross AHU (Sq Ft)1,056.50Total Unit Floor Area (Sq Ft) excludes non-unit area 10,409.75Application of Use Category Percentages to Non-Unit Floor Area Lodge Floor Area (Sq Ft)Non-Unit @ 89.96%Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)1,955.99 529.40 2,485.39
Main Level (Sq Ft)3,374.00 514.85 3,888.85
Upper Level (Sq Ft)3,101.00 530.79 3,631.79
Gross Lodge (Sq Ft)10,006.03
AHU Floor Area (Sq Ft)Non-Unit @ 10.04%Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)717.97 59.80 777.77
Main Level (Sq Ft)0.00 58.15 58.15
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 59.96 59.96
Total AHU FAR (Sq Ft)895.88
Total FAR (Sq Ft)10,901.91
Allowable Limit (Sq Ft)Existing (Sq Ft)Proposed (Sq Ft)
Lodge (.75:1) 8,970 10,006.03 4,972.51
AHU (2:1) 17,940 895.88 1,554.32
Free Market (.50:1) 4,485 ------4,435.85
Cumulative (2:1) 17940 10,901.91 10,962.69
Lower LevelMain LevelUpper LevelPercentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category (referenced from “Gross Unit Area” chart)Percentage (%)89.85%10.15%100.00%Lodge FAR
AHU FAR
Total Lodge FAR Summary
Gross Unit Area (Existing)200 S. Aspen Street
Lodge AHU Non-Unit
355.00 491.25 867.00
186.75 565.25 ------
2,336.50 ------------
Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) n/a for this calc.------------------
Total Lower Level Unit Area by use 2,878.25 1,056.50 867.00
Lodge AHU Non-Unit
1,118.25 ------438.25
1,397.75 ------102.50
858.00 32.25
Garage exemption (Table 26.575.20-2)------------------
Total Main Level Unit Area by use 3,374.00 0.00 573.00
Lodge AHU Non-Unit
3,101.00 ------590.75
Total Upper Level Unit Area by use 3,101.00 0.00 590.75
Gross Lodge (Sq Ft)
Gross AHU (Sq Ft)
Gross Non-Unit (Sq Ft) excluded from gross
Percentage (%)
Lodge Area (Sq Ft)89.85%
AHU Unit Area (Sq Ft)10.15%
Total Unit Area (Sq Ft) excludes non-unit area 100.00%
Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft) excluded from gross n/a
Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category
Lower Level
Main Level
Upper Level
Gross Summary
9,353.25
1,056.50
2,030.75
10,409.75
2,030.75
Square Feet (Sq Ft)
9,353.25
1,056.50
013
867.00 sq ft
491.25 sq ft
565.25 sq ft
355.00 sq ft
186.75 sq ft
2,336.50 sq ft
UP
UP
PROPERTY LINE
LINE OF SETBACK
0 1 6
011
0 0 6
001
003
005
007
009
0 1 2
0 1 4
0 0 2
0 1 0
0 0 4
0 0 8
015
900.25 sq ft
35.25 sq ft
102.50 sq ft
441.50 sq ft
1,473.25 sq ft
1,118.25 sq ft
UP UP
UP
DN
DN
UP
PROPERTY LINE
LINE OF SETBACK
3,101.00 sq ft
590.75 sq ft
DN
DN
DN
PROPERTY LINE
LINE OF SETBACK
DECK BELOW
PROPERTY LINE
LINE OF SETBACK
NON UNIT AREA
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT AREA
LODGE AREA
FREE MARKET AREA
DECK AREA
AREA USE BY CATEGORY
EXISTING LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS EXISTING MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
EXISTING UPPER LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS EXISTING ROOF LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
P
1
5
0
V
I
.
B
.
2
0
0
S
A
s
p
e
n
A
R
C
H
I T
E
C
T
U
R
E
| I N
T
E
R
I O
R
S
| P
L
A
N
N
I N
G
F
O
R
U
M
P
H
I
.C
O
M
EXISTING NET
LEASABLE CALCS
FORUM PHI
858.00 sq ft
35.25 sq ft
1,090.00 sq ft
102.50 sq ft
438.25 sq ft
1,397.75 sq ft
UP UP
UP
DN
DN
UP
PROPERTY LINE
LINE OF SETBACK
2,254.75 sq ft
532.25 sq ft
458.75 sq ft
180.00 sq ft
351.50 sq ft
847.75 sq ft
UP
UP
PROPERTY LINE
LINE OF SETBACK
DECK BELOW
REAR PROPERTY LINE
REAR SETBACK
Net Leasable & Net Livable (Existing)
200 S. Aspen Street
Lodge (Leasable)AHU (Livable)Non-Unit
351.50 458.75 847.75
180.00 532.25 ------
2,254.75 ------------
Lower Level area totals by use 2,786.25 991.00 847.75
Lodge (Leasable)AHU (Livable)Non-Unit
1,397.75 ------438.25
1,090.00 ------102.50
858.00 ------35.25
Main Level area totals by use 3,345.75 0.00 576.00
Lodge (Leasable)AHU (Livable)Non-Unit
2,950.25 ------587.00
Upper Level area totals by use 2,950.25 0.00 587.00
Area totals by use 9,082.25 991.00 2010.75
Square Feet (Sq Ft)
Gross Lodge (Sq Ft)9,353.25
Gross AHU (Sq Ft)1,056.50
Total Unit Floor Area (Sq Ft) excludes non-unit area 10,409.75
Application of Use Category Percentages to Non-Unit Floor Area
Lodge (Leasable)Non-Unit @ 89.96%Total
Main Level (Sq Ft)2,786.25 761.71 3,547.96
Upper Level (Sq Ft)3,345.75 517.54 3,863.29
Upper Level (Sq Ft)2,950.25 527.42 3,477.67
10,888.93
AHU (Livable)Non-Unit @ 10.04%Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)991.00 86.04 1,077.04
Main Level (Sq Ft)0.00 58.46 58.46
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 59.58 59.58
1,195.07
Allowable Limit (Sq Ft)Existing (Sq Ft)Proposed (Sq Ft)
Lodge ------10,888.93 12,274.55
AHU ------1,195.07 2,877.76
Free Market ------------4,951.19
Cumulative ------12,084.00 20,103.50
Lower Level
Main Level
Upper Level
Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category (referenced from “Gross Unit Area” chart)
Percentage (%)
89.85%
10.15%
100.00%
Lodge Net Leasable
Total Lodge Net Leasable & Net Livable Summary
Total Lodge Net Leasable (Sq Ft)
Total AHU Net Leasable (Sq Ft)
NON UNIT AREA
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT AREA
LODGE AREA
FREE MARKET AREA
DECK AREA
AREA USE BY CATEGORY
587.00 sq ft
2,950.25 sq ft
DN
DN
DN
PROPERTY LINE
LINE OF SETBACK
EXISTING MAIN LEVEL NET LEASABLE / LIVABLEEXISTING LOWER LEVEL NET LEASABLE / LIVABLE
EXISTING ROOF LEVEL NET LEASABLE / LIVABLEEXISTING UPPER LEVEL NET LEASABLE / LIVABLE
P
1
5
1
V
I
.
B
.
2
0
0
S
A
s
p
e
n
A
R
C
H
I T
E
C
T
U
R
E
| I N
T
E
R
I O
R
S
| P
L
A
N
N
I N
G
F
O
R
U
M
P
H
I
.C
O
M
PROPOSED GROSS
AREA CALCS
FORUM PHI
1,883.75 sq ft
603.00 sq ft
3,830.75 sq ft
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
S
I D
E
S E T B
A
C K
S
I D
E
P R
O
P
E
R T Y
L I N
E
S
I D
E
S E T B A
C K
S
I D
E
P R
O P E
R T Y L
I N
E
2,112.75 sq ft
1,912.75 sq ft
1,142.00 sq ft
1,084.75 sq ft
201.25 sq ft
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
S
I D
E
S E T B
A
C K
S
I D
E
P R
O
P
E
R T Y
L I N
E
S
I D
E
S E T B A
C K
S
I D
E
P R
O P E
R T Y L
I N
E
7900
7906790479027901
7899
789878977896
79057903
2,544.50 sq ft
1,103.25 sq ft
551.50 sq ft
155.25 sq ft
87.50 sq ft
794.00 sq ft
238.00 sq ft210.75 sq ft
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
S
I D
E
S E T B
A
C K
S
I D
E
P R
O
P
E
R T Y
L I N
E
S
I D
E
S E T B A
C K
S
I D
E
P R
O P E
R T Y L
I N
E
97.50 sq ft
4,051.25 sq ft
65.50 sq ft
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
S
I D
E
S E T B A
C K
S
I D
E
P R
O P E
R T Y L
I N
E
S I D E S
E T B A C
K
S I D E P
R O P E R T Y L I N E
266.75 sq ft
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
S
I D
E
S E T B A
C K
S
I D
E
P R
O P E
R T Y L
I N
E
S I D E S
E T B A C
K
S I D E P
R O P E R T Y L I N E
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
1,883.75 ------------3,830.75
603.00 ------------------
------------------------
Total Subgrade Level Unit Area by use 2,486.75 0.00 0.00 3,830.75
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
1,912.75 1,142.00 ------1,084.75
2,112.75 ------------201.25
------------------------
Total Entry Level Unit Area by use 4,025.50 1,142.00 0.00 1,286.00
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
2,544.50 1,103.25 155.25 794.00
97.50 ------87.25 551.50
------------------210.75
------------------238.00
Total Second Level Unit Area by use 2,642.00 1,103.25 242.50 1,345.50
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
------------4,051.25 65.50
Total Third Level Unit Area by use 0.00 0.00 4,051.25 65.50
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
------------------266.75
Total Roof Level Unit Area by use 0.00 0.00 0.00 266.75
Gross Lodge (Sq Ft)
Gross AHU (Sq Ft)
Gross Free Market (Sq Ft)
Lodge Area (Sq Ft)
AHU Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Free Market Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Total Lodge, AHU, FM Area (Sq Ft)
Total Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Gross Area (Sq Ft)
Gross Unit Area (Proposed)
200 S. Aspen Street
22,487.75
Percentage (%)
58.33%
14.31%
27.36%
100.00%
n/a
n/a
Square Feet (Sq Ft)
MAIN LEVEL
LOWER LEVEL
PARK LEVEL
15,693.25
6,794.50
UPPER LEVEL
ROOF DECK LEVEL
4,293.75
Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category
Gross Summary
9,154.25
2,245.25
4,293.75
9,154.25
2,245.25
PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL GROSS CALCULATIONS PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL GROSS CALCULATIONS PROPOSED PARK LEVEL GROSS CALCULATIONS
PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL GROSS CALCULATIONS PROPOSED ROOFTOP LEVEL GROSS CALCULATIONS
AREA USE BY CATEGORY
EXEMPT AREA
FREE MARKET AREA
LODGE UNITS AREA
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT AREA
P
1
5
2
V
I
.
B
.
2
0
0
S
A
s
p
e
n
A
R
C
H
I T
E
C
T
U
R
E
| I N
T
E
R
I O
R
S
| P
L
A
N
N
I N
G
F
O
R
U
M
P
H
I
.C
O
M
PROPOSED
SUBGRADE WALL
CALCS
FORUM PHI
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Lower Level unit area totals by use 2,463.75 ------------3,796.50
Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed -1,689.43 -------------3,796.50
Lower Level FAR totals by use 774.32 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Main Level unit area totals by use 3,881.25 1,132.25 ------1,142.50
Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed -2,931.99 -855.33 -------863.07
Main Level FAR totals by use 949.26 276.92 0.00 279.43
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Park Level unit area totals by use 2,518.50 1,098.25 232.00 770.75
Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed ------------------202.00
Park Level FAR totals by use 2,518.50 1,098.25 232.00 972.75
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Upper Level unit area totals by use ------------3,815.00 ------
Upper Level FAR totals by use 0.00 0.00 3,815.00 0.00
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Roof Deck Level unit area totals by use ------------46.25 ------
Roof Deck Level FAR totals by use 0.00 0.00 46.25 0.00
Square Feet (Sq Ft)
Gross Lodge (Sq Ft)9,154.25
Gross AHU (Sq Ft)2,245.25
Gross Free Market (Sq Ft)4,293.75
Total Unit Floor Area (Sq Ft) excludes non-unit area 15,693.25
Non-Unit Area Subgrade Exemption Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)3,796.50 -3,796.50 0.00
Main Level (Sq Ft)1,142.50 -863.07 279.43
Park Level (Sq Ft)972.75 0.00 972.75
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Roof Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
-4,659.57
1,252.18
Lodge Floor Area Non-Unit @ 58.33%Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)774.32 0.00 774.32
Main Level (Sq Ft)949.26 163.00 1,112.26
Park Level (Sq Ft)2,518.50 567.43 3,085.93
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Roof Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
730.43
Total Lodge FAR (Sq Ft)4,972.51
AHU Floor Area Non-Unit @14.31%Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Main Level (Sq Ft)276.92 39.98 316.90
Park Level (Sq Ft)1,098.25 139.17 1,237.42
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Roof Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
179.15
Total Affordable Housing Unit FAR (Sq Ft)1,554.32
Free Market Floor Area Non-Unit @ 27.36%Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Main Level (Sq Ft)0.00 76.45 76.45
Park Level (Sq Ft)232.00 266.15 498.15
Upper Level (Sq Ft)3,815.00 0.00 3,815.00
Roof Level (Sq Ft)46.25 0.00 46.25
342.60
Total Free Market FAR (Sq Ft)4,435.85
Total FAR (Sq Ft)12,214.86
Allowable Limit (Sq Ft)Existing (Sq Ft)Proposed (Sq Ft)
Lodge (.75:1) 8,970 9,081.60 4,972.51
AHU (2:1) 17,940 342.86 1,554.32
Free Market (.50:1) 4,485 0.00 4,435.85
Cumulative (2:1) 17,940 9,424.46 10,962.69
100.00%
14.31%
27.36%
Applied Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Affordable Housing Unit FAR
Lodge FAR
Application of Use Category Percentages to Non-Unit Floor Area
Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Total Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Applied Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
200 S. Aspen Street
FAR (Proposed)
UPPER LEVEL
ROOF DECK LEVEL
PARK LEVEL
MAIN LEVEL
LOWER LEVEL
58.33%
Percentage (%)
Total Lodge FAR Summary
Free Market FAR
Applied Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Applied Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category (referenced from “Gross Unit Area” chart)
Subgrade Wall Area (Proposed)
200 S. Aspen Street
Existing Lower Level Wall Calculations
Lower Level Wall Label Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)Unex. Wall Area (Sq Ft)
1 938.50 0.00 938.50
2 961.50 0.00 207.50
3 841.75 0.00 18.75
4 653.50 0.00 653.50
5 980.75 0.00 980.75
6 961.50 0.00 861.00
Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft)5,337.50 3,660.00
Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)0.00
% of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)0.00%
Unexposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)3,660.00
% of Unexposed Wall (Unexposed / Total)68.57%
Main Level Wall Label
7 128.25 0.00 128.25
8 38.50 0.00 38.50
9 81.25 0.00 81.25
10 155.50 90.00 65.50
11 11.25 5.25 6.00
12 497.00 178.50 318.50
13 751.00 82.00 669.00
14 651.75 66.50 585.25
15 330.75 119.50 211.25
16 28.50 15.25 13.25
17 172.00 142.00 30.00
18 12.25 0.00 12.25
Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft)2,858.00
Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)699.00
% of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)24.46%
Unexposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)2,159.00
% of Unexposed Wall (Unexposed / Total)75.54%
5.25 sq ft
6.00 sq ft
66.50 sq ft 119.50 sq ft 15.25 sq ft
142.00 sq ft
1 1 '-7
"
81'-03/8"56'-5"
84'-8"74'-4"
14'-11/4"4'-23/4"
1 1
'-7 "
1'-25/8"8'-111/2"17'-11/2"54'-83/4"82'-8"
1'-73/8"17'-11"
71'-91/8"36'-51/8"1'-41/8"3'-15/8"
9 '-1
"
9 '-1
"
18'-111/4"
18.75 sq ft
980.75 sq ft 861.00 sq ft
38.50 sq ft 669.00 sq ft
178.50 sq ft
90.00 sq ft
81.25 sq ft
41.00 sq ft41.00 sq ft
653.50 sq ft207.50 sq ft938.50 sq ft
65.50 sq ft
318.50 sq ft
585.25 sq ft
211.25 sq ft
12.25 sq ft
13.25 sq ft
128.25 sq ft
30.00 sq ft
007 008 009 010
001 002
005 006
011 012
014
013
003 004
015 018017016
EXPOSED WALL AREA
UNEXPOSED WALL AREA
SUBGRADE WALL AREA
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-UnitLower Level unit area totals by use 2,463.75 ------------3,796.50Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed -1,689.43 -------------3,796.50Lower Level FAR totals by use 774.32 0.00 0.00 0.00LodgeAHUFree Market Non-UnitMain Level unit area totals by use 3,881.25 1,132.25 ------1,142.50Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed -2,931.99 -855.33 -------863.07Main Level FAR totals by use 949.26 276.92 0.00 279.43LodgeAHUFree Market Non-UnitPark Level unit area totals by use 2,518.50 1,098.25 232.00 770.75Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed ------------------202.00Park Level FAR totals by use 2,518.50 1,098.25 232.00 972.75LodgeAHUFree Market Non-UnitUpper Level unit area totals by use ------------3,815.00 ------Upper Level FAR totals by use 0.00 0.00 3,815.00 0.00LodgeAHUFree Market Non-UnitRoof Deck Level unit area totals by use ------------46.25 ------Roof Deck Level FAR totals by use 0.00 0.00 46.25 0.00
Square Feet (Sq Ft)
Gross Lodge (Sq Ft)9,154.25
Gross AHU (Sq Ft)2,245.25
Gross Free Market (Sq Ft)4,293.75
Total Unit Floor Area (Sq Ft) excludes non-unit area 15,693.25
Non-Unit Area Subgrade Exemption Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)3,796.50 -3,796.50 0.00
Main Level (Sq Ft)1,142.50 -863.07 279.43
Park Level (Sq Ft)972.75 0.00 972.75
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Roof Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
-4,659.57
1,252.18
Lodge Floor Area Non-Unit @ 58.33%Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)774.32 0.00 774.32
Main Level (Sq Ft)949.26 163.00 1,112.26
Park Level (Sq Ft)2,518.50 567.43 3,085.93
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Roof Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
730.43
Total Lodge FAR (Sq Ft)4,972.51
AHU Floor Area Non-Unit @14.31%Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Main Level (Sq Ft)276.92 39.98 316.90
Park Level (Sq Ft)1,098.25 139.17 1,237.42
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Roof Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
179.15
Total Affordable Housing Unit FAR (Sq Ft)1,554.32
Free Market Floor Area Non-Unit @ 27.36%Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Main Level (Sq Ft)0.00 76.45 76.45
Park Level (Sq Ft)232.00 266.15 498.15
Upper Level (Sq Ft)3,815.00 0.00 3,815.00
Roof Level (Sq Ft)46.25 0.00 46.25
342.60
Total Free Market FAR (Sq Ft)4,435.85
Total FAR (Sq Ft)12,214.86
Allowable Limit (Sq Ft)Existing (Sq Ft)Proposed (Sq Ft)
Lodge (.75:1) 8,970 9,081.60 4,972.51
AHU (2:1) 17,940 342.86 1,554.32
Free Market (.50:1) 4,485 0.00 4,435.85
Cumulative (2:1) 17,940 9,424.46 10,962.69
100.00%
14.31%
27.36%
Applied Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Affordable Housing Unit FAR
Lodge FAR
Application of Use Category Percentages to Non-Unit Floor Area
Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Total Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Applied Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
200 S. Aspen StreetFAR (Proposed)UPPER LEVELROOF DECK LEVELPARK LEVELMAIN LEVELLOWER LEVEL
58.33%
Percentage (%)
Total Lodge FAR Summary
Free Market FAR
Applied Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Applied Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category (referenced from “Gross Unit Area” chart)
P
1
5
3
V
I
.
B
.
2
0
0
S
A
s
p
e
n
A
R
C
H
I T
E
C
T
U
R
E
| I N
T
E
R
I O
R
S
| P
L
A
N
N
I N
G
F
O
R
U
M
P
H
I
.C
O
M
PROPOSED FLOOR
AREA CALCS
FORUM PHI
3,796.50 sq ft
1,868.00 sq ft
595.75 sq ft
1
2 3 4
5
6REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
S
I D
E
S E T B
A
C K
S
I D
E
P R
O
P
E
R T Y
L I N
E
S
I D
E
S E T B A
C K
S
I D
E
P R
O P E
R T Y L
I N
E
7
8
9
10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
2,021.00 sq ft
1,860.25 sq ft
1,132.25 sq ft
938.50 sq ft
204.00 sq ft
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
S
I D
E
S E T B
A
C K
S
I D
E
P R
O
P
E
R T Y
L I N
E
S
I D
E
S E T B A
C K
S
I D
E
P R
O P E
R T Y L
I N
E
7900
7906790479027901
7899
789878977896
79057903
2,518.50 sq ft
150.75 sq ft
537.25 sq ft
81.25 sq ft
1,098.25 sq ft
770.75 sq ft
202.00 sq ft 204.75 sq ft
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
S
I D
E
S E T B
A
C K
S
I D
E
P R
O
P
E
R T Y
L I N
E
S
I D
E
S E T B A
C K
S
I D
E
P R
O P E
R T Y L
I N
E
99.50 sq ft
3,815.00 sq ft
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
S
I D
E
S E T B A
C K
S
I D
E
P R
O P E
R T Y L
I N
E
S I D E S
E T B A C
K
S I D E P
R O P E R T Y L I N E
46.25 sq ft
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
S
I D
E
S E T B A
C K
S
I D
E
P R
O P E
R T Y L
I N
E
S I D E S
E T B A C
K
S I D E P
R O P E R T Y L I N E
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Lower Level unit area totals by use 2,463.75 ------------3,796.50
Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed -1,689.43 -------------3,796.50
Lower Level FAR totals by use 774.32 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Main Level unit area totals by use 3,881.25 1,132.25 ------1,142.50
Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed -2,931.99 -855.33 -------863.07
Main Level FAR totals by use 949.26 276.92 0.00 279.43
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Park Level unit area totals by use 2,518.50 1,098.25 232.00 770.75
Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed ------------------202.00
Park Level FAR totals by use 2,518.50 1,098.25 232.00 972.75
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Upper Level unit area totals by use ------------3,815.00 ------
Upper Level FAR totals by use 0.00 0.00 3,815.00 0.00
Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit
Roof Deck Level unit area totals by use ------------46.25 ------
Roof Deck Level FAR totals by use 0.00 0.00 46.25 0.00
Square Feet (Sq Ft)
Gross Lodge (Sq Ft)9,154.25
Gross AHU (Sq Ft)2,245.25
Gross Free Market (Sq Ft)4,293.75
Total Unit Floor Area (Sq Ft) excludes non-unit area 15,693.25
Non-Unit Area Subgrade Exemption Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)3,796.50 -3,796.50 0.00
Main Level (Sq Ft)1,142.50 -863.07 279.43
Park Level (Sq Ft)972.75 0.00 972.75
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Roof Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
-4,659.57
1,252.18
Lodge Floor Area Non-Unit @ 58.33%Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)774.32 0.00 774.32
Main Level (Sq Ft)949.26 163.00 1,112.26
Park Level (Sq Ft)2,518.50 567.43 3,085.93
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Roof Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
730.43
Total Lodge FAR (Sq Ft)4,972.51
AHU Floor Area Non-Unit @14.31%Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Main Level (Sq Ft)276.92 39.98 316.90
Park Level (Sq Ft)1,098.25 139.17 1,237.42
Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Roof Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
179.15
Total Affordable Housing Unit FAR (Sq Ft)1,554.32
Free Market Floor Area Non-Unit @ 27.36%Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00
Main Level (Sq Ft)0.00 76.45 76.45
Park Level (Sq Ft)232.00 266.15 498.15
Upper Level (Sq Ft)3,815.00 0.00 3,815.00
Roof Level (Sq Ft)46.25 0.00 46.25
342.60
Total Free Market FAR (Sq Ft)4,435.85
Total FAR (Sq Ft)12,214.86
Allowable Limit (Sq Ft)Existing (Sq Ft)Proposed (Sq Ft)
Lodge (.75:1) 8,970 9,081.60 4,972.51
AHU (2:1) 17,940 342.86 1,554.32
Free Market (.50:1) 4,485 0.00 4,435.85
Cumulative (2:1) 17,940 9,424.46 10,962.69
100.00%
14.31%
27.36%
Applied Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Affordable Housing Unit FAR
Lodge FAR
Application of Use Category Percentages to Non-Unit Floor Area
Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Total Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Applied Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
200 S. Aspen Street
FAR (Proposed)
UPPER LEVEL
ROOF DECK LEVEL
PARK LEVEL
MAIN LEVEL
LOWER LEVEL
58.33%
Percentage (%)
Total Lodge FAR Summary
Free Market FAR
Applied Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Applied Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category (referenced from “Gross Unit Area” chart)
PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL FAR CALCULATIONS PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FAR CALCULATIONS PROPOSED PARK LEVEL FAR CALCULATIONS
PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FAR CALCULATIONS PROPOSED ROOFTOP LEVEL FAR CALCULATIONS
AREA USE BY CATEGORY
NON UNIT AREA
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT AREA
LODGE UNITS AREA
FREE MARKET AREA
DECK AREA
EXEMPT AREA
P
1
5
4
V
I
.
B
.
2
0
0
S
A
s
p
e
n
A
R
C
H
I T
E
C
T
U
R
E
| I N
T
E
R
I O
R
S
| P
L
A
N
N
I N
G
F
O
R
U
M
P
H
I
.C
O
M
PROPOSED NET
LEASABLE CALCS
FORUM PHI
1,741.50 sq ft
523.00 sq ft
3,520.50 sq ft
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
S I D
E
S E
T B
A
C K
S I D
E
P R
O
P
E
R T Y
L I N
E
S
I D
E
S E T B A
C K
S
I D
E
P R
O
P E
R T Y L
I N
E
565.00 sq ft
504.75 sq ft
506.75 sq ft
170.00 sq ft
345.50 sq ft 346.75 sq ft 346.75 sq ft
310.75 sq ft
556.25 sq ft
401.50 sq ft
344.75 sq ft
141.75 sq ft871.50 sq ft
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
S I D
E
S E
T B
A
C K
S I D
E
P R
O
P
E
R T Y
L I N
E
S
I D
E
S E T B A
C K
S
I D
E
P R
O
P E
R T Y L
I N
E
7900
7899
1,435.50 sq ft
507.00 sq ft
379.50 sq ft
561.25 sq ft
513.75 sq ft
133.75 sq ft
807.50 sq ft
201.25 sq ft
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
S I D
E
S E
T B
A
C K
S I D
E
P R
O
P
E
R T Y
L I N
E
S
I D
E
S E T B A
C K
S
I D
E
P R
O
P E
R T Y L
I N
E
88.50 sq ft
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
S
I D E
S E T B A C
K
S
I D E
P R
O P E R T Y L I N
E
S I D E S
E T
B A C
K
S I D E P
R O
P E R
T
Y L I N E
1,642.50 sq ft
400.00 sq ft1,558.00 sq ft
REAR SETBACK
REAR PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
S
I D E
S E T B A C
K
S
I D E
P R
O P E R T Y L I N
E
S I D E S
E T
B A C
K
S I D E P
R O
P E R
T
Y L I N E
Net Leasable & Net Livable (Proposed)
200 S. Aspen Street
Lodge (Livable)AHU (Livable)Free Market (Livable)Non-Unit
1883.75 ------------3,830.75
603.00 ------------------
------------------------
------------------------
Lower Level area totals by use 2,486.75 0.00 0.00 3,830.75
Lodge (Livable)AHU (Livable)Free Market (Livable)Non-Unit
170.00 504.75 ------871.50
345.50 506.75 ------------
346.75 ------------------
346.75 ------------------
346.75 ------------------
344.75 ------------------
141.75 ------------------
310.75 ------------------
565.00 ------------------
401.50 ------------------
556.25 ------------------
Main Level area totals by use 3,875.75 1,011.50 0.00 871.50
Lodge (Livable)AHU (Livable)Free Market (Livable)Non-Unit
1,435.50 513.75 133.75 807.50
561.25 507.00 ------------
379.50 ------------------
88.50 ------------------
Park Level area totals by use 2,464.75 1,020.75 133.75 807.50
Lodge (Livable)AHU (Livable)Free Market (Livable)Non-Unit
------------1,558.00 400.00
------------1,642.50 ------
------------------------
Upper Level area totals by use 0.00 0.00 3,200.50 400.00
Lodge (Livable)AHU (Livable)Free Market (Livable)Non-Unit
------------------------
Roof Deck Level area totals by use 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Area totals by use 8,827.25 2,032.25 3,334.25 5,909.75
Areas by Use Category
Lodge
AHU
Free Market
Total Gross Sq Ft
Lower Level (Sq Ft)
Main Level (Sq Ft)
Park Level (Sq Ft)
Upper Level (Sq Ft)
Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)
Total Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Non-Unit @ 0.5833 Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)2,234.57 4,721.32
Main Level (Sq Ft)508.37 4,384.12
Park Level (Sq Ft)471.03 2,935.78
Upper Level (Sq Ft)233.33 233.33
Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00
Total Lodge Net Livable (Sq Ft)12,274.55
Non-Unit @ 0.1431 Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)548.07 548.07
Main Level (Sq Ft)124.69 1,136.19
Park Level (Sq Ft)115.53 1,136.28
Upper Level (Sq Ft)57.23 57.23
Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00
Total ADU Net Livable (Sq Ft)2,877.76
Non-Unit @ 0.2736 Total
Lower Level (Sq Ft)1,048.11 1,048.11
Main Level (Sq Ft)238.45 238.45
Park Level (Sq Ft)220.94 354.69
Upper Level (Sq Ft)109.44 3,309.94
Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00
Total ADU Net Livable (Sq Ft)4,951.19
Existing (Sq Ft)Proposed (Sq Ft)
Lodge 10,888.93 12,274.55
AHU 1,195.07 2,877.76
Free Market -------4,951.19
Cumulative 12,084.00 20,103.50
Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft)
Non-Unit Floor Area per Level
Lodge (Livable)
2,486.75
3,875.75
0.00
400.00
807.50
871.50
3,830.75
5,909.75
-------
-------
PARK LEVEL
MAIN LEVEL
LOWER LEVEL
Free Market Net Livable
-------
-------
Allowable Limit (Sq Ft)
Total Lodge Net Leasable & Net Livable Summary
0.00
3,200.50
133.75
0.00
0.00
Free Market (Livable)
0.00
0.00
1,020.75
1,011.50
0.00
AHU (Livable)
AHU Net Livable
Lodge Net Livable
0.00
2,464.75
0.00
100.00%15,693.25
ROOF DECK LEVEL
UPPER LEVEL
14.31%2,245.25
58.33%9,154.25
Percentage (%)Gross Square Feet (Sq Ft)
Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category (referenced from “Gross Unit Area” chart)
4,293.75 27.36%
PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL NET AREA CALCULATIONS PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL NET AREA CALCULATIONS PROPOSED PARK LEVEL NET AREA CALCULATIONS
PROPOSED ROOFTOP LEVEL NET AREA CALCULATIONSPROPOSED UPPER LEVEL NET AREA CALCULATIONS
NON UNIT AREA
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT AREA
LODGE UNITS AREA
FREE MARKET AREA
DECK AREA
EXEMPT AREA
AREA USE BY CATEGORY
P
1
5
5
V
I
.
B
.
2
0
0
S
A
s
p
e
n
A
R
C
H
I T
E
C
T
U
R
E
| I N
T
E
R
I O
R
S
| P
L
A
N
N
I N
G
F
O
R
U
M
P
H
I
.C
O
M
AHU MITIGATION
FORUM PHI
Affordable Housing Mitigation Credit
200 S. Aspen Street
Proposed Affordable Housing Floor Area Calculations
AHU Space Floor Area (Sq Ft)Employees Mitigated
2-BD Unit 1,018.50 2.25
2-BD Unit 1,013.75 2.25
Total Floor Area (Sq Ft)2,032.25
Total Employees Mitigated 4.50
Proposed Free Market Net Leasable Employees Generated
Residential Net Leasable Floor Area (Sq Ft)Applicable Residential Area %Area After Reduction (Sq Ft)Employees Generated/400 Sq Ft Employees Generated
Upper Level 3,334.25 30%1,000.28 1.00 2.50
Employees Generated 2.50
Proposed Lodge Unit Employees Generated
Number of Units Employees Generated per Bedroom Employees Generated
9.00 0.30 2.70
Reduction % Due to Lodge Unit Size 60%
Calculated Credit 1.62
Proposed Total Employees Generated 4.12
Total Mitigation Credit Calculation
Employees Generated
Total Employees Mitigated 4.50
Total Employees Generated 4.12
Additional Credits Required -0.38
P
1
5
6
V
I
.
B
.
2
0
0
S
A
s
p
e
n
A
R
C
H
I T
E
C
T
U
R
E
| I N
T
E
R
I O
R
S
| P
L
A
N
N
I N
G
F
O
R
U
M
P
H
I
.C
O
M
PUBLIC AMENITY
PLANS
FORUM PHI
BUILDING OUTLINE
AT GRADE
2,036.00 sq ft
BUILDING OUTLINE
AT GRADE
PROPOSED PUBLIC AMENITY SPACE =
2,036 SF
22.7% OF LOT AREA
EXISTING SITE AMENITY PLAN PROPOSED SITE AMENITY PLAN
P
1
5
7
V
I
.
B
.