The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.101 W Main St.0015.2016.ASLU0015.2016.ASLU 101 W MAIN ST r.- - APPEAL OF ADIM DETERMINATION / MAIN ST / MOLLY GIBSON LODGE 273512455800/273512455005/273512455066 '1 31~115** s Aikw,\\,-9 *vÂ»'A46 0 ju RA,U 3 U hu C 41 4444 il 1 .. THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0015.2016.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBERS 2735 124 55 800 PROJECT ADDRESS 101 W MAIN ST PLANNER CHRIS/SARA A CASE DESCRIPTION APPEAL/ MAIN AND MOLLY GIBSON REPRESENTATIVE STAN CLAUSEN DATE OF FINAL ACTION 06.23.2015 CLOSED BY DEB PATTISON 03.02.2016 0 . 27 5 f - 1 24 - F F - 500 00/5-~-2Â£)/6. Asc u 0 Permits =16 lib. Elle Edit Record Navigate Farm ReporE Format Iab Help ~ 1@ 30(, 94 '7@ 1 I I.Q.je 3 JU+1 1 . .1 0 2}ikiump 1_~ |plit} Ol /01Â·MW'F,'p. g E 2 4] il J 8 0 + 1.3 3 0 a :) 9.0 .~Iin~ Custom Fields : Routing Status ' Fee Summary I Actions Routing History I Permit type aslu . Aspen Land Use Permit # 0015.2016.ASLU 4.4 2,< Address 101 W MAIN ST AM/suite 11<k City ASPEN i State Wil Zip 81611 1â€ža*24Â·2Â· ix I Permit Information 'UN, mn.& 1 4'1*6'A ' ~ ~i-, Master permit Routing queue aslu 15 Applied 03/02/2016 â€¢ ' Â·71:69 73 7 Project z status final Approved 03/02/2016 *4* 1 F Description 101 W MAIN SIDEWALK| / MOLLY GIBSON LODGE./ ADMIN DETERMINATION - OPEN Issued 03/02/2016 & AND CLOSE FILE FOR RECORD - NOTICE OF APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION APPLIED FOR ON JUNE 23. 2016 Closed/Final 03/02/2016 ~ - Submitted STAN CLAUSEN ASSOC 925 2323 Clock ~ Days ~ Expires 02/25/2017 . ~ Submitted via v ~ Owner ~ Last name MOLLY GIBSON LODGE First name 101 W MAIN ST ASPEN CO 81611 Phone (} Address ~ Applicant U Owner is applicant? El Contractor is applicant? Last name ASPEN GALENA. LLC ~~ First name Phone () - Cust # 30293 Address Email % Lender Last name - First name Phone () - Address ?3% AspenGold~(sewer 39991~~~Â·1 of 1 ,:,1 n, E Clt 11=0 80 94â‚¬5 ,\)O - y-4/ra.ki /. A &+Nv- 11â‚¬Jl-.4,0 O Fav. CX. C. asfS a Oqi;66111 Â«sdnolo quil -7 Â· %29&&*6% ~~~~1. 'Rwi O'per= 9- Close (816 9 0 A , lot \19 .V\M n Moty Gikrn 44.94*yUA m ofen + Clos-e -8 k '44 0 0 RECEIVED \ 1 STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES INc 9 landscape architecture.planning.resort design JUL 0 8 2015 CITY OF ASPEN 412 North Mil[ Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 t. 970/925-2323 f. 970/920-1628 COMMUNITY DEVELOPNEN1 info@scaplanning.com www.scaplanning.com 8 July 2015 Colâ‚¬Â·2019-0944 Mr. Chris Bendon, AICP Community Development Director City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street ~ Aspen. CO 81611 Re: Notice of Appeal of Administrative Determination Dear Chris: In accordance with Section 26.316.030 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code and on behalf of Aspen Galena, LLC (the "Applicant"), we are writing to appeal the Administrative Determination dated 23 June 2015 relating to the sidewalk location as stated in Ordinance 3, Series of 2015. The Applicant believes that the determination fails to appropriately take into account the submitted landscape plan that was attached to the Ordinance as recorded, statements by representatives of the City Engineering Department that an attached sidewalk is acceptable, a recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission supporting an attached sidewalk, and support from other City representatives for the landscape plan as provided. The insistence on the part of the Community Development Department that the sidewalk be detached contravenes the facts referenced above and will not result in the optimal site plan for the property. The determination would refer the matter to City Council for an amendment to approval Ordinance 3, Series of 2015. This represents an inordinate and expensive burden upon the Applicant to settle a matter that should have been clearly addressed by the facts above. We look forward to presenting additional supporting material to the appropriate review body in accordance with the procedures provided in Sections 26.316.030 and 26.445.120 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. StarrÂ·ClausboLAICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, Inc. .. CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION JURISDICTION: City of Aspen 00(5Â·2010 -46(11 EFFECTIVE DATE: June 23,2015 WRITTEN BY: Sara Adams Senior Planner APPROVED BY: ( #4,1 .U Chris Bendon, Community Development Director COPIES TO: James R True, City Attorney Trish Aragon, City Engineer Purpose: The applicant, Haymax Lodging, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson, requests clarification of Ordinance No. 3, Series 2015, Section 8.2 Sidewalk/Curb/Gutter. Ordinance No. 3. granted land use approvals for a complete redevelopment of 101 West Main Street, the Molly Gibson Hotel. Specifically, Mr. Clauson is seeking clarification of subsection (a) and whether the sidewalk along Garmisch Street is required to be "detached." Section 8.2.a reads as follows: The minimum sidewalk width on Main and Garmisch Streets is 8 ft., detached. The minimum width of the planting strip is 5 ft. It is understood that potential conflicts may limit the sidewalk width and or planting strip width. While the applicant should attempt to achieve the code width, the sidewalk width can be reduced to 6 ft. where conflict Â·exist. The applicant should coordinate with the Parks and Engineering Departments to find alignment solutions. [emphasis added] An attached or detached sidewalk is common jargon in the local development industry. An attached sidewalk is connected to the curb with no planting buffer between the sidewalk and the street. A detached sidewalk provides a planting strip or tree strip between the sidewalk and the street edge. - â€¢i .*I/1.'ll ' '.... rt-+ , 1;Â£25ME~ Attached sidewalk Detached sidewalk Administrative Determihation 101 W. Main Street (Molly Gibson Lodge) Page 1 of 5 .. Background: Engineering Standards: The Engineering Design Standards, adopted as part of Title 29 of the Aspen Municipal Code, clearly explain sidewalk requirements. Section 4.5.2 Sidewalk Layout and Design is cited below, including graphic detail of the required detached sidewalk found in Appendix B to the Design Standards: "Sidewalks shall be placed so that there is a minimum buffer of 5 feet between the back of the curb and the sidewalk; this is to allow for adequate landscaping and snow storage buffer behind the curb gutters and travel paths. Attached sidewalks will not be permitted; however, the City does understand there may be circumstances where it is unavoidable. In these circumstances a variance requeit must be submitted." i 4 \ i I f ? l / . 1 1-of PROPERTY LINE - STREET -25L-1-5' (MIN) , , r SEE DESIGN STANDARDS 1-4- 1 j 1 5315*) 2% (MAX) ~/~ PRIVATE PROPERTY NS-1.1 / â„¢JM@14**UtÂ·=!1.4l!allwlmUM / 1*- / --:=4=iltatil I ~-- SCARIFIED AND DEEPROOT UB18-2 - RECOMPACTED ROOT BARRIER \ SUB-BASE l SEE SYLVA CELL ---2 ~-- 0.5' DEPTH - ABC CL-6 DETAIL OR 3/4- CRUSHED SCREENED ROCK NOTES. 1 Base for flatwork shall be at least 6 of CDOT ABC CL-6 compacted to 95% of modified proctor density within 2% of optimum moisture using ASTM D-1557 Method Â»C or compacted t crushed screened rock i 2. Detached sidewalk shall be placed immediately adjacent the property line 3 Sub-base soils must be scarifed and compacted to prevent settling 4. Where detached sidewalk is found to be unfeasible, determination of landscape buffer width shall be made by city engineering staff. Sidewalk: In the initial application, the applicant proposed a detached sidewalk along Main Street and an attached sidewalk along Garmisch Street. The application did not include a request for a variance from the Engineering Standards. Referral comments were received from the City Engineering Department as part of the Development Review Committee process and were provided to the applicant Administrative Determination 101 W. Main Street (Molly Gibson Lodge) Page 2 of 5 .. and the review boards. The City Engineer's comments included a request to develop the sidewalk in a detached configuration. The memo states: "The minimum sidewalk width on Main and Garmisch Streets is 8 ft., detached, The minimum width of the planting strip is 5 ft. It is understood that potential conjlicts may limit the sidewalk width and or planting strip width. While the applicant should attempt to achieve the code width, the sidewalk width can be reduced to 6 ft. where conflict exist. The applicant should coordinate with the Parks and Engineering Departments to Jind alignment solutions. " The comments from the Engineering Department were received on September 19, 2014 and forwarded to the applicant along with the rest of the referral comments on September 29,2014. The Engineering comments were included in the HPC packet as Exhibit G. During public hearings before the HPC on November 12 and December 3, 2014, the referral comment from the City Engineer was carried forward into a proposed condition of approval. The applicant spoke at length about the project before the HPC but did not contest the proposed condition of approval., The HPC adopted Resolution 35, Series of2014 (conceptual approval) including Section 8.2.a, which states: Section 8.2.a "The minimum sidewalk width on Main and Garmisch Streets is 8 ft, detached. The minimum width of the planting strip is 5 A It is understood that potential conflicts may limit the sidewalk width and or planting strip width. While the applicant should attempt to achieveÂ· the code width, the sidewalk width can be reduced to 6 ft. where conflict exist. The applicant should coordinate with the Parks and Engineering Departments to find alignment solutions." The comments from Engineering and the HPC recommendation, both including a condition of approval for a detached sidewalk along Garmisch, were forwarded to City Council. The Engineering comments were included in the City Council packet as Exhibit F. During a public hearing before City Council on January 26, 2015, Ordinance No. 3 was reviewed for adoption. The draft ordinance included the following language (identical to the HPC Resolution): Section 8.2.a "The minimum sidewalk width on Main and Garmisch Streets is 8 ft., detached. The minimum width ofthe plantihg strip is 5 ft. It is understood that potential conjlicts may limit the sidewalk width and or planting strip width. While the applicant should attempt to achieve the code width, the sidewalk width can be reduced to 6 ft. where conflict exist. The applicant should coordinate with the Parks and Engineering Departments to find alignment solutions. The applicant spoke with City Council at length about the project - the application was discussed for approximately 1 hour and 40 minutes. The applicant did not raise concerns during the City Council hearing about Section 8.2.a requiring, a detached sidewalk along Garmisch Street. The applicant discussed the public spaces facing Paebcke Park (4:14 of the meeting video) and the advantages of a detached sidewalk along Main Street (4:18). Renderings of the building with an attached sidewalk along Garmisch were shown (4:41) with no supporting commentary regarding the design of the right-of-way or a request to alter the proposed condition of approval. City Council did not discuss the sidewalk and adopted the proposed ordinance with no changes to Section 8.2.a. On May 27, 2015, the detached/attached sidewalk issue was discussed at HPC as part of the landscape plan.during Final Review. It was noted by staff in the hearing that the City Engineer (not HPC) has jurisdiction over the design and development of the City rights-of-way and that the HPC could not amend a City Council ordinance. Staff suggested the board could provide advisory commentary to the Administrative Determination 101 W. Main Street (Molly Gibson Lodge) Page 3 of 5 .. City Engineer. HPC recommended in Section 3 of Resolution 18, Series 2015 (Detailed Review approval) that the City Engineer consider an attached sidewalk along Garmisch Street. In order to enable additional clarity planning staff forwarded the HPC advisory comments to the City Engineering Department and requested the Department reconsider its position regarding the design of the public right-of-way. The City Engineering Department reiterated their original position, requesting the sidewalk be developed in a detached configuration, citing the adopted Engineering Design Standards, the need for snow storage, pedestrian safety, pedestrian experience, and the absence of site constraints that may support a variance. Exhibit H contains a memo from Hailey Guglielmo of the City Engineering Department. Planning staff also requested clarity from the City Parks Department as Mr. Clauson stated that the department preferred an attached sidewalk. Chris Forman of the City Parks Department responded by stating that the Department defers to the Engineering Department in this type of situation. (Exhibit G) The Parks Department stated support for a detached sidewalk in this location citing an opportunity to develop an appropriate right-of-way treatment consistent with the Main Street side of the project. Determination: The applicant consistently presented an attached sidewalk in various renderings throughout the review process. The referral agency recommendations to approval boards consistently included a proposed condition of approval requiring a detached sidewalk along Garmisch with specific dimensions for the planting strip. The staff and HPC recommendations to City Council echoed this requirement verbatim. The City Council reviewed the project, the draft ordinance containing this condition, the comments of the applicant (which did not include any argument against this condition) and City Council approved Ordinance No. 3, Series 2015, with the requirement that the Garmisch sidewalk be detached. The conceptual project plans attached to the Ordinance were included to illustrate building setbacks, mass and scale, programming, and the general conceptual design of the project. These plans are for illustrative purposes only and do not override the specific language in the Ordinance and do not override other applicable building codes and requirements for development. The subsequent direction from HPC was advisory to the City Engineer and does not override Ordinance No. 3. The record indicates ample'opportunity for the applicant to speak to the proposed condition of approval regarding the Garmisch sidewalk. The comments from Engineering, the proposed HPC Resolution, and the proposed Ordinance were provided to the applicant well in advance of public hearings. The applicant never argued against the proposed condition. The only substantive discussion of sidewalk design focused on the Main Street sidewalk. The applicant advocated for a detached sidewalk along Main asserting the positive design attributes and conformance with the Engineering Design Standards. The language of Section 8.2.a appears unambiguous. The requirement is for a detached sidewalk along Garmisch. It is difficult to read the plain language requiring a detached sidewalk to mean anything other than a detached sidewalk. The Community Development Director finds Section 8.2.a of Ordinance 3, Series 2015, to require a detached sidewalk along Garmisch Street adjacent to the Molly Gibson project. Administrative Determination 101 W. Main Street (Molly Gibson Lodge) Page 4 of 5 0 . Determination Effective Date: This Administrative Determination was provided on June 23,2015, and shall become effective on June 23,2015. Attachments: A. HPC Resolution 35, Series of2014 , B. HPC Resolution 18, Series of 2015 C. City Council Ordinance 3, Series of 2015 D. HPC meeting minutes (minutes are not yet available for the May 27th hearing) E. City Council meeting minutes from January 26,2015 F. DRC referral comments from the Engineering Department dated September 19,2014 G. Comments from the Parks Department H. Comments from the Engineering Department l Administrative Determination 101 W. Main Street (Molly Gibson Lodge) Page 5 of 5 1 . ' RECEPTION#: 615952, 12/11/2014 at 12:07:08 PM, i 1 OF 26. R $136.00 Doc Code A RESOLUTION - Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO RESOLUTION NO. 35 (SERIES OF 2014) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL, DEMOLITION, RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD APPROVAL, GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPROVALS, AND CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN APPROVAL AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL GRANT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - - PROJECT REVIEW APPROVAL AND SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MOLLY GIBSON LODGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 101 W MAIN STREET, LOTS 1 AND 2 OF THE MOLLY GIBSON PUD, AND FOR LOT 2 OF THE 125 WEST MAIN STREET HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT, CITY OF ASPEN, PITK]N COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2735-124-55-800 2735-124-55-005,2735-124-55-066 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application for the Molly Gibson PD (the Application) from Aspen Galena, LLC (Applicant), represented by Stan Clauson Associates and CCY Architects for the following land use review approvals: â€¢ Planned Development - Project Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445. â€¢ Subdivision Review - pursuant to:Land Use Code Chapter 26.480. â€¢ Growth Management Review - Replacement of Existing Commercial and Lodge Development, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. â€¢ Growth Management Review -Lodge Development, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. â€¢ Growth Management Review - New Free Market Residential Units, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. â€¢ Growth Management Review - Affordable Housing, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. â€¢ Growth Management Review - Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. â€¢ Commercial Design Review - Conceptual, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412, â€¢ Major Development - Conceptual for properties within the Historic District, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415. â€¢ Demolition of properties located within the Historic District, pursuant to Section 26.415; and, WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in effect on the day of initial application - August 11,2014. as applicable to this Project; and, WHEREAS, the Application for the Molly Gibson PD proposes: Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street Reso No. 35, Series 2014 Page I of 11 .. CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION JURISDICTION: City of Aspen EFFECTIVE DATE: June 23,2015 WRITTEN BY: Sara Adams Senior Planner APPROVED BY: (2/411 AL Chris Bendon, Community Development Director COPIES TO: James R True, City Attorney Trish Aragon, City Engineer Purpose: The applicant, Haymax Lodging, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson, requests clarification of Ordinance No. 3, Series 2015, Section 8,2 Sidewalk/Curb/Gutter. Ordinance No. 3 granted land use approvals for a complete redevelopment of 101 West Main Street, the Molly Gibson Hotel. Specifically, Mr. Clauson is seeking clarification of subsection (a) and whether the sidewalk along Garmisch Street is required to be "detached." Section 8.2.a reads as follows: The minimum sidewalk width on Main and Garmisch Streets is 8 ft., detached. The minimum width of the planting strip is 5 ft. It is understood that potential conflicts may limit the sidewalk width and or planting strip width. While the applicant should attempt to achieve the code width, the sidewalk width can be reduced to 6.ft. where conflict exist. The applicant should coordinate with the Parks and Engineering Departments to find alignment solutions. [emphasis added] An attached or detached sidewalk is common jargon in the local development industry. An attached sidewalk is connected to the curb with no planting buffer between the sidewalk and the street. A detached sidewalk provides a planting strip or tree strip between the sidewalk and the street edge. ? T,rz ' I ki.d' t~li2< hilfrf, '5(. ~e- i.3,1 '11 2124,Iâ€ž1./11',:11:lili - 0Â· ----- . I.-.i~*' ' ",~ i :': ~~*2Â£; .... I I . I + . v.:Â· . f--'/.16- = 5/1380"17 b..8/Al 3-0 *= -â€¢Ut~~ Â· 11/il"/11/5 Attached sidewalk Detached sidewalk Administrative Determination 101 W. Main Street (Molly Gibson Lodge) Page 1 of 5 .. Background: Engineering Standards: The Engineering Design Standards. adopted as part of Title 29 of the Aspen Municipal Code, clearly explain sidewalk requirements. Section 4.5.2 Sidewalk Layout and Design is cited below, including graphic detail of the required detached sidewalk found in Appendix B to the Design Standards: -Sidewalks shall be placed so that there is a minimum buffer of 5 feet between the back of the curb and the sidewalk; this is to allow for adequate landscaping and snow storage buffer behind the curb gutters and travel paths. Attached sidewalks will not be permitted; however, the City does understand there may be circumstances where it is unavoidable. In these circumstances a variance request must be submitted. " rÂ·Â·Â· PROPERTY LINE STREET . ,. 2 5'-*-5' (MIN) ~-TL . SEE DESIGN STANDARDS ~-y' 5' : (MAX) 2% (IMAX ) PRIVATE PROPERTY 4,- -- -~0.33' iMIN) ; ,=1 66~0 - - . Y , 1 -- a i // h 1 K 4 '- SCARIFIED AND DEEPROOT UB18-2 -1 / RECOMPACTED 7 \ ROOT BARRIER / SUB-BASE f \ i 0.5, DEPTH - ABC CL-6 SEE SYLVA CELL 1 OR 3/4" CRUSHED DETAIL SCREENED ROCK NOTES. 1. Base for flatwork shall be :at least 6'" of CDOT ABC CL-6 compacted to 95% of modified proctor density within 2% of optimum moisture using ASTM D-1557 Method "C" or compacted f crushed screened rock 2 Detached sidewalk shall be placed immediately adjacent the property hne 3 Subbase soils must be scarified and compacted to prevent settling 4. Where detached sidewalk is found to be unfeasible, determination of landscape buffer wi:dth shall be made by city eng,neering staff Sidewalk: In the initial application, the applicant proposed a detached sidewalk along Main Street and an attached sidewalk along Garmisch Street. The application did not include a request for a variance from the Engineering Standards. Referral comments were received from the City Engineering Department as part of the Development Review Committee process and were provided to the applicant Administrative Determination 101 W. Main Street (Molly Gibson Lodge) Page 2 of 5 .. and the review boards. The City Engineer's comments included a request to develop the sidewalk in a detached configuration. The memo states: "The minimum sidewalk width on Main and Garmisch Streets is 8 8., detached. The minimum -width of the planting strip is 5 ft. It is understood that potential conflicts may limit the sidewalk width and or planting strip width. While the applicant should attempt to achieve the code width. the sidewalk width can be reduced to 6 ft. -where conflict exist. The applicant should coordinate with the Parks and Engineering Departments to find alignment solutions. The comments from the Engineering Department were received on September 19,2014 and forwarded to the applicant along with the rest of the referral comments on September 29, 2014. The Engineering comments were included in the HPC packet as Exhibit G. During public hearings before the HPC on November 12 and December 3, 2014, the referral comment from the City Engineer was carried forward into a proposed condition of approval. The applicant spoke at length about the project before the HPC but did not contest the proposed condition of approval. The HPC adopted Resolution 35, Series of 2014 (conceptual approval) including Section 8.2.a, which states: Section 8.2.a "The minimum sidewalk width on Main and Garmisch Streets is 8 ft., detached. The minimum width of the planting strip is 5 ft. It is understood that potential conflicts may limit the sidewalk width and or planting strip width. While the applicant should attempt to achieve the code width, the sidewalk width can be reduced to 6 ft. where conflict exist. The applicant should coordinate with the Parks and Engineering Departments to find alignment solutions. " The comments from Engineering and the HPC recommendation, both including a condition of approval for a detached sidewalk along Garmisch, were forwarded to City Council. The Engineering comments were included in the City Council packet as Exhibit F. During a public hearing before City Council on January 26, 2015, Ordinance No. 3 was reviewed for adoption. The draft ordinance included the following language (identical to the HPC Resolution): Section 8.2.a "The minimum sidewalk width on Main and Garmisch Streets is 8 ftâ€ž detached. The minimum width of the planting strip is 5 ft. It is understood that potential conflicts may limit the sidewalk width and or planting strip width. While the applicant should attempt to achieve the code width, the sidewalk width can be reduced to 6.8. where conflict exist. The applicant should coordinate with the Parks and Engineering Departments to find alignment solutions." The applicant spoke with City Council at length about the project - the application was discussed for approximately 1 hour and 40 minutes. The applicant did not raise concerns during the City Council hearing about Section 8.2.a requiring a detached sidewalk along Garmisch Street. The applicant discussed the public spaces facing Paepcke Park (4:14 of the meeting video) and the advantages of a detached sidewalk along Main Street (4:18). Renderings of the building with an attached sidewalk along Garmisch were shown (4:41) with no supporting commentary regarding the design of the right-of-way or a request to alter the proposed condition of approval. City Council did not discuss the sidewalk and adopted the proposed ordinance with no changes to Section 8.2.a. On May 27,2015, the detached/attached sidewalk issue was discussed at liPC as part of the landscape plan during Final Review. It was noted by staff in the hearing that the City Engineer (not HPC) has jurisdiction over the design and development of the City rights-of-way and that the HPC could not amend a City Council ordinance. Staff suggested the board could provide advisory commentary to the Administrative Determination 101 W. Main Street (Molly Gibson Lodge) Page 3 of 5 .. City Engineer. HPC recommended in Section 3 of Resolution 18, Series 2015 (Detailed Review approval) that the City Engineer consider an attached sidewalk along Garmisch Street. In order to enable additional clarity planning staff forwarded the HPC advisory comments to the City Engineering Department and requested the Department reconsider its position regarding the design of the public right-of-way. The City Engineering Department reiterated their original position, requesting the sidewalk be developed in a detached configuration, citing the adopted Engineering Design Standards, the need for snow storage, pedestrian safety, pedestrian experience, and the absence of site constraints that may support a variance. Exhibit H contains a memo from Hailey Guglielmo of the City Engineering Department. Planning staff also requested clarity from the City Parks Department as Mr. Clauson stated that the department preferred an attached sidewalk. Chris Forman of the City Parks Department responded by stating that the Department defers to the Engineering Department in this type of situation. (Exhibit G) The Parks Department stated support for a detached sidewalk in this location citing an opportunity to develop an appropriate right-of-way treatment consistent with the Main Street side of the project. Determination: The applicant consistently presented an attached sidewalk in various renderings throughout the review process. The referral agency recommendations to approval boards consistently included a proposed condition of approval requiring a detached sidewalk along Garmisch with specific dimensions for the planting strip. The staff and HPC recommendations to City Council echoed this requirement verbatim. The City Council reviewed the project, the draft ordinance containing this condition, the comments of the applicant (which did not include any argument against this condition) and City Council approved Ordinance No. 3, Series 2015, with the requirement that the Garmisch sidewalk be detached. The conceptual project plans attached to the Ordinance were included to illustrate building setbacks, mass and scale, programming, and the general conceptual design of the project. These plans are for illustrative purposes only and do not override the specific language in the Ordinance and do not override other applicable building codes and requirements for development. The subsequent direction from HPC was advisory to the City Engineer and does not override Ordinance No. 3. The record indicates ample opportunity for the applicant to speak to the proposed condition of approval regarding the Garmisch sidewalk. The comments from Engineering, the proposed HPC Resolution, and the proposed Ordinance were provided to the applicant well in advance of public hearings. The applicant never argued against the proposed condition. The only substantive discussion of sidewalk design focused on the Main Street sidewalk. The applicant advocated for a detached sidewalk along Main asserting the positive design attributes and conformance with the Engineering Design Standards. The language of Section 8.2.a appears unambiguous. The requirement is for a detached sidewalk along Garmisch. It is difficult to read the plain language requiring a detached sidewalk to mean anything other than a detached sidewalk. The Community Development Director finds Section 8.2.a of Ordinance 3, Series 2015, to require a detached sidewalk along Garmisch Street adjacent to the Molly Gibson project. Administrative Determination 101 W. Main Street (Molly Gibson Lodge) Page 4 of 5 .. Determination Effective Date: This Administrative Determination was provided on June 23,2015, and shall become effective on June 23,2015. Attachments: A. HPC Resolution 35, Series of 2014 B. HPC Resolution 18, Series of 2015 C. City Council Ordinance 3, Series of 2015 D. HPC meeting minutes (minutes are not yet available for the May 27th hearing) E. City Council meeting minutes from January 26,2015 F. DRC referral comments from the Engineering Department dated September 19,2014 G. Comments from the Parks Department H. Comments from the Engineering Department Administrative Determination 101 W. Main Street (Molly Gibson Lodge) Page 5 of 5 ---Â» ' RECEPTION#~952,12/11/2014 at 12:07:08 PM, 1 1 OF 26, R $136.00 Doc Code A RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, cd- RESOLUTION NO. 35 (SERIES OF 2014) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL, DEMOLITION, RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD APPROVAL, GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPROVALS, AND CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN APPROVAL AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL GRANT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - PROJECT REVIEW APPROVAL AND SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MOLLY GIBSON LODGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 101 W MAIN STREET, 1.OTS 1 AND 2 OF THE MOLLY GIBSON PUD, AND FOR LOT 2 OF THE 125 WEST MAIN STREET HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT, CITY OF ASPEN, PITK]N COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2735-124-55-800 2735-124-55-005,2735-124-55-066 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application for the Molly Gibson PD (the Application) from Aspen Galena, LLC (Applicant), represented by Stan Clauson Associates and CCY Architects for the following land use review approvals: â€¢ Planned Development - Project Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445. â€¢ Subdivision Review - pursuant to 1.and Use Code Chapter 26.480. â€¢ Growth Management Review - Replacement of Existing Commercial and Lodge Development, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. â€¢ Growth Management Review -Lodge Development, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. â€¢ Growth Management Review - New Free Market Residential Units, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. â€¢ Growth Management Review - Affordable Housing, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. â€¢ Growth Management Review - Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. â€¢ Commercial Design Review - Conceptual. pursuant to 1.and Use Code Section 26.412. â€¢ Major Development - Conceptual for properties within the Historic District, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415. â€¢ Demolition of properties located within the Historic District, pursuant to Section 26.415; and. WHEREAS, all code citation references are lo the City of Aspen Land Use Code in effect on the day ofinitial application - August 11,2014. as applicable to this Project; and, WHEREAS, the Application for the Molly Gibson PD proposes: Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Maiii Street Reso No. 35, Series 2014 Page I of 11 .. â€¢ 64 hotel units with 64 bedrooms in 19,151 square feet of net livable area located on Parcel 1 â€¢ 1 free-market residential unit located on Parcel 1 in 1,433 square feet of net livable area. â€¢ 1 affordable housing unit in 607 square feet of net livable area located on Parcel 1. â€¢ 2 free market residential single family homes located on Parcel 2 in 8,000 square feet of floor area. â€¢ 12 parking spaces at-grade spaces on Parcel 1. â€¢ 4 garage parking spaces, 2 spaces per single family home, on Parcel 2; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire Protection District, Environmental Health Department, Parks Department, Aspen/Pitkin County liousing Authority, Public Works Department, and the Transportation Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing, of the Land Use Code, a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority is required and a recommendation for approval by the board was provided at their November 5, 2014, regular meeting; and, WIIEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Application and recommended continuation; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.445 0 f the Land Use Code, Planned Development - Project Review approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.480 of the Land Use Code, Subdivision approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WliEREAS, all required public noticing was provided as evidenced by an affidavit 01 public notice submitted to the record, a public open house was provided by the applicant to meet the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.304.035, and the public was provided a thorough and full review of the proposed development; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on December 2, 2014, continued from November 12,2014,during which the recommendations of the Commurity Development Director and comments from the public were requested and heard by the Histo-ic Preservation Commission, and the Commission; and, WHEREAS, during a duly n,ticed public hearing on December 3, 2014, the Historic Preservation Commission approved tsolution 35, Series of 2014, by a 5 -1 vote granting Conceptual Major Development apprc val, Conceptual Commercial Design approval, Demolition approval, Residential Design Stand rd variances, and Growth Management approval, and Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street Reso No. 35, Series 2014 o Page 2 of 11 .. recommending City Council approve the Molly Gibson Application and all necessary land use reviews, as identified herein, with the recommended conditions of approval listed hereinafter. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVEDBY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Recommendations Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Commission hereby recommends City Council grant the Molly Gibson Planned Development - Project Review approval and Subdivision approval, subject to the recommended conditions of approval as listed herein. The recommended dimensions are attached as Exhibit A. The applicant is required to verify existing and proposed floor area and net livable calculations with the Zoning Officer prior to Planned Development - Project Review by City Council. Section 2: Subsequent Reviews Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, ihe Applicant is required to obtain Final Commercial Design Review, Major Development Review - - Final for properties located within the Historic District, and Planned Development - Detail Review following approval of the reviews outlined herein. The applicant shall combine these applications, and they shall be made no later than one (1) year following City Council approval of the reviews outlined herein. Section 3: Historic Preservation Reviews Major Development- Conceptual approval for properties located within a Historic District, Conceptual Commercial Design Standard approval, and Demolition for properties located within a Historic District are granted for Parcel 1 of the Molly Gibson PUD and Parcel 2 of the 125 West Main Street I listoric Landmark Lot Split as shown in Exhibit B. The flat roof version of the two story module along the west property line of Parcel 1 is approved. Section 4: Growth Management Allotments 4.1 Reconstruction Credits, Based on the existing Molly Gibson Lodge development, the Applicant represents the following reconstruction credits, to be verified by the Zoning Officer, pursuant to Land Use Chapter 26.470 a. A total of 54 lodging bedrooms, equating to 108 lodge pillows, is credited toward the Project's lodge GMQS allotment request. b. 1 unit ofaffordable housing. 4.2 Growth Management Allotments. The following growth management allotments are granted to the Molly Gibson Lodge: a. 10 lodging bedrooms = 20 lodging pillows. Added to the reconstruction credits, the project represents 64 lodging bedrooms or 128 pillows. Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street Reso No. 35, Series 2014 Page 3 of 11 .. b. 3 free market residential allotments. Section 5: Affordable Housing 5,1 Mitigation Requirements. The niitigation for the project is as follows: Affordable Housing replacement: Replace e,xisting one-bedroom affordable housing unit which generate 1.75 FTEs with an onsite one-bedroom affordable housing unit which generates 1.75 FTEs. Lodge: Mitigate for the additional 10 lodge bedrooms @ 30.8Â°/0 10 lodge bedrooms * 0.3 FTEs =3FTEs generated 3 FTEs @ 10% mitigation = 0.3 FTEs required mitigation for lodge Free-Market Residential: Provide 10% of free-market residential square feet as affordable housing 12,555 sq ft * 10% = 1,255 square feet net livat)le area required as affordable housing To convert to FTEs- 1,255/400 sfnet tivable per FTE = 3.14 FTEs Affordable Housing Credits equal to 3.44 FTEs at a Category 4 or lower to mitigate the Lodge and Free Market Residential requirements are approved. A one bedroom unit that is Category 2 and is provided onsite to mitigate the demolition of the existing onsite one bedroom unit is approved. 5.2 Affordable Housing Conditions. The affordable housing rental unit shall be deed restricted at Category 2, and shall meet the fullowing conditions: a, The unit shall be deed restricted at Category 2. b. All tenants shall be approved by APCHA prior to occupancy. c. The hotel has the right-of-first refusal to place a qualified tenant in the unit upon approval from Al>CHA. d, Employees of the hotel will be exempt from maximum assets and maximum income for the on-site unit; however, the tenants cannot own any other propeny within the ownership exclusion zone and must work full time as defined in the APCHA Guidelines. e. Minimum occupancy shall be obtained for each unit (one qualified employee per bedroom). f, The unit cannot be vacant for longer than 45 days, unless APCHA is notified as to why the unit has been left vacant. If an employee o f the lodge is not interested in renting the unit, a qualified tenant based on the APCHA Guidelines shall be allowed to rent the unit. Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street Reso No. 35, Series 2014 Page 4 of 11 .. g. The deed restriction shall be recorded for the affordable housing unit prior to Certificate of Occupancy (CO) of the free-market component. The CO for the affordable housing unit shall be issued at the same time or prior to the CO for the lodge, free-market residential units, and commercial space. h. The Condominium Declaration shall include language, to be reviewed and approved by APCHA, that should the affordable housing unit become an ownership unit: a. The unit Will be sold through the lottery system. b. The dues will be based on the assessed value of the deed-restricted unit vs. the free- market unit as well as the square footage ofthe units; c, No common expenses will be charged to the deed-restricted owners, unless approved by APCHA, especially the common expenses associated with the lodge. Section 6: Planned Development - Detail Review In addition to the general documents required as part of a Planned Development - Detail Review, , the following items shall be required as part of the Application's Planned Development - Detail Review: a. An Outdoor Lighting Plan, pursuant to section 26.575.150. b. An existing and proposed Landscaping Plan, identifying trees with dial-neters and values. c. A draft Construction Management Plan. d. A snow storage and snow shedding plan. Snow is not permitted to shed off roofs onto ' neighboring properties. Demonstrate that any snow which sheds off roofs will remain on-site. e. Preservation of the historic fence on Lot 2 of 125 West Main Street Historic Landmark Lot Split. f. A conipleted Transportation Impact Analysis. g. Confirmation from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District that the 0' rear yard setback is constructible without damage to the sanitation sewer lines in the alley. Section 7: Subdivision/PD Plat and Agreement The Applicant shall submit a Subdivision/PD agreement (hereinafter "Agreement") that meets the requirements of the Land Use Code within 180 days of final approval The 180 days shall commence upon the granting of Final Commercial Design, Final Major Devleopment and Planned Development -- Detail Review approvals by the Historic Preservation Commission. The recordation documents shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements of Section 26.490 Approval Documents ofthe Land Use Code. a. In accordance in Section 26.490.040, Approval Documents Content and Form, the following plans are required in the Approved Plan Set: 1. Final Commercial and Historic Design Review/ Architectural Character Plan. 2. Planned Development Project and Detail Review Plans. 3. Public Infrastructure Plan. 4. Final Transportation Impact Analysis (71A). b. In accordance with Section 26.490.050, Development Agreements, a Development Agreement shall be entered into with the City. Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street Reso No. 35, Series 2014 Page 5 of 11 .. c. In accordance with Section 26.490.060, Financial and Site Protection Requirements, the applicant shall provide a site protection guarantee and a site enhancement guarantee. d. In accordance with Section 26.490.070, Performance Guarantees, the following guarantees are required in an amount equal to 150% of the current estimated cost of the improvement: 1. Landscape Guarantee. 2. Public Facilities and Public Infrastructure Guarantee. 3. Storm Water and Drainage Improvements Guarantee. Section 8: Enizineering Department The Applicant's design sha!] be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. 8.1 Drainage: The project shall meet the Urban Runoff Management Plan Requirements and Engineering Design Standards. 8.2 Sidewalk/Curb/Gutter: Al! sidewalk curb and gutter shall meet the Engineering Standards of City of Aspen Municipal Code Title 21. a.The minimum sidewalk width on Main and Garmisch Streets is 8 ft, detached. The minimum width of the planting strip is 5 ft. It is understood that potential conflicts may limit the sidewalk width and or planting strip width. While the applicant should attempt to achieve the code width, the sidewalk width can be reduced to 6 ft where conflicts exist, subject to approval by the Parks and Engineering Departments. a) The Hopkins sidewalk is in a residential area and therefore, the minimum sidewalk width is 5 ft, detached, The minimum width of the planting strip is 5 ft. b) Curb and gutter likely ngeds to be replaced except for the new curb and gutter on 110pkins Ave. The turning radius may need to be address at the intersection of Main and Garmisch Streets. 8.3 Excavation Stabilization: Due to the proximity of the neighboring property and the excavation of the building, an excavation stabilization plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department prior to building permit submittal. 8.4 CMP: The Construction Management Plan shall describe mitigation for: parking, staging/encroachments, and truck traffic. 8.5 Snow Storage: A minimum functional area equaling 30% of the paved area shall be provided contiguous to the paved and designed to accommodate snow storage. For heated areas, the functional area can be reduced to 10%. 8.6 Parking: parking must be located within the property boundary. Parallel parking is required for Garmisch Street. At least one signed loading zone parking space is permitted for Garmisch Street. Additional spaces are subject to approval by the Engineering and Parking Department. Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street Reso No. 35, Series 2014 Page 6 of 1 1 .. Section 9: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met, subject to review and approval by the Fire Marshall. Section 10: Parks Department Free removal permits are required prior to issuance of a building permit for any demolition or significant site work. Mitigation for removals must be met by paying cash in lieu, planting on site, or a combination of both, pursuant to Chapter 13.20 of the City Municipal Code. Significant mitigation is required due to the large amount of trees that are on both of the properties that appears will need to be removed, We would like to see a detailed landscape plan that shows all trees with the DBH (diameter at breast height) that they want to remove as well as a proposed planting plan. A tree protection plan indicating the drip lines of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site shall be included in the building permit application for any demolition or significant site work. The plan shall indicate the location of protective zones for approval by the City Forester and prohibit excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, and access over or through the zone by foot or vehicle. The municipal code requirements regarding tree protection fencing being required & the excavation, storage of material, construction backfill, equipment, foot or vehicle traffic being prohibited is applicable. Section 11: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. â€¢ All clear water connections are prohibited (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) including trench drains for the entrances to underground parking garages. â€¢ On-site drainage and landscaping plans require approval by the district, must accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations and specifications. â€¢ On-site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD, â€¢ Oil and Grease interceptors are required for all new and remodeled food processing establishments. â€¢ Plans for interceptors, se'oarators and containment facilities require submittal by the applicant and approval p:ior to a building permit application. â€¢ Plumbing plans for the pool and spa areas require approval of the drain size by the district. â€¢ Glycol snowmelt and herting systems must have containment provisions and must preclude discharge to the public sanitary sewer system. â€¢ When new service lines are requiredor existing development the old service lines (3) must be excavated and sbandoned at he main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements and prior to all sail stabilization activities. Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street Reso No. 35, Series 2014 Page 7 of 11 .. â€¢ Below grade development will require installation ofa pumping system. â€¢ Generally one tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. â€¢ Permanent improvementh are prohibited in areas covered by sewer easements or right of ways to the lot line ofeabh development. â€¢ All ACSD total connectibn fees must be paid prior to the issuance of any permits. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. â€¢ Where additional development wouM produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate' fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. â€¢ Due to the depth of the main sewer line in the alley and the need to replace this sewer line in the future, the District would not support the applicants request for an exemption to vacate the five foot setback requirement from the alley lot lines. â€¢ The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed building and utility plans are available. Section 12: Environmental Health Department The State of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regard to asbestos. Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements, noise abatement and pool designs. The trash enclosures for Parcel 1 have received approval by the Environmental Health Department for an enclosure that is 9' 8.5' x 20' for the trash and recycling receptacles. This area is within the property line and is not encroaching on the alley The trash and recycling for Parcel 2 (the single family residences) shall be located on Parcel 2. Section 13: Transportation Department The applicant shall update the Transportation Impact Analysis report for approval by the Transportation Department prior to Detailed Review. Consideration for the BRT bus stop shall be considered in the Construction Management Plan. Section 14: Water/Utilities Department The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. All Water System Distribution standards in place at the time of building permit shall apply, and all tap fees will be assess per applicable codes and standards. Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. Section 15: Outdoor Lighting and Signage All outdoor lighting and all signage shall meet the requirements of the Aspen Municipal Code. Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street Reso No. 35, Series 20]4 Page 8 of 11 .. Section 16: Public Amenity Spaces The Applicant has committed to providing ground floor public amenity spaces as shown on Exhibit 13. These spaces shall be permanently accessible by the public. Section 17: Building Department Ihe Applicant shall meet all applicable building codes in place at the time of building permit. Section 18: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 19: 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 Jnder such prior ordinances. Section 20: lf 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 3nd day of December, 2014. Approved as to form: 70*ed.13 contea{: 4Â« 1Â«- Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney hviTI is Pen+er, Acting Chair Attest ' 44/12Â»1Â« Kathy Stridkland, Deputy City Clerk Attachments: Exhibit A: Approved Dimensional Requirements Exhibit B: Conceptually Approved Elevations, Site Plan, and Public Amenity Space 61 Molly Gibson Lodge 10 1 W. Main Street Reso No. 35, Series 2014 Page 9 of 11 .. Exhibit A - Approved Dimensional Requirements ..............................................................................1 Parcel 1 of Molly Gibson PUD (Main Street) and 125 West Main Street Lot 2: Approved Dimensions minimum lot size 18,000' minimum lot width 180' front yard (Main St.) see site plan - up to 2.5' variance side yard (Garmisch) see site plan- up to 0' variance side ya rd ( west) 3.5' rear (alley) see Site plan- up to 0' variance maximum height 32' public amenity 1,869 or 10% trash access area 20w x 9' 8.5" d x open to sky minimum off-street 12 (Current deficit maintained) parking sp aces cumulative floor area . 0.5:1) 26,959 sf lodge noor area (1.37:1) 24,672 sf affordable housing floor 644 sf area free market residential 1,5 1 Osf Iloor area average lodge unit size 3 ()4 s f number of lodge units 64 total number of 128/64 pillows/bedrooms lodge net livable area 19,151 sf max net livable area for 1,433 free market residential affordable housing net 607 sf livable area Molly Gibson Lodge 10 1 W. Main Street Reso No. 35, Series 20!4 Page 10 of 11 .. Parcel 2 of Molly Gibson PUD (Hopkins Ave,): Approved Dimensions minimum lot size 9,002 sf minimum lot width 90' front yard (Hopkins 10' Ave.) side yard (east) 7' side yard ( west) T rear (alley) 10' distance between 10' buildings maximum height 25' maximum % site 51.3% coverage total 8,000 sf or 4,000 sf per allowable floor area single family residence minimum off-street 4 parking spaces Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street Reso No. 35, Series 2014 Page 11 of 11 74 1 11 1 1 f 9 k /1 -I. i I ~ 1 2 k t. 1 1 r 3, C t- 11 j.: r.hi 1 -- 4% .-L : 431; Â· 70* 4/ 1 1/AID. 'r-' i Â·. . . a I I' . U.2 n. ~ * Â· 1 le--int..30:Ifi { i ,-/R f .., . 1- . Mf:. .: 1 6--' r. 11 .U,Wiblt..tid\Mit'.-/ 1 1 â€¢ I -' I -------Â·-- O...CÂ·' {Jet'h' ~AIDÂ¢NG. ' '-4/-- ' 'I. DEW(*15â€¢Â·El Â· . t'.O.Â·â€¢NI D.&,â€¢CD i .1-L//-3 173;.... 1 <rÂ·irÂ»Â·~ '-1 1. 1 -'1*Ir.1,4, S 2 1-_37! i. / Â·Â· i-1 - , z 7 '' '' i /1 i i --11 jÂ®f lÂ·ji . 1 1-1 1 Mb H. -, . ~ 11Â· ' -Ill'6â„¢,0'..TO".IlÂ· 1 11 1-----/ 1 - -L- . . .10 1 ..71 K / .'â€¢e.%N 'Al-fo il - i-Ju.Â·-Â·1 I o J...Â»4.m--- i H '1 ' *' .... i IN ill- 1 - 24 1 6 .\., - -- -ill i , 111 |--It/- Â· Â· L.- i 110.72â€žâ€ž- -- 1 U . d : , '' - 111 1 -- 00( ./E .... Al tâ€¢:1.r I li ~ ~1 -Â¥ i 1 /1,00/'.04"â€¢U 1 i . i i 1-1 404-17-- 111 .. , 1 i i li , .1 - 74,1-2,7-r: bvi 1 4. 1,1 j , 1, . ' 1 '&=L'. 1 - .1 : 'Â·-Â· 1 ' 1 Â· 11â€¢â€¢AU * t ,! li -14 . i~ e.49 1 . ..010 ; it.i./1 'rÂ·li.....Â·--Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·iÂ·-*--/--il -----u-Â· -1.Â·..1.LiiÂ·Â·4- -1 -iÂ·-/ Â· i 11. 21.y ....1 ~ 21=UL 1 F -JO=41 -1 ii I . 3 i Â·'h P 4041 mmo , . v Â· â€¢8 '1 ,~ 1,1"r 1 1...I 1 ' 1 11 . ... f. TI,â€¢6'7/EN ] 1 -....... 2:;':!1:1.., 11 1 1 i 1 , [ 1 el 1 1 i i i i i i--- , CLJ,#-Â·REA --ir" 5 t Â®Â®46444*0400 , 6.,~. -- 5YA : 9 1' 1 1 li Â· 1. 1 , Â·i , li 1-,1 t r AL2.0 SITE PLAN 1 1' :ao'.0" '-L_p---: ~ MIGL 1 NOVEMBER 24, 2014 NORTH CCY ARCHITECTS B ~ 2317119; 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 I lilli I! n, 1 - /1 i: --Â·i i I rimmeÂ«Â·79Â° - ~ .-i _,,Lappemee-121wr Â·-4--4iggilidul#:2=0 1 1 i .ill...0.:1 13.'. ; ....71't ,-~ tr.11:.% 1,1 i.11,..C':: 1. :]il ,- 1 !11 .,. 1 n...e.&14/m .. 1 ! 0 -Â·41.fri'2.1 T i 71-2% A.te - I . i i>39!62241 1 i 1' .MA,Â·!*2.-F-44.1 ! .Â·401' 1,:.7.:1 4 :-66Â£'t I / Â· 1 1---- ~1.-9. 31) ..1 1 1 ' i'.9-fl A i %'.~~~ 2 - i i 1 -1, 1 -4-1 i i ~-.Zu, :....li.je.:-i - i 8-?~'0>41*25 4 -1 ' I Lkil >Q.4441-1L- 1 I i [ 1 Â· 1 17 -+MiÂ·..2 - i..Â· ' i -. 1 1 2 __1 IJ~3 2- '.\! 1 i ni- -12 - @i i -Â·13! fiÂ· G'-1.:r ''i i I :6 1 Â·I~ .1 i t 1 1.- f..... 4 / 1 i Uti. I hu 91-i . , . , 1 0.-- , 1 ic:01: 1 1 L-/1 1 4 - 1.7-Â·411 1 11. , 1 . 1 !1! -i.-/.=~ ! . 11 1 1 1.1 1. U -1 1.i. 1 1 --\ 249191 .. !! . i 1 41 -I.V.. 1 i -- : .RUNCE FOâ€¢ KX' 1 : ! 1 - 04Â·E-*Â·%0. 1 . - - . 1/ li ' 4<2.- i I - i. iii 9 -i .:2143-if.*f=.. - 1 7 92=K:*1 - it .1. . i ... 1 014.G ,1, , Pul 1... 1. -Â·' 1'.,-.. 4..4. I -1- --2-Ft. 1 -~ , 4- MLL-zerfif-CJ.22193 L ....;.-_--- :~~~~ _~),i -i,tig=27R-ent~~3-79-1-*-*~~.#allâ€¢G' .'.ovao.El'D i r:2rjm ; i tj I .1, p-Â·-7 4 1 PR.16'~~U~' 1 ......10 1 1,1 i | :glt. f i Â· Â· ' : Â·4 1, Â· /7 - en::MÂ·mi' v V-Oq~ 14 :Â·Â·Â·p-; , 14.3601---4...4'.4(4~A- -*- -~3 Lfj/eNJ * 1 6 4 1 . 0 1 , 1 , 1 1 ...1 1/ 1 Ii./.:'./. /. 1 i I i i 1 1 i i -Un~>-A-Â»t f Tri - 1 1146*444 '211, Â· , ~Â· . 46490 Â» 0 1 1 11 1 1 1-------1, 1 , 1 S Il--1 i 1/1: 1 lili i 11 1 lili 1 VARIANCE SITE PLAN I i" = 10'-04 .7--2--r MGL ~ NOVEMBER 24,2014 CCY ARCHITECTSI AL2.1 Â®@Â®(ma ee@ 3 0 8 + tÂ° Y -r 1,/ 1 .. 1 I. ./ iiI i 1,/ 11 -1 ... 13, ' .gr 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' ' ' . i i iii lilli ! 1 1 1 l i 1! 1 1 1 r.'.' 1 ------------- --------------- I'#AiREF 4+Ii;41.'911. 323->4 1---Â· A *./7/ ;a JA-1 in y -- >.1 --------- -3.U ' - r-7-MUX-~19â„¢222&Â·-SIECJAZ,-; m----- --+ ------------------------ 2.- 7- -- -----4 - M,=il ; i ~ i L-1 1 ~Â·14=~~;*c :Â·-i;Ciaft#i t*914 .... 1 *403. .1.*i!*Â·c:f y.Â·:a.t-t - ~ i '.4 !2 ,7 --203 . ..4/ 1 1 ~ NON:~3;--2 :*Ii ,&1.s-+29 2Â¢6Â»-74*1 ......'IN $....OUEDâ€¢ 9*k!'â‚¬--'06' 7-I'Â·-12~'Â·111 =A l. 4 2 trâ‚¬~3. 1 - - g.1.69:~ . 2 4.1-24, - 0 6-~#%..Y .r J :I :':/ /:. -f**-/*~ 1 1 1 1 ,Â· 42. 36144*1'REI 1 1,57 -24.-9 :':t..1 I . , , . 00-10...4 COU, F C./- .1*LE CIX. 9.322& 9, Da-Â·ti~*EN # 7 . Â·| _- 5:Ap:&41 riz:8 i 2 1 r ... 1,2 ; -' i..,; ' 0., v :/9.---2, 1-et;E. 112!,1 l â€¢ V - -- 1 ....EEN DCUILE OLEEN DCUI/*EN ~ 4 47.L-. ' - 1 1 . Â¢ 0 1 49,1."DÂ·Â·4 i Â·i:, L. .. i. a 1 0- ' I. , 3 1 1 1 '' 1 11 i ! I I I I ' 1 1 1/2,-:,1!411,~.1.13:''i!2124 --1:17: m 1 Ii| 11211Â· -/.1/1.---litÂ·Â·.1 ,. 0 ' i Dll i l i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Iii I i l [ 1 Room localon and slze , Room &ocatton - above? belo/ grade Bullomg areas (Calculated Floor Area, 1 ./ Â· 9.0 /}44/k; -3// 1 _Y-' '1Â·1 J. ...~..........L - ' v. 2 14/12==:-r---a--~Er-7.-73--44 24 1 ----Â·.Â·t- -'1[ZEDâ€¢:I5~â€¢M- '.Â·/ 22 ..I ~- ~~ ~â‚¬,Ei,Â·4Â·-Â·=ZIZZIEniZZL-4-'i__4___I__.7 4=,=i -=1:1- I ; 5,4 â€¢22 i 4 ' A 1 --1-4 1.1. . 'r, Pl n f./-- i '11--/; ur-41-: g. t -dliS--32*r- ... O.4 ' )% /12*Aaf 1 --1;.Lil*i -1*â€¢lltr~~- - m. câ€¢,f' 410"Il 2./ 1....., LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ~ . V 1 -U CCY ARCHITECTSI AL3.1 MGL 1 NOVEMBER 24, 20'4 NORTH ?? Â®@@Â®@e** 0 1 1 1 1 lilli h ' -e 1.. 1 er , I V '.. 1,1. 1 ./4 , i 1 ..... 1... ' 1 '5. - ., 14. #-Â· I Â· I ! /64-- 9/4 .7..JVT- ------'de#Kiv 3.9!:li, /~Â·i : i U.i.. 04.~ 1 'i:,e'/-33 I , r :Al I FrwiNEETSIT47~~ lin' -1 i :!TE .'.9 RI..,4:14~74~.2. 1 ./.1 0,6 ...... , 1 1 1 r.---iâ‚¬113--T 1 ====n ~: iÂ· j -Â· r -i- ~ 1.> :ti>#t.~.F Ci: :ts{:f'~5(iji 4 1 - ': i ' 7.-i-t, 5\ , -4...t..' ...Cljo~.Â·;1'kkvÂ»f.-it 17ni- E ... x.= C UnE Â·EZED E. i - Â·*2 fÂ·X â‚¬2â‚¬4*~ .1.-2 1.-494 ' 1 t.l . 0.0 1.No D~*LE CLELN e. #*,un 9 113-~-G:' 1.'Â· ... -7. +6 1 '7.--i L :1 -f- -#-1 :i; jitj]!J [ ..inin! - Â· -' i i I JR Â·40:41 .311>1 &44:2 +1,Â·.1 4/K - I 11 1 1 1 I x ~:-Â·7:'Â·4~.. 4;' 1 '/ .1 S.4./.Upt . 72... 2.4,2 Fi ' 1 ~ DalLE alf DOUDJ OLEEN Dal'LIOLE,EN DOU,LE all 00'1Â·LECUIEN 1 1 1.- . 1 1 .1- . ..1 --- DarILE CUD, CCULE 01*04 . f.:41= 446'Â·..32X~~4.: 3â‚¬Â·i i! L-1 1 1 1 -â‚¬40; 1 1*El I . F -FT U 4 11 - I I i ..._: f. i.- ... Gn r::111.39]=iÂ·,M:Â·~ 1/1 1, 01 #p -*41-Â·61 4 ie 49?ff 3 I. 4 1 . . h . 1- IC 1 1 & .t-=MI ...=r:!=t..... '-11.)91 3 .2...24â€¢2111 i -fid.~ 10*% i L.:' 2.21. . -:-i Â·-11~:=,idl232.lic,f .:,t ,Â·. ,*,k:,T,,-fs E 1 1 i 1 i ... 1 1 :Â·Ii !' Ihiâ‚¬:11,?: Â·.4::47.,92-154:! , up,4-.~ ~ r-122_--4 ; 1" -1 1 1 1 :H ' 1 1%1 n'-111. Â·4:,'1;1:1,f..i-J.- ..., 1 1 1 1 1 1 â€¢ 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 ... 1-- deor./.9Â¢EtiVEÂ¢Y:#REA, i -. (4-4~11:84: I 31 1111 1- ~ ~ ~ Â·Â·~ r t~Nvu ! 1 1 1 1 1 I -Â·-i i 6 1 *.7399-- i 1 ~ ~ 1 1 I 1 1 1 i 1 ?9 T Roo:niocat~n and size , Rbom locallon - above $ Delov, graae Butlding areas (Calculated Floor Area) Â· A-â€¢ 1 6-4-- 1 r-1~~1~37-75;2;7Zr-:~5-7-15--~-10--ZIma-Â·r-Ir , --, ; .'.le'll.-'........, -1-r-, .4:*,0 -,1 1./ J 9.6.4-7-r - Wr u ,r 4 , '.6.0.L.. ,â€ž11. 4 1 .: 1 M AA - 1 yl 1 .. -2 ' 0_Vt=:;-W&94--a ' .0 71 4â€¢I m. 82.1 82-1-4-t -i -4-14-9 kO .1 / 4 L 1*,VHL .so, 4 14'.r t .alect- 4/4 1,4 f : ./ i c......â„¢rÂ¥~1, r f Ill.'2 Â· â€¢ 15% or..0 ....Â»AI ! : .:-'-wi .I if "a-Â£-. 1 - tilt 'T./4/; 1 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN I usÂ· = % . O .. ril. CCY ARCHITECTSI AL3.2 M.GL 1 NOVEMBER 24. 2014 NORTH 0 9 99Â®90Â®096** to iii 1 1 1 1 Iii 1 1 [ 1 i -I -- 1 ..7. ./ -y i . 1,'. '' 1 r I i c ' 11 -/1 i e i oal~9'..4 00(~LE Clâ‚¬ZN DolÂ»LE Câ€¢CEIN Dal*LE OLCN 1 1 K]No , SMALLOUCEN â„¢ALLOILE. 'Li 3 - 2 ..~ 7 1 ../. -1 ' ' ' 1 - I ./ 1 --i i CXXILE./'EN Â· 1 ! 1 1 13% OCILL OUED, DO**61 0,3Â£0 Dellf ajED; ' DCA,LE OLETEN . DOUILIC,*EN =F- ! 1 - , 00.asM -- ==1== 1 ...2. CuEB L- ' Â· *i 1 1 1 1 C.. 1- ..13 1 1 ~ /--------4 / 9 i _- 1 . il - 1 i ./1:/ t r - 0 -t 9 1 .1 V 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 1 1 2-- \!: i /// 1 1 1 ' i i I i.Ai- -. ...i It v [ 1 lit f ft RoomlocaUon - above / below grade Building are,5 (Calculated Floor Areal Room location and size -1 Xâ„¢*2-01#-1 EL'.92 -wâ€¢:i,-'-7-e ~â€¢==04=,=C-- !'~---k=TE-,'4-11,9....,JU--thnis v:b I m . 1 -1 ... ,-,~f Â£6 : .-1- ., * , ./.-1 - -I 1 e.., -7 f 4-- C- -â€¢ ~ ~ w4:'3 ,â‚¬* 4 - [tgat<Â· 3,47 1 '*â€¢ ... Mi. E ./â€¢f .:- -Â·1 2.-Â·1'Â». 2-*B-* '-#-1.-E 7,1.1 f'-.v, SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 11/8Â· = 1.0Â·-1__.-Â· O MGL 1 NOVEMBER 24. 2014 NORTH CCY ARCHITECTSI AL3.3 Â®fÂ®99***9*** 30 1 'F. 1 [ 11. 1 0. 1 ./ 1 .S , 2 .. 1 # 1 -=J , .r K.* 1 ' 4I ' 1 -7 : rÂ· f .i' Â® I ...iff Can.... DOL,LECIED DOJ,U... . Oculd OUD' -., 1 11Â£2111 i . .t 1 ! i KING Daisuol.' ocul....EN 'CLal.'IDâ€¢ 0./.CUE. Â· i KING , 2 .. . f - 00.18.OUEEN -7,77-7- 1 Â· . ....121_ 1. ... 1 ' - I Dll 1 -- -1/. 1 ,1 1 li . ...rÂ·A.....1, 1 : 0,., 1 ! 1 - ....-- â‚¬ 1 1 [:L'- F=NTt:; :7=t:1 160' 1 1 1 i iÂ·- _.*. 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 i i 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Room 10<890rl ard s[72 Room kiati Â· above i below grade BuncIng areas (Calculalec Floor Area) -bely.L GFLTriSTâ‚¬r:KFQ-1~9 L=fler-*"**-*- i pc*'-~I'li<";-.ti=-.-h=-FE--~-/- v-f- 43=n~_.i 2 - 21[-11; 1-_I.t~ fil t~ :' 1 Ns/-1-3-4-'* V... *#M*-1 ~ - Câ€¢â€¢â€¢' - .-I â€¢4Â£.2 _ ... r..0,~11â€¢â€¢Â·â€¢1Â·.7. h b.'Ikf,Mâ€¢IA.,0~*141 1 672/.'' .i *-lu ./ 0;~ 1 1 #*~ I ,/.1 5'I<- THIRD LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 1/80' = 1'0~ Â· Â· Â· Â· O MGL | NOVEMBER 2-'.r.-~~ . NIORTH CCY ARCHITECTSI AL3,4 - 1- 1 . i .: i z ! 1 1: -4.4 'i 1 : iii ! '- I i! 1 0. . -' - I ir-1 . .1-7--Â· 1 ,Â·A,J//C<21 .. 0 . -*'Mi ?.Â·11'Â·'%1~L~ ,?.4.LL'.911 ' I Â· 1 i 1 1 -1.-2- 1 1 Â· i.*,2:>trF~ .0 r..11. . . I.:14.. Â·, f,2Â¥lÂ·1 1 If} . â€¢ /1 - + . ' , 1.~.1 > -1 =93,1 1 i 1\ 14 19 - 8... 1 1 fi : ii 0 1 2_1 ' 'r---q p 1 .-- 1 d 1 4 E 'ECIA'ICA'AREA i i 4 ...1 :t 1 1 1... . It b q r- --- Iii .~ 1 It Â«,tt ~'. 9.â€ž L ZÂ· 11 + 1 .1 0 . 1 " i 0 ' 'I i , Â·U ~ . r , . (:0 1 '1 4 , 11 1,1 ;It ;1 1 ; ! M .9. ' : i . : 1 --~ - 1 1 ;10 * f ;, MI : i f :ill ;ill.! Â· i 1 - ,-----1 1 M i - Hil jÂ·; -221 ' a I- -7 -~ <- ~-...,--: i - -i 7-6--11Â·--1.4,2. -- -Ipli=tt-zinc i .,.4 1,1 H ji Wh~ ,,L i: 2- Af.t- *.1 ..far---p~ 1 El !12:1 4,2 1 1 1,11 1 -. I.â€¢ i 1 : i-- 1-i .!- 1 ; 1 1 1 Â·il i " hr.*.1 --i li ? L- 1.-It l , . 1,1.1 5, --0,--1-84---- -zz----------2---------2--'- 4- # 17. 1 1.,- i iÂ·,=C-/':' - 1 1 1 1 . - 1 1.1 did ---1 e .law ..a Â© 8 e 03 4 4 . 1 1 - -1 1 . .1 NaTE '*FLO(>:*FAÂ·â€¢1.M*C-.MO 3-- 7 -----Ti---: -t-~~r--r-" ---- ~~ rÂ· Â·R--:.,n_ -1 /1.:k- 1 , SI....... I. 1 | 'i ht' 2, 1.7 ---I+---- j -1--5-*Vl *:cl, 1 - ...ar 5 3 ' 1 2 Iii ROOF PLAN ~ 1/80 - :'-0Â· Â»L- MUL 1 NOVEMBER 24. 2014 CCY ARCHITECTSI AL3.5 L... r .1 4 i i 4. . .._-icÂ»:-42;:26.---,Â·--AM# j *1.uÂ·i:>2 Â·*>:c-- it.*L. p LO'Â·7 6. :0 'Â· I~ -,'Â·49-3- ~Â·* f~-'Â·1Â·m GÂ·ff#ff.>op:Â·ty -*9-2 :Â· S) Ljt Â·.'R",1 4'~ 1 -ci:I/- 9,;44-; â‚¬Â·r-Â·,--.| ~- .--7|~ V h W Smiki .7.:Fr| r~ i ~r ~ . ' 1 1 11 1 El .'1111 ED . [ 14 1 , '*98'9 :1~/1//7. 2 1 ' 1 - '//73 4 LODGE - NORTH ELEVATION'l i FELY--:. 7&74.Â· ... -i- - f-*'Â·J 1 hâ‚¬Â·-4 -i .-'---:C-- 47,17~~4i"'4Â·â‚¬.0.-i~JU~~7~ f-Fyi~ E-v- I FQ.r. k 0/ , -'t -1-61."M "-- Â· Cw'~-7 '~' 4 71 9 - . 1 4. 9 JA d *.-T-*dii* - r 46/ F-< -1 1 -1- . 1~..1: r....lj--.2~-~-4'-~~: ~'~~-<4*3 --t f.<--IR-ZL%<~, 0,7~,~ --;'-4 "579Â£'1-rÂ·, Â·Lf- '-' ' 1 9 I.TXA,Wo. SCÂ»l h % 41Â·~: ' ' ../ . ..11 -:__.Li,04/ . I , ' .. U 1 1 t] 11 111 mI -r:;1 '%7'' til;lit"R *PÂ·Â·131 -- - . 2 16*.. 'E.2244 jittzit-P'biet _: i I .-,- ~ENEâ€¢Nâ€¢-:co z~: 11 : 1 =.. LA,au ~2*46EEil~ , 211 'i<ki 1Â·,3Â·: VAP,2*58bod. .-i_f~.z,if*~4#05Â¤-4.%31**Â·EN[4'..... 4 lito.~ ~ t 1 144 MWNSTREETWEST<,2 --:z-Â·-----9,%.:.TE:-Ir==IZA:-=722-7=ZEZE:U-J:I:ZI.-tur==r'==It ; 'f 12Â·7yfl LODGE Â· EAST ELEVATION I '-/11 ELEVATIONS I 1/8. = 1'-0" Â»C- MUL 1 NOVEMBER 24, 2014 - CCYARCHITECTSI AL4.1 t' i. -ur#-+ ~ r Â· A R 1 -4 t- :1 1 . , 41:.'. p.1 12 1 4 =12 :1.. 'J- - . ~.-3 .iÂ·--> ~Y. :.~.~1 :.-.-: L.Â· J 1 1-- - . 1 1 1 59. ff I E . ibilk=iT:S WEId@ L'11 IFI' Â·1/'11~ i.- M 'ZI:, I: ik@; 1, ;Ii! Â·:Â·Â· Â· 4 hui.4.:5>Â· -A-4./1. i ~ IER@ 14 11 IL=--1------ Â·Â·,Â·Â·, u E' L .: 2 - 02 2.24~4, '1-~ itrâ‚¬32_42-~3 i 2. - .3, - -- 494 1 _ - 1 } -rt ' ni. I (--Ii.]T'f': T.9 -71' Pr*19-tâ‚¬~~t~-:Â»ra'' 13 [ra .ti -11- r I-Â·; 72~Lf;Iilt~t ~ 1: 1. f.li ': ..' 4 1 ./ . 1 ce.:. l. u , 1.1.11:13 -3-V.- ;-' Ll-,4-3*. 1,& 1,11; 1:, Ld .4 .1 ; 2(0:2;i-k 1 :; tr ,!EL?4..11Â·Â· i . 7- ..1 F 1 .1/. I -2.-J,4 0 1 1. U.N..: 4 ''0Â·ABCI 1- Â·-LUS â€ž .il 1 T ' , 2, , 1, 1 11 2.-:-_i:. :Â·--3-I.ZI--12-2-0-- :I-ZIE --Ir-- 226Â·-3 2.z-: 2 - . 22-c: 322 z -zzi rrTTIZZ-:-- LLÂ·:2 :71-r.ZE--:22.-:2222.-2 ----_222_.-â€ž.~0-7. LOOG E - NORTH ELEVATION - WITH TREES i 1 r 1 , I 1 : 7.., r, 1 ' :-. t,l k 1 -- ..1 65.1\ -1 I. , f 1 LL ' - - -:. 121 : ..i,U~ 9-11 1~ -1212 . 121: M.; 1%11 El. 41'-4,_- 11; litii'w! l:!41,11 El p 11,1 ili i'1154 1 i'; d "7*." 171--, 1 1 ~. 1 Â·~tÂ·,1 -1 u, 1:,112:...i. 11.2-i /1.-1 -Â·, 'i.,i, 1:Â·Et ' 2~Â·1 ~1Â·*i Â·:. - FU. 11- Mnial . ..L-,I- -- ittirt -21=-3==- f~ 1~~-- 1 - --Â·UNEE# Ii- 14,21313/3/W~31 dlfi i.#MA :iNE'I :243Â£ AiM'll 4~*FfM#;|LN 441 -1 4 9 11 I . lur; 1-flr:.Â·.ELL El -7:7;Ii=.ErATRI) ~ IFILIg TE,RiTITIFET M 1!- ;-i 1 1 . 1 1 1 - --- EEG Â®1*,1 LODGE - NORTH ELEVATION - WITHOLTTREES~ 7 ELEVATIONS 1 18" = 1'-O -- MGL 1 NOVEMBER 24. 2014 CCY ARCHITECTSI AL4.2 . . -.--I -- - - - Il'.,11~4270;imidili[Al c'' -- Â· rblf -Â·:Â· 43. 4 --4 .. imhozÂ·Ze//i* INfix; 1 ~ Â·Â·1 ,H 1 1 i -i. .t 4Â£ i '.i h f?--PA Â©13.4Â» R,%1 . ..1 f*>A It' .......I-/. I -I- LA<......p. ...,4. LODGE - SOUTH ELEVAT}ON~ 1 E'U....9.41-St :ti., DFA,:%29:-*.--2546:~Waicv-11=..23.-~.--..-C..9. ift) 11.-44,41, -+ ER .3 -i.:f~-.. 93#k*TES:.*f/LI?trot:JL.1.1:-1.--3 -- 3.... .. 11..Â«....2 1 7,3â‚¬ 1 ..1 - . -Â·....4 -. ~-.. L â€¢ -,1, *.7 , 4.......1 . -1 4. .....-~- ,.L't-Â·1:0~74.Il#Wfll!. i A.1411" 6.,Â· -' Â·- - -,-zi.- . -ZE.L. - ---i :1 - >Â·._ Â·4 - Â·flf-"i--:37.--A---1.- ... Â·Â·, 71-1-9574443Â· 44 11 411:Ilitilid I '.7 11-2-5 --4...,4-:C.:i Â· IcÂ·.1 ,- 01 1 00. PECA 7 1 !; lillIHIi . - -- h. I h.' 4. &'.. C-)41 1 ' t it. 1 2 It :: )...... i,li MIN!!!- A i >ft,1.i..Â»1.- 11 / 0 {,42..:21Â£11Â¥4-12-27: ..:7.7,2,4 K P ' i < i '/;1~~//99 : $/ * a to/d~:-''qÂ·PGQ*jf,Flj'h Re,#Fpr' 5 4 I UAL. 1,6 9 74' '1 rÂ·Â·LÂ·~.~.>. % m~Ili jr E I Ill IFF f 1 + Il -- ---------- T---- ----.---------- -- -- - LC,VERÂ¢.21 COURTYARDVIEW~4 LODGE. WEST ELÂ£94- Â·i-:Ircâ€¢ ....: 2 1 4 91 Ell'FI 1 :Â· tu !1:9 -ill it 621 'Wi....,-4./ ELEVATIONS I tls" = 1'-O ' E--Ch---f MGL 1 NOVEMBER 24. 2014 CCY ARCHITECTSI AL4.3 . 40*Â»10941% 9 1 11 11 -1 E 11 U 1 |,1 'L 82 1 j ? 9 i- - 6.--Clit. J , " -! 11'F=-Al=-1- 1= :r>.=- . .2 - . M. . ir im--A-, -1Ar Bril - I \ -0.--11 lf/IniT-\OY- ~~~r'* -- ... - ALLEY - , u [7313 .-/ -1- 4 1 ... f | - 3/0 7 17- 131 F.- .,6- 1 W U~. 0 1 \ 4661>/ -1 RES 2 Â· I.TOUT'â€¢ I.Â£â€¢,0/..- - â€¢PERLOCATION 1 711- 8 11 ---- MULn-STORY FRAME BUILDING ...2-1 - 0 0 4 4 HIll -- le 1 -2211 KI - 1 rn,- ; 4 -. 911-Pk ... _ 1- . 6 EGâ€¢isS LICâ€¢,Tnâ‚¬u ~ 4 | ~_~ EGRESS L*EU SELOWCPER CODE - - r .. WicÂ». (PER COOE; f .., I - r-J . 11 L -â€ž- I TIT Â° - PORCH 1,"s.Low 61 r. B 1--7 . 1 1 CA~fi 40Â»g~JEIg!**pj < ~ - i rer-w, 1 , pr / / ' - HOPKINS-- - HOPKINS - HOPKINS STREET rn ARCâ€¢ SITE PLH Â· EXISTING A -C. SITE .U -OPOSED RES. SITE PLAN i .r 10'-1 *-- () Mal | NOVEMBER 24,2014 NORTH CCY A R C H I T E CTS I AR2.0 NISâ€¢~*ITE ADJActhr i 1 VIIDio:>- , 1 ! 1 1 .-'11 :li 1 1 1.....L.-1 - -1 -r- 72, 7-3 J i I 1 1 --3 1 1 1, 1 --<.I , '5 1 \ .111 1 - 1 -,2.Â·IC- L--Â«-9- 4 b 1 1 L_j L_ L.J L 1 1 it , -54 i 1 1 1 1 1 -12=01 1 1 1 1 1 1 143>1 - '1 1 4%-7 3 f ~ME:i:r 5 '2 u=.Pei:* 2 * Â¥- aDCEâ€¢r .'& /- LI- t 0.0 ;â‚¬ 1 Ill.- /3 j , Ill 1 , 1/1 ~'T, ,-Â»C.-0 â€¢,1 iii ..Â»T...C, 1 111 1 1 1 2 iii I It iiI 1 1 4 (-41 A M,â€ž4 L EVEt rn LOAEâ€¢ DEVEL 0 1.00â€¢ i.q RES. FLOOR PLANS I 1/s' . 1'-O" Â»ns__- O MGL| NOVEMBER 24,2014 NORTH CCY A R C H I T ECT S I AR3.0 8 0 91 0. 4 47 V it 111 1 C- 0 1 1 f ,-6.-9 i ili =-1-- --- Jj , 1- -l ... -I---44-= --- ri .1- - =6. 1 b.11-.32. .... - . --1--- - -S' M.....0. - -- 1221 UL-HJ ~ 2 1=36%1 i 1 1 *.-t'im -71-,1 --Â·.Ul B-tâ€¢ .'El.-E./ 'lÂ».0'1 4..,1 V --- U U -- - ....7,9. b.~---9-F---1 ./ 1_ AAS-,TI' -r=U 11[ 1.,S .,5 t OUP-.t i 1-,A)<4 .,1. -Mocar--1 i | a 1 4 b 1 : 1 1. 1 1 1 9 1 iic 1 - i T 1 1 1 , 23 i -i C l=.9 .-. 'Ch ROOF P.AN P UPPER LEVEL U 1 f . i '.,r RES. FLOOR PLANS I i 'r = 1'-0. Â·r-LJ--4 C) MGL | NOVEMBER 24.2014 NORTH CCYARCHITECTS AR3.1 - f . - t Â·-, ~2.'-Â·... '-Â·.:Â·g~.,~~..7%7-Al !-- L , ..I! 1 1 . : .1 1 1 1 f .--*..- ROOF DICIL-~ q.f 1 . 1 PU i /,2 ./. 1 r I J Â· 05~ ---- - -- - -M.Â·-''ir - 7 6-7. 1 1-1 -1 131- 1 40*1 :41-4-1.:-=31.-IA :Al 11, -CE,AgiEi Â·. - - --1- i , A. 2297457 - -----1 Â· _ _RiAL- --9-44%%-1; 16?J l =m J ,--. i =--1 FTE-1 #' RE laGE Â£51 4421 1-, . -- ..Ck -i = ==- , , t *-1 -Â·Â·i . 34,-EVE.Â£_Â£ Al": 412.1 ., --rel=. ...Q.1,8.EVE' ./ J.efle'Eva .. ..,on, .. . -Try-v ah RES i -EAST E'.EVANON 5-A REI 1 NORTA ELEVATOâ€¢ V ill. i <r U t..1 7 .... -92* I. D Â·/ 1. 1 , - !2_4-,-~T-F//-)7 ...0': --fi *- -*~ * \--11 . .... I :-9 SNT# '7-Fy:L--1'23 Aj\; --Â·., Â·t, - IOOF .... ./ --I -71 -019 r- Ji i .las,A 14 9 T Â· r 1 71 , i51 , 2 - Â· - -77 7 ... J â€¢ - fit:L I. -,8,/1 e. -1 - -60-Eâ€¢â€¢â€¢~~â€¢I.'Â·r 0 - 1.- Â· r.i i 2, 1.' 1,1 2,% Mil> Lim -7 MAIN LEVEL A LOAt' UMU_,3 --#t o ay-Â¥\, T>:V-r~ A *ES 1 -WEST ELEVATION IA RES ~ . SOU I FLEVATIO. ty pr . ite U 1/r - l'q M ' 44..4-7,1 t //EMT-- P ':1 93= hi *.- ~ / ~ ~Y-47/1 , C -ALL E'EVATIONS ....0 7/ 841./ h A ' i -CREASE IN SIDE vâ€¢â€¢D SETBACK ew :1.11.-,EM~ -51 Ii....:,1%31 d C F,Q* '.~07% ANDALL ~001710* i RE"'"SHOWN 14 FLOOR a.ANS Â»:12 ~1,â€¢ ia ~Iâ€ž..I. h:-ILL.1 i'...1199 j'. 99' 0.-1,Â«kj rÂ© souâ„¢ STREET E~EVATK)â€¢â€¢ ,+~0-,N~ W hil~ â€¢ 1Â·q RES. ELEVATIONS MGL I NOVEMBER 24.2014 CCY.ARCHITECTS IAR4.0 ' .1 i Â·" .nunt p 2-L_fl'. _ -- - ~. - -Fi,~29129191*-----fl---:e=E~MEld==' , ROOFIECI ./ h -- -- -li.38,Â¥-I. (ilit-ge,Â£19 ' '' . .] .1 - n 1 Â£ r.-91. El 111 1 -1 1! 1 ...R LE,â‚¬L I. *2]ii:"agE,Yl ---al L--a !,4 02-1 6,4~bl 111 il 1.tziLI I :4 -~MiN L*L - 91-L - 1Â¥121 , 1. 1 1 1 - --EN. 1:90; LOAR 'EVELL L. - I - % --~2./. LE.n ./ -- -- #11 A RES 2- MI- ELEVATION ,~ RES 2 â€¢ OM: ELEVA 710% U' tir - t. r V. f-:3 7.-'..'f:--97.- L t.li.ty:.:.'21 tuff. :t , 111 :1 -;if~Â°- ; 414:1 5 8 1 7,4 .2 - 74*-.Â·- *#44,4,114- -5:..46.1~-F.-.4,~~~r . *, 11-Â·#7, i . 'i - Ff===24 -0 X.k - .AeRE,101**Â°79~ -. 3]fl , , A ,& I - I Â·Â· P rx .... -7~V~" Â· Â·Â·Â· Â·Â· ' 8 UPPE' UVE. ./ 10.,-0. - 1 - . - - --1-e *%-G 3-12%=1-2---- - ~ iII , ~' L 1~* ~21 1 7 ; - 1 CEL] it~~reÂ·o M 13 .4 UAIM LEVEL # 9 141 -4 Fll .ID a tr9 .. 658,9 Afeli-*in@,7 .CWER LEVE .3 _ Â· _ . ...1Â£5'U LIVE~ 43 17Â·.CO~J r, RES 2 Scl:â„¢ Eu:vITK:* A '02Â· MET ElvAileÂ», ~ 14- - iÂ·Â·,r <EE==1 9- =4.-.FF-'>.12 .7.2 14 ~,9 >~t FU,Mr"--1:*ify*M-c~ -,-".--rÂ· T-,A .-iÂ·rl.-7,Â·.57_.f;.7 >-2-2624-51 1 1. '42/7-5 6=9-' 0~. 1.... 1 1 - f 1 9222.-1 Â·I:LE'EVATIONS RE~SED,OS.O. i FIC' / TOI ./O.-L ADOnON. 4 F l; !; 1 i i ![ Il :I !. 1 ,Â·Â·1 '1 11 1 1!!' 1 REVZÂ©,43 5â€¢0- IN FLOOR â€¢Â·LANS 3 UjuÂ«..,Â·-L,Â·-4/ .ET fLEVAT~ON *.1 0-. 11 RES. ELEVATIONS MGL ~ NOVEMBER 24.2014 CCY AR C H I T E CT S I AR4.1 , 0Â· RESOLUTION NO. 18 (SERIES OF 2015) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT FINAL APPROVAL, FINAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN APPROVAL AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -DETAILED REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MOLLY GIBSON LODGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 101 W MAIN STREET, LOTS 1 AND 2 OF THE MOLLY GIBSON PUD, AND FOR LOT 2 OF THE 125 WEST MAIN STREET HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2735-124-55-800 2735-124-55-005,2735-124-55-066 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application for the Molly Gibson PD (the Application) from Aspen Galena,1LLC (Applicant), represented by Stan C]auson Associates and CCY Architects for the following land use review approvals: â€¢ Planned Development --Detailed Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445. â€¢ Commercial Design Review - Final, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412. â€¢ Major Development - Final for properties within the 11istoric District, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415; and, WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in effect on the day of initial application - August 11,2014, as applicable to this Project; and. WHEREAS, the Application for the Molly Gibson PD proposes: â€¢ 68 hotel units with 68 bedrooms in 20,575 square feet of net livable area located on Parcel 1 â€¢ 1 affordable housing unit in 607 square feet of net livable area located on Parcel 1. â€¢ 2 free market residential single family homes located on Parcel 2 in 8,000 square feet of floor area. â€¢ 12 parking spaces at-grade spaces on Parcel 1. â€¢ 4 garage parking spaces, 2 spaces per single faniily home, on Parcel 2; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission adopted Resolution No. 35, Series of 2014 granting Conceptual Major Development approval, Conceptual Commercial Design Standard approval, Growth Management allotments, Residential Design Standard Variances, Demolition approval and providing recommendations to City Council regarding subdivision and Planned Development - Project Review; and, RECEPTION#: 620666, 06/12/2015 at 10:08:55 AM, 1 OF 25, R $131.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street Reso No, 18, Series 2015 Page lof 6 .. WHEREAS, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2015 granting Planned Development- Project Review approval, an amendment to Growth Management, and Subdivision approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received updated referral comments for Detailed Review from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Environmental Health Department, Parks Department, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Public Works Department, and the Transportation; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Application and recommended continuation; and, WHEREAS, all required public noticing was provided as evidenced by an affidavit of public notice submitted to the record, a public open house was provided by the applicant to meet the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.304.035, and the public was provided a thorough and full review of the proposed development; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on May 27, 2015, continued from April 8, 2015, during which the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were requested and heard by the Historic Preservation Commission; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 27, 2015, the Historic Preservation Commission approved Resolution 18, Series of 2015, by a six to zero (6 - 0) vote granting Final Major Development approval, Final Commercial [Design approval, and Planned Development- Project Review approval, with the recommended conditions of approval listed hereinafter. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Approval Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Commission hereby grants the Molly Gibson Planned Development - Detailed Review approval, Major Development Final Review and Final Commercial Design Review, subject to the conditions of approval as listed herein and as described in City Council Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2015 and Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No. 35, Series of 2014. Section 2: Subdivision/PD Plat and Agreement Lot 1 of the Molly Gibson PUD and Lot 2 of 125 West Main Street Historic Landmark Lot Split are hereby merged into one lot: Lot 1 ofthe Molly Gibson Planned Development. Upon filing of the Subdivision Plat Lot 2 of 125 West Main Street Historic Landmark Lot Split is hereby removed from the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. The Applicant shall submit a Subdivision/PD agreement (hereinafter "Agreement") that meets the requirements of the Land Use Code within 180 days of final approval. The 180 days shall commence upon the granting of' Final Commercial Design, Final Major Development and Planned Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street Reso No. 18, Series 20 ] 5 Page 2 0 f 6 .. Development - Detail Review approvals by the Historic Preservation Commission. The recordation documents shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements of Section 26.490 Approval Documents of the Land Use Code. a. In accordance in Section 26.490.040, Approval Documents Content and Form, the following plans are required in the Approved Plan Set: 1. Final Commercial and Historic Design Review/ Architectural Character Plan. 2. Planned Development Project and Detail Review Plans. 3. Public Infrastructure Plan. 4. Final Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). b. In accordance with Section 26.490.050, Development Agreements, a Development Agreement shall be entered into with the City. c. In accordance with Section 26.490.060, Financial and Site Protection Requirements, the applicant shall provide a site protection guarantee and a site enhancement guarantee. d. In accordance with Section 26.490.070, Performance Guarantees, the following guarantees are required in an amount equal to 150% of the current estimated cost of the improvement: 1, Landscape Guarantee. 2. Public Facilities and Public Infrastructure Guarantee. 3. Storm Water and Drainage Improvements Guarantee. Section 3: Engineering The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering 'Department. HPC hereby recommends that the City Engineer approve an attached sidewalk along Garmisch Street. The following shall be addressed in the Building Permit application: 1. The drywell lid should not be placed in the ADA aisle, but rather in a non-ADA parking stall. 2. A greater amount of runoff could be directed to the pervious pavers at a 2:1 ratio to utilize the paver sub base for WQCV as opposed to directing the majority of the runoff to the drywell. As stated in the Drainage Report, pavers could be lined and underdrains directed to the drywell. 3. The green roofs capability to treat stormwater should be completely developed. 4. The entrance to the alley needs to be improved in order to meet ADA and City standards. 5. Identify utility pedestals serving the property. Relocate all utility pedestals to within the property boundary. 6. Locate any new electric transformer within the property boundary. 7. All sidewalk, curb and gutter must meet the Engineering Standards as outlined in Title 21 and the Engineering Design Standards adopted by Title 29. lf the standard minimum slope cannot be met along Main St a formal variance request must be submitted. Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street Reso No. 18, Series 20 15 Page 3 of 6. .. 8. Snow Storage - A minimum functional area equaling 30% of the paved area shall be provided contiguous to the paved and designed to accommodate snow storage. For heated areas, the functional area can be reduced to 10%. This area should be shown on a plan set. Section 4: Building Project shall meet adopted Building Code in place at the time of building permit submittal. Certificate of Occupancy for the free market residential component is only permitted after a Certificate of Occupancy is granted for the lodge and affordable housing components of the project. Section 5: Environmental Ilealth The State of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regard to asbestos. Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements, noise abatement and pool designs. The trash enclosures for Parcel 1 have received approval by the Environmental Health Department for an enclosure that is 9' x 8.5' x 20' for the trash and recycling receptacles. This area is within the property line and is not encroaching on the alley The trash and recycling for Parcel 2 (the single family residences) shall be located on Parcel 2 . and shall be identified as part of the building permit application. Section 6: Transportation The TIA report submitted with the application and dated May 13, 2015 is adopted. Consideration for the [3RT bus stop shall be considered in the Construction Management Plan. Section 7: Water/Utilities 1 he project shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. All Water System Distribution standards in place at the time of building permit shall apply, and all tap fees will be assess per applicable codes and standards. Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. Section 8: Parks The project shall comply with Title 13 of the Municipal Code. Planting of trees is not allowed in Bio-Retention ponds, nor can the location of these ponds affect the long term health of any trees that are proposed. A Tree Removal/Dripline Excavation permit will be required prior to the Parks Department signing off on the building or demolition permit. Tree Protection Fencing shall be in place prior to any construction activity on the properties and the City Forester or his designee shall inspect this fence before construction activity may commence. Section 9: Outdoor Lighting and Signage All outdoor lighting and all signage shall meet the requirements of the Aspen Municipal Code. Section 10: Vested Rights Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street Reso No. 18, Series 2015 Page 4 0 f 6 .. 1 he development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: /01 West Main Street, Molly Gibson Lodge PUD Lots 1 and 2, and Lot 2 of the 1 25 West Main Street Historic Landmark Lot Split, City of Aspen, Colorado. , Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approva]. ' The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of 1 nal development approval as required under Section 26,304.070(A). The rights of referen um shall be limited as set [brth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule C harter. Section 11: 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 1.'evelopment Department, the Historic Preservation Commission, or the Aspen City Cour:i] are hereby incorporated in such. plan development approvals and the same shall be compl ed with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 12: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending i nder or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall t Â¢ conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Molly Gibson Lodge I 01 W. Main Street I Reso No. 18, Series 2015 Page 5 of6 .. Section 13: I f 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 27th day of May, 2015. Approved as to form: -- -- ~~~3*A-a~o~ /bel,urah Quinn, Asit=m City Attorney Willihfehiber, Chair Attest: ~rf-JAA â‚¬44,~k,Â·uil kathy Strfeltland, Deputy City Clerk Attachments: Exhibit A: Approved elevations, floor plan, landscape plan and site plan ............................................................................... Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street Reso No. 18, Series 2015 Page 6 of 6 -- 11 1 c I ! / 1~ hrid l , 1-1 . 1 La--1.... -1.., 13-1,,~ - ~ ~-~/Â· U~|~~i~ll-,~ift.fot. Et.1-[ill.t)-1 -1.9..hb(EMFER y -i hI - i H 12/1 4. .) 14*f./ 9/j.j~.G 5 il I %%*Utf 0 ,_ -1 Â»=-4-15 -1-41'F\.<fi--417t - . --Â«3* E JA 1741- T ~\ -4\4#1 r--i--- - 1- - /.{ 0 cftn,t-1 , -1 1 lIU \ 1 1 .-t.-24-1--41 LÂ»44-1~--j--4 FL~ -fliq-=---flka +,--.~i fur-I=r==C_L~Ul , fr-4 1 & C-n 0 1 .79- 8 \ / 41 LA> 7/f-Â» ; 7 :11-1 561 inp-- i E 1 ..- .. 22-43 -10-10'...01 2 1 Ul-Â·CFR -1.1 -4 13*YE- A- 4 06/7-- Al - --' -Â·n - 1_~_r _. 0...__ __ ./- L1 77 f ..P- 'Pr 11 1 /4kv.4:)p:Wijftbt~-,IP --i-- IF= 44Â» -1 L 124 Ie. 1,;6-k- , ,FÂ» Â·Â·= 19 11 . - ..44.. %... ..... .... . ~~ c.j ~Ch --'vYLift..1 -*Ii gli:32t[~Itt]_I[U - - ,--- -+- i r- r----1 let 91 -â€ž 1 0 1 1. \ -1 EN ' 1 1,3 1 1-1 4 51 7 1 I ir 1 \,r - ' ' # 7'1 f 7 u. IC G ,1 Â° i 3 Int?fl-1-12. 14 ~~-~~'~~-~, 2 ~~ ,~fÂ¢f>-111-1- -----1--?'drtl u,1-3---IL~Z ' 4-fie,H-I-[ h i. pl fr~~113-â‚¬91%<1~~92/9 1 i F WJ-Id'L! i]-1.1-1 ,Â«Â·n Â·Â· Â·Â· 99 1 1 - U . \ 3 1 N 4 . / ' 1 ' --1- . , Z -11 - 1 , / 113 0 2 -_----' 133819 HOSInth,9 1 / i -18 . / 1 1 O 0 0 : C r. DATE: SHEET: C C Y :ESTAN,CLAUS.ON AS,SjOFIALES.I.U.1 ASPEN, CO 81611 LO.01 101 W. MAIN ST. 20 May 2015 MOLLY GIBSON LODGE ARCHITECTS ~C,IUM,;7121,7-~- ~ REVISED LANDSCAPE PLAN PID#273512455800 i 04 0 Â·xk i #1 ' ) 11Â¥~1Â¥30~0~NOC . ./. I."ll..... losrrno ... AlNO S3 30601 NOS}910 11100.1 1 2. , i i j 61331IH ONÂ¥'*33 33:,EN Â¥ T ' ..' I.'I.' r F:k. ET f / ~t ' 0 9 p .7 ./ f, 4.,~4144$.~ 44<3ttÂ«- .1,h'- -4 1.L:Â·.2- i .''-= ' 1% 1 - 1 1 It 9: 1: .. 12 1. } 1 â‚¬ f ;' ''-/. ~ .4 3- iTt 1 1 1 [ I ' 12 i } f . 1 , 1 ~. , 4 I . 1 .Ii! 1 .5 & 1d,! ' 1 .Â·Â· Â£ . 1 11: I : 8 lilli: . 1 1 .11 -,1 f :7- i. 1 ..... i I ' - I ti:. 2 Ill 1 . ... 1 t i . .:. . t'. - ~ 4 1-1- Â·06 . 4 - 1.9 4 . i ...i f..:1 : , .: ..1 I ..1 :,3.... '11 4 Mt . 4 i , 1 . 19; It . 1.22'41-1 '1 $1 3 tri,.1 1 61 1 f J. .. ...1 4 --'-."-- ~ '-214 b t: - ' -~-1-Fil---fi'.Â· i., ; (2 ! I %~. 1 ', ldâ‚¬LL 1 IE : F I .1 1 I .7)(-J .. 00 L-1V i, i./- 'A u i -~ ~--~ - - J -~-1--4-17Â£~ I 1 i - . P X ''. . ... 'I '. 4 .. ... . . . t. . 1 , 1 N/S Ste fiectio, at MN Co,â€¢te, : 4 ( N/5 sUes-tion â€¢t NE Coing' b 1 1___ -_21.i 1 OATE. I ' i E.SUE .-JU. ..@LW I' li : 1'////1// ~TEPTI-lk=.772,7.....7.1 ..1- Â· i - : +' & 3-*./.-'-:, 1 E/VÂ¥ Site Section at NE ComET ~~fl . _ - -_ _ -_ - _. ri ;1 K.' 1 F. 1 1 ' 11' 1111 Ill, 5 11 1 i I.F....FT 'll r ! i SITE SECTIONS la a ill --, ic ... ..~.WI. 7694 $ . '090 722' 1.1Â· Â·Â·3Â·1Â·=L-~ _I ~2 Ii, 2 2 1- - r. 1-12 721 -= 1 .2 2 00 - ALA 00.2 t UN Site Seejanatintry},1. L - - --- = S1331IHONVA33 1 39(101 NOSSID ATIOIN (4 1- , SÂ»; ' 9 1 + â€¢â€ž-- tâ€¢ ~ '1- ~ r~~ ~ ~4~ . Â·" Â· 'r~ 2 1. 1. r,Â·.j,:~, LU 1 1 0 c: .,0 1 4.2 1 . + 6 1 : 1 7#441<43;MA,4--- -w.--94---b-*--,9. -- ' -#1 ' . --- 7 2 i Al :1 1 ~ 4 -7 1 ' I j ~ *:.Â·l i ..I.L,":.- ~ i ~ i 51 -1 : 4- r. .Ir , 1 4 ---- , 1 Â¢ ~# Ha ' 1 r ' i 1 L_ 41 1 . . , + 1 15 .: il, Â·,i 1 1 ' 1 1 -. 1 i i LE i 1 : I ' ' m -hi 1 9 -- L-1 i: ...t -t i 1 1 , 1 1 i, - I f li 1 : 1 1 1 I i !! i 8 1 i 5.-' . 1 1 '. . * 1 ! i i 3 DATE } 1 i i .:fÂ¥ NE. : iii . . ' Â·Â·~ - --- ...21'- fROJEC NUMBEA * %Â» h i â€¢ aft-73=--~ r , - I. ' ' ! .,1 1 .... ~ lit- 1-1-L-_ 1 Â· - Â· 1 r 1 4?SIC#V i --7-7/1-241221<Â·-: 8 . i U= a.. 4 1, 1 1 ,} /1 1 -,4, i ' . 1 , I I !,i / .1 1 1 I . , li -6 .1 1 1 41 F $ P -1. , 1 11. 1 1 1: 1. 1 11 . . a r : 1 '':7 N Â·I j} . ' v:>p' 5 1 . 1.1 ; 0 -9 . . 0 . , f. 7.1 31:'9; .'1) 541 43 (f (32 :f.fij , 2 . <'1 /j. -ri. 14/ 1 47 =BÂ· -- -1 E----"~~---*--7 P, 1 1 L.___-ir-TO-ErÂ·# i !1 1 , i : 1 9 VARIANCE SITE ~ - - PLAN iii S 1 311 I it r AL-101 S 133 ..1. IHD VA33 (]01 NOSE]ID A 1001 .. T F C r -1 1' F : j f i 2--3 1 & I. IV i li 711 i ~111:i].2-l-r-f.,~1.~~;:fr, ti i!-11 1 1 -J -1 1 1 1 11 1 1 +1-1 -2 1.-- W. 47.1 -2=jr 11 . + - 1 1 1.1 .... 9 71 - r I , ' 4- -.1 - 1 i.~ ~ . 1 C m 11 - -11 1 ?D. ':*4*1 + 1 i 01 - - 1.' 0.-*-- i i Â· Â·63.; - i 1 4,; K 9% 1 f 1 6 0 1 3 5 3% 1 E-17 ilt ,-- li / p ~ I '' liÂ· 01.L.I.; (I C .97-25 1.73'ri 1 -*â€ž6= 1 11 C Â· - 1 , 4.. 1 -1 R Ill i 2,1 2 #1 i i 16.~AU--m 't .141~i' , t t LL-2- C>% ~ 11 * - r-# Â» 1 I ElleT-.1 I li~TR=I| f 1 i.lim. 1'0- Al' F- i i 2 2Â£4 gil: 1 I-- 1 3 w 1 -1 I :/ A Â·Â· I r 1- 11 li ~| 1~ ~~~ E~~~1,~ It -- 11 - 1- 1 / : 12 â€žge.1 -'' 111 1 1 4 0 L f -11 f ..3 r . 1,1 - -- 11~ ; C y.-, 1. C.2 - _ - 11 1 ' 1 .9 C.,/t.- 1 t 1 1:-4 . 41 - 11 - 1 1 4 1 11 1 i. .1 -1 1 -- .. 1 1 , . 0 11 - --6 - 1 - - 1 i 0 I a!' ij} 414{j CCY ARCHITECTS 2 i I 1 f j ~ MOLLY GIBSON LODGE : Â® C .. i i Fe '11'. 1. 1 1 11 1 1 1 1. 1 1 r 1 1 1 N /1 6 1. ! ---3 1 -7 i r. , $ 1 1 1 - k ~%~4M~*0~~~4-* Â»k~Â»*~A-* ~f~~004~~ 1 ' 11 '' 4 --11 1 i .*I 4Y. I r 3Â·.1 1.,.1 1- ft= 7-4:: rae=L:.Â·Â·, =-Â· â€¢9 f : ' , 4) 16! L 1 It li;f...-0 it-1.~- ia:11~1 - 4 ./ r.)(3 2 1 -6. 1 , [0 % Â·Â· Â· 1, Â£ F -Tst . - Â·Â·Â·Â· 1 0 ) , 1 J - itÂ·~ .../ i IM IL 14 1-. 1.- ~ TRCEIM77~ t 1 k-,11 U h 4 6 i=4 (52 i<> Ca i j 7'*-, /R :1 >' %,Ajt Â·~k~.~Â·~-1 # il ,- 1 ,~.-1 Â¥- r 1 1 .In ) I n - rt ~ 1 ' = L $ 0 -; Ci:-4 F -311 : 10, :f 1 Itt< i @ 1' r , 1 M â€¢ 0 1% -1 .( \ j .2- I :I <,I- <I) . 111 -, 1--1 m -- - 4.-7.fir -f:i'-'"13-V, -4 ~ 1&'--~4-fl---arli - I. :,1 211 i LL i_p '9 '--1 1 1 L i --21 21 10 Â· 1 :.rA n. 10' : / I i 4= ,1.11 1, / 1 C I r ..0 4.'JL//1.1,0 . I. 1. 41 .-..~%.1 Â· 11 4 i i ., 64 ../' i 1 01' 1 I I A 1. tÂ·Â· !Â£ 8 4 Itilo. - gl i , i 1 1 11 ' % c .f#'~.*'~ 93 1111 ' Â· 1 f 1 Â·Â·Â· â€¢Â·1 ~i 1 f .? - I k 1 72 1- 2 , 1 [ L.1 ~ :L 1. 1 - . r. 'f, f 1 # , 1 --D .1 1 , m Iii 1 11 ./A *-'1.-~ _-6 !Â· :. 5 , : 1 t Mt 1 : j 11 -*9 1 11.l -2.' 1 1 1 7.f 24 : -1-=t .: r '0"l. '# -0'4 * ~'Â·~A '' Â£'t~IC~ 1 $ 1Â·; 0 11./ ! MI 2 1 ff ;Hj ICCY ARCHIT E(ITS .Z & i ; 4 4 1 . 1 ..... .0 1 1 1 k m I ..11 J 1 Z< 1 1 r- , " ~ MOLLY GIBSON LODGE 1 & ./ kSÂ¥ 1 U 2. )/. 1 .n 11 111 r : 1 1 F- 2 1 , . - ..4 r 1 11 F I : i 1.?! 1 4-1 i i i 4 1 L- * - - W- 1 -' Iii : 4 : + ' l 1 ' * I .--0/V '... . "ll A , I L 1 't ... U: 1 4 it>-- - -/- 1- V uju i 1 . 1 1 1 < 7--- --'3 ! i./ : 1 i: 1 11 %; 1,1 . 141 Ilili - 1 111 1 i li t i 1 ... 1 1 3 1 r-------~- - 4....,40 -,â€ž56--6 .-'.M*---,---'.-,--,----MW,p- 1 3 F F.. -! ROOF PLAN t'~ 41]i '17 111; { 0 i. fe ,$ 'Al 9: (71 3 4 , AL-114 NOR i,â€¢ 0311 HONVA)3 1 39<301 NOSSIE) A11O 2 , 9) 13 / a ~i) * 64 A Â» a 1 1 * I f 4 - 3 -I , : U . ; ' f En t . 7 19- 9 M-- -M M 1 1 1 '.=1 ..'..1.4,4i1nill j ~9Â«27 1 ' I& . 1 1//1 4 ' 1=21 73 , : iÂ¥- -1 1 It kit *t' 1 1 L Ii: i It , ~ Â«1- C 4... , d t...., ....- -- .... 1.1 1 , } 1 , . - A 1-4- . I 41.T. ~ ~AA44'et. --, 1 ~---- ...Ak-'Â· >ell DAU / 1.OCCE NORTH E>.EVATION:-, 4. 1 0) 1%SUE 2*ri~FETNUMM* 63 1 03 : , h / 7-4 1 1 *kr#- ' ' I.*.......'...'ll.-'*....-...... ' li ! 1---~ 1 --- 1 -:r j r-Â¥,-L,- 1 f Ent{ 3 -%2 r i I.- -.I 11 . f 1 t, , .Fl, e~ ~:0 11| 1, i Â·, 0 -ca. - -4---3~4 -1 2 -L==Lu=, icl -r-2.2..'LI '/ .. -~jUT :C_-Ef 1%&. 18 1. 1 1 1 'i|~ ~ 3 | i.- . Li. Â·~ .i ~ Â· 1 . -_1 Lil 1 + - __ 1 1 S 1. .1 Ill MAIN S'l REE r WES T 2 -Â· OVERALL '- El.EVATI(DNS O(3â‚¬'gE- EAST :}.f.VAVIDN~1 /1 AL-200 61331 IHONV A33 30(101 NOSSID *110161 LOZ-lv t 531, fol.1.10 , h -NO,Â¥A313 HltiON - 39001 i â€¢r- ill 901Â¥Ai 13 -trim 11V833A0 E Mill 4 "..... 0~,set ...0*r:-i- , 1 . s - 5 1 1 1 2. 1 4 ! 1 1 1.. 10. ; E----t '~ Fl u U U U U-2 1- - ==11 J U U U -1 /9 1 i L_-2 . . 1 $2:$ 4'i . Â· ' 0/ /Â· 1% ' 0.) Â® 03 (91 (4 40 (13 43 1- 24 6, I .â€¢ -- - h'OiÂ¢$. 4/. /3/re, , 33 0. .X>Ce 5.31 -j 2.â‚¬C *i 'â‚¬=i t' 53331 H.IM :01Â¥4 +: Â· NO:1'VA--13 ,-1 HON 39001 <. 1 11 11 1 1 I f. f E-- f r -1 P-3--1 [-7 --ir- Â·..... i Pr-1 1- 1 - 30 u_.=* Le,: S j. 9 0 Â· r- ...1 1 : 11 I 25- , I i ./// h 0 i 1 + Jit h . J L "/=m - r ~ Â·Â·Â· / i I - ft-_1 9 1 -1-~- 2 Â£1 1- L=J ---r IT'-t ~ 1[1- --WO 6- --2 11-1 , 1 1 1 11 1. - .- - --" ~ 10Â¥'W'**07%1 n 8 1 5 b Â·;Â· L--_....1 : i k H 4 6 (27 -. . ,- + /11 f .u' 6,3 4 co v J E 449 (0 ':40 u.,i VS .%'. )001 NOSBIE) A-1-100.1 ~ ' : t" > (f op (14 (-0 '..... 03 41 (â‚¬ I.37 V 11 2 <It: 40 LO V 3 ; : 1 1.4~*k 2% A UJ R ~5 - 1 -Â£ r - W I O u B E-71 3 r---_*57--t'=q Â£ Â·r,;.*' Ap= ~*:~ ~~~: 4 - - T -~~~~ - â€¢, . Ii, 1/ 11 lili i , 3 U 21 'Â«Â»U j .O-%42 f p--i]I f i.Â· i jiq ,Â·i i 421.'.i[ i ~16*Â·1.,4 e R Z 1 m 11 - 2A<% 1 ' W 0 U 2 7 / 4 .VÂ»t.. i LODGE. . SOUTH ELEVAT}ON 3 3AIE 1 /11 ... ./fr- W...4-2 .rÂ»j 2 } i 11 ~ , . ~~ ~ 41 H 1. i .1,5 7>>PÂ¥ Â· UIL -U +IBL i1 I .1 L......... ' 3 =Ilm 1:11 *,. 1 i -*--. 1. r'~,+ 711 116**Â·iC) Q.L w â€¢>irr~Â·::.- 1 -* --~ 11 11 1,~ 14< -M-Â§8*el' 1# ' 1 r 81 1 COURTÂ·YARD ~EW 7 . t.00{35.1,NEST ELEVATONil F !, 1 I OVERALL ELEVATIONS AL-202 U LU -- 1 4. â€¢~r . Fiâ€¢vilpr fÂ·â€¢i iiI râ€¢ rÂ· ~ -, r. â€¢ 00â€¢.. â€ž,m,q-Â·, â€¢ Â·â€žr,i i, F ./. 1 --\ & 1- I. LLEY - ALLEY - ., ' --4-- â€¢5Â·0Â· 1 . .. r 1 -- 1 - 9 'i ..' #M&AD - ./ ' ,| 0-in--r 911 .-1 1 f-7Â« ./ - 4Â·1Â·-Â¥r-1-- RES,-UTIUTY t,; i . i --Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·I----- Ar,4*Y METER LOCATION ..7 1 1====1======1 Ill t 1 1 6/,1 I -. U 3.0 - -11 '.~ 1--~c r-=Int 1 1 1 1--~---P---t---R--t--Â» EGRESS LJGHTWELL I j .ZZ./-- . -- ... . O-* .* q. EGRESS L]/In'VELL i ., r.4- -- -1~1 i k J 4 BELOW<PERCOOJES - -lkE-=~E-i , 1,â€¢--9 , BELOW(PER CODE) ' I - 1- 1 DATE ~,4 0LTI-STORY .ARCH 18.20â€¢5 IS5UE: L_111.-Â·1? HFC DETA'~EM!NAL El-DING . 1 11 .Evi PROJECT NUMBER: *| 1. -1 1 lili 1 1 - I- - ---MRESSLIGITWELL - 4---1 1-1. 1 8.Low/PERCIDE) -V = C~*ClD~â€¢ 1<. 1 -A. 4 lili 1 1. 1 1. 1 / 1 b 1 11 iiI -- MISTONÂ¥: i - - 1 1~f ~ 1 1 - 1-= 1 1- 1 1..1, 4-1,~'yl lei= r-- i.-4 j 1 u =3=1==E al il-! f 9<41 â‚¬ PORCHI RCO. BELOW . - 1,1-9-Â» PORCH ROOF BELOW 334 1 / 111 11 2 1- ..1 .2 .- *.3.-- 4<.1-:,TY#- _ -=4=*----TL EXISTINGGRADE, ASS.E.) 1 l--6-~ C==I==1-)-1:.l A_ -- i - 1 .â€¢ 1,9 ..' '1---f 1/ 1 114, . -J'/ 1 1. 5 EXISTNG:REESTOREMA,il - - - _ 1~ , ~ RE LANOSCI C&% A 1 - C 1,_.:4-2-118:- 11-02 -_.- .__---Lf1 '/4 -- RESIDENTIAL SITE | 3/ Â· PLAN HOPKINS ~~ ~~~~~~ 4--STREEr------- -'zÂ·-----~ - -Â»3-2-2 N~HAp-Kid' ---3~65-~- --2Â£4"-wh~ I -= - Z 1 . ARCH SITE PLAN PROPOSED ..t U 1-HO- - , 1 IAR-100.1 <ffft-t- 16.- %26*liC#--5*&-u j NORTH ====== CrlÂ¥Al 'Â·i- 1 S33 N3(]IS38 NOSSID AllOW ~ ./.''rrw ADJACENT WÂ·*â€¢'171 3- 9 -9 , r L E ~~ H 1~. > 10- . ncr L 1 . 1 1 1 . r- _ _ _1~47)Fi : i r....4 1=G.221:- ' ies ' I lw.-9 11 A ' ~1.hÂ« UDI 8,/ROO. 1 Je~gJ Hu, 13-Or 'IL--1 -1 - ,. . . .1 A nv llÂ£ 1 7=07~r7 -0 CE)ce /20,0 - .RVÂ»O 1 1 1 -UM'r,o 2 BE ~ - LE*a, Â» cUrt Â£ 1 ELEV '-0.031 1 -O-0-11 0 9 n 1 1 .- Â»D ( U 1- 1=mi 1 1-79 9 k L v, f -- .1 1 1 lu Ill[ IÂ·Â·-:: --1 L , MARCH ,.. zois DATE. i 1,211â€ž - 1 ISSUE: HPC DErA]LED/FINAL 7 1.1. - 1 Blew F ,'1 ~ | PROJECT NUMBER: /1 10 or i=04 4 Ff-naA -1-- '40,7 1 Irrz.=23 1 1 '. 4-0 [LB 1 9 j 11 0_-31 [__tl 1 0.... LO -ME'.... El. TTORY: .C - j U. In . ek- 1 1 mnmn I - Â· nmr.rn 1L L_----, Al MT-- i Â· -rn n - . 11 ./ 1 E 0 ; 14 1 /lili': ~1 11 9/0 2- 1 - ! - -â‚¬Is 11'E I i. Â» -- - -&-0 42 -4 -373: b -Irjlf--737.-------- 1 i V iv H " rf 1~ i E 1 1 1 il Â·I 1 , RESIDENTIAL ' FLOOR PLANS , 11 1 1 It. 1 1 eal AR-110 rn Lov~ER LEVEL 0 MAIN LEVEL (ARCH ELEV) 0-C = CIVIL ELEVATION 7894-5" NORTHI S1331I HDMVA33 i 53)N325331 NOSE]ID AllOIN .. ' 9 1 1. 1 O + O 0-9 .... 4 . 2117 %m i 115// 1 1 T. i 121--- LA- 0- -~-ti-9 2- Â«9 1 1 9 - ..7 ,-1-/-' 1 â€¢90â€¢1 'En,â€¢C. $0& 1 T . -.:1- P . : Illili -4 I. 08 1 . - ~-1--l- :-- 44) 1 1 E ' E r---------,- -7 1 r . I 1 1 J 1 1 1 1 " 0 19 4 F#*C~ d-F~I- 2 ; . 1 1 m /.4 1 O 'U LIE ' LEE.--24 In 91 1, CLOSET , 1 LJ IN_ -i 1 ~| 1 1 W *=THEE=~ r> p==11 9 11 )11 . +" 41& L-9134 -JU r-44 0 $ P Flft- 1/ 9 4-Ul ~ n ~ n. i T ----1-- 1 z -*-7 - g --- C 1 (/77 -. - ---(D 00 T - 1 -- 3 4 19 1 1.\ Z , 11 1 1 11 h Â¥0:M! 3 - 1- ~ Â»/45*3 >"819 Mi"9 4 47 1 C H M : 04; 53 â‚¬ 9-2 1 . 10 -11 . -2 2 5 {1222 %% CCYARCHITECTS Ifil k g 2 .1- 2% 3 15 3 . L z A YE 2 : 9 MOLLY GIBSON RESIDENCES 1 2â€¢ 0 . .' p I. V =1 p '19 4 V e 7-9 - f E F f Y 9 I lilli 1 ....:1 III -1 -1 1 1 1 ' -4-6 2 11\/ d -= -2111 i LÂ· ' 0 ' ' 6 -7 9 INâ€¢/ M .ea, I .0 \ LI r\*1.4. O,-- -rE-=t 7 h lt_j-1-1 . Â· I -1 -Â· 19 b El 191- v 11 - - -1 1-240 LdÂ· - 9Â·U- 1 , ~ITC* 1, TOâ‚¬â€¢ 1 , 1-0* M I (-1..11: 1--M U 1- - - 1 4-1 11 -- Ill . 1 .1-1 DATE 5 7-1 MAI?CH 18. M ISSUE. 11-1.9179 1.. - .---- RPC DETAILED'PINAL REVIEW - PROJECT NUMBER: T- AR 24 2 r mW â€ž.U .=LIT 2 241>2 1.1 ./9 'R~.= Â· 110,7 2.AR74 L.... D,0VV .Â¥ -,â€¢tt,toBV 1.6 MiSTORY 4 13 ! = < ial'. v IL= A-J . 1Â·. 4'.L .*12:L . 1 . 1. ral 1 E-6 111 11. U L 1 1-- -tyy-G~.~- 44 -. t~, 91-= .~J '%~2~_ 12/' _ _ __ _ _ r FÂ¥Al P:yFAM 4 ~ i ,â€¢,â€¢A FiTFBrÂ·~ I RE 2.UPPE. ~ *CE' ---- ~ DEC* 4-T 0 - 11 - _ _-11__ L --1 4==11 t E- ~_ ____ i 10] 3 1 mUU ' ' i OUU - , ~ RESIDENTIAL 1 1 . 1 1 FLOOR PLANS 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 rn--1.-n 7 X AR-112 4.4 (AR 212 0 V Gh UPPER LEVEL V 1/ier - 1Â·-â‚¬r 1 MAIN LEVEL (ARCH ELEV) 0'-0" = CIVIL ELEVATION 7894.6" NORTH 6 1 ":2251Â·5311:7 i : 51331IHONVAD 53DN3(]IS331 NOSOID AllOIN e e A ~~ (~) D 5.2 * h '.2- V 'r V e. 9 H 1 1 -- ,A- -11~~3~]4-------T- ---t------T 646---~ I /' 4 0 0 f 4 -1- --1-r 0- -.-3931-86 ---- Lu -2-f --1---4 j--1- 1 II lili Rot,;AE,!,SEDTOD'EPDCM-~0~ I u $ I I.Â£,~â€¢rli~*~CO~~'LAUCEÂ·~~ IS f' | 1 Le---EjÂ» â‚¬92 ~1 -1 ----y ~82Â·PCX~LA.Â·EL Of 92- ----- 1 21 1 i $1 T ERR*DE & lot TUR 11 It U U 27 11 1 - 3 DATE: ' IZIZEZE*F-- 1 .#.riAT MARCH 18.20. 9 1 . -1-- -1-1 1 1Â£11 HPC DETAILED' FINÂ·Al ]SSLe 1 1 1 , 1 , i /]~ REVIEW paojEc T NuMBER 1 1 liti 1-low L.7 - L--1 * u 1 ---1= 1 1 11~ 1 1 1 / r 2.*A.N. CCâ€¢ 24/'ED. E. I HI$.0./. =Ii-T- 1 1 1 1 Hor----1- 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 9 - (34 - Ill : -.F~' 1 1 9 li- 11 111 h i./UAST *xy 1 1 . -m.:2 - 1 1 1 - 1, 01 - -1- 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 '- 2 - -L- -- -t in-, \1 1 'ERMACE 8LOW mES 2Â·OCCUP~~E 11 1\ 1 te 1 1 + ........'I. 7.-1-1-i ~52 VOIUM.LE PORD- RIC ../4 1 1 1 - -3-Â«Â«=-0 1 1 -L J _ -It- - - ROOF 'LANS RESIDENTIAL F .1 4 fir 4/ 4 L-_122-11-0--ccur=~ _ 6 ; ~~--4-~~~----- ruj ~itut ~iÂ©p ME.01â€¢UN Gul./.216f~- U U 3/IS-- 1 -Cr MAIN LEVEL (ARCH ELE\,0 0-0-=CIVIL ELEVATION 7894Â·-5â€¢ NORTH Db41~---!%45>18-~ C.h., h'â€¢21 mÂ·~77â€¢MI--u.Â®.hâ€¢/.= i S103ll SBON)(115321 NOSSID ATIO 1212.u'!11 9 f f- 1 1 1 111 4'll). " i '1 1.. .........0-4. 1.1 1../ ' -I-.' j a 'MPER'ETERHE-T"'--91 1 2-91 L/Â«/L/! ' PE'/ETE't â€¢LASLAEME,I. )1/ L â€¢0â€¢1'1â€¢â€¢-.9 A .1...10,1,Â£Jc....5- ) + 1: 1 IL , ' I r V f W )|%|! 1- 1 1 1 ~ /1-1.-2=z-k g=.21i.Â£:21-41: 't 1! 11 1 Alf PEURVÂ¢QZ_,~ ~ all '1 \ 7Â·31: I. 1 ~73 L ~ i l ~ Â·. I 2-4-~ 2.4* [-01 j L.'-'L/-Â«_~ ,r'Â»'-v-'-~ - 1_ - IE]- -1 1 - i,-1 ' 7- -4-7-7 h -v.*-- _---1- I -2- - -)_ 128Â£RLEVEL Â£ .Â· - - I - - â„¢1,4 19Â£%-1.h 1 1 i p 1 1 4.-.4- i U :E g i 1 11 1 ila IE DATE: 1 1 al MARCH 18..5 ISSUE. .~ DE-AlÂ£D~ ANAL - 1---1-1.--,7111-------2&.94* Dt~E#, PROJECT M,MBER 140~7 A RES 1 - WEST ELEVATION - 00./. C. C.... t. H15TORY: - W ':... 'rr 0" 04.â€ž <i#ET_ER;,El@T'EASL.Q@Elhol , -*dE.*16. a --=--7**n:=I- 4 | t 20 - 3 1 - 4 MOF DECK-WEST A. ~ ~urÂ«JÂ«Jj 4--- I 1-1 '-L- M . -- 2- __ ___ __6_2_ 1!miâ€¢1'VE: /1 0 Mij_j 61#r,/9/ 1: RESIDENTIAL - - - dMAIN LEVE' 0 ELEVATIONS -~Â·-_7Â· - -4 -Mf,-MAICÂ¢Fil 3-~-- r r 4 0.1 ~ %3--' 1 r- 11 ! 1 1 ... , / ~,1,Â¢Â»1 , .1,OR UVIS...O ~*JU........... I I. < ...1,OPIENT......O,~le/MI/4.OEâ€¢LAN)/.u[CllÂ·- C '~ , 1 L ./' EhOME. 4--62-~22~--3-----628~R.LP(%-G L z...â€¢E,0.ER'Â«30EP~ Ch-E./.AR/*T.. 3 Â£ AR-210 4 \JÂ«_p'VÂ«yÂ«.yÂ«_pÂ«j tuÂ·-'uâ€žÂ«._pÂ«j-? r~ Rp 1 *OUTILELEVAT]ON ----- L/3/16--1-aÂ· "-79=-0 *;K*-=*-- 61331IH0NVAD . SBON3)5331 NOSWD A-110 0 83 1 1 . lAi UUXÂ»Â»211 ' 2 /'INE/R 'E,cÂ».T â€¢w.AEâ€¢ENIJ 111 , En M-1-41 1 11 I' ll! i~' li :11 111.1111 6 '1 2 1 ~GLITEEEpir=*Or /]{ 1 1.11 1 1 1/ 1 1 ; 1 :i' ' 1 ' ld< 410 1 1 I "Lf: mm-z.. RQQUEQI-MaL/1 1 1 1 431-=.3914 4 :~ 1 1 It 1 -.-I- lir, e-,Â«.1 u BF[.8 UXU_Â£h 1 1 --14=9 ...1 9. 2 4 i ' *01 , ! 1*11 L-1 Ir-E -4 1 1 1 1 1 1 11-W J , ~~ - 11 1 1 U g 1 - ....I-'' 11 DATE. kiIARCH~[,2015 JSSUE. HME DETAiLEWINAL 13 . I. PROJ ECT NUM BER. 1 OWEI LEVEL /' REV!EW 1.1017 I HES Â· - EAST EivATION & .6-â€¢ 1' J -.Bv C. 2,Â«â€¢ES- (SG MMTORÂ¥Â· 0371 1.1 C PER@ETEâ€¢-78'aw-RES 3 *1 PE,Lit~.'*tic'.19'rf!, 11/ . ... 6 41-1__._______[__ 524Â·.-iÂ· - -F'tr--7-â€ž---7,gi-- :.EAVE'.taCEl!@27 5-0 5 c,veâ€¢Â·*iâ€¢.gwg Qi' I *- /Ml ROQF.UE2-*SI_A 0 -- 20Â· Â· 1. /. 1 ~ 1 I.44"I .46- - -1- -- UPPER LEVEL ./ ,/ Cr I. RESIDENTIAL =MI[. L/VEL,6 ELEVATIONS -..0-0-1 7 11 1, ~ L/LiÂ«/ ..E 1 1 11 1 1 /-Â»ry,/-Â»Vn0/,-Â»/Â» 1 1 1 1 ./. 8/.1.... -- '/1 . - --1 41 RIS 1 - NORTH ELEVATKON ........TY-'m \-2 346- - 1 Â·C- AM;/r~IA--.03..5,1&.1, â„¢Â»77-â€¢=71 1..- S1331IH3 S3DN3(]IS3M NOS9ID *11OIN 9 999 1 1 1 1 / f Ils,â€¢C// -L~ . murni.-'i , i gre'â€¢.19,1.FIE.... r / 4/25~,~.I...1 MIâ€¢ETERH~(TWE~-116â€¢~, i UÂ«31=Jocy - U I Â·1 1 1 1 '4\ _al- lucia ' 11'.dll IIi !11 ,! 19-6 1/2- ./. L.,Â·Â·AjÂ·-Â«-2 li /1 11,1 1.: 1 P, 1 4 1 i p J' 4 1 -' li 1 111 ~ B , 1 ' - Z 1 6.-r- -/1- ...â€žT...4---1.. 1.1 IIi 1111~1 TH , 11~111~ 0 1 1 -1 4 - __ I .uee,R~P~ke 4 , 1, 9, il j. '11Â· Â· ~ I 11 ! 4 1 11 P :it 111 11 i I 1, Â· lili i ;111, 111 111--I--7- 1- -2-- ---1 -> 1 11 -I -r-1--- M /' 1 11 J' 1 ii 111Â£ 9 IL 1 <TE ..1.Â·1' 1\luz .Ii_,J~ 111 lil i 11111:1 iÂ« 31]111 --INNUM)* - J . 11 r. - 1 11 DATE. UARCH.,2015 JSSL'E: HPC DETA1LED,1 PINAL -1.-0. 1 PROJECT NUMBER: -'22=-Liyu.*3 Pe,EN ,40,7 Â® 127.1.-C WEST ELEVATION 1>Unav CO 2-tc'10- I*1 T- 93 - e H.10.: all ~LI /21,0 1 ~ PERIWETERHEOAT~E~1~WE41~11 4 1 Â· pEâ€¢oâ€¢E,â€¢â€¢ lo,â€¢T â€¢eâ€¢â€¢ZI# 1 1 1 1 01 43 9 511 E 141-1-1 EAT-:- 6-# /~Â»/h,Â·-/-~8 -- Q'DE-2Eclâ„¢:_2 L-Ovy MÂ·jÂ·t F0--- :. . - I --2.U Le" 10.1'iliji . lip.-2- :1 ~ - Â· RESIDENTIAL , - -JIA221-CbfuzZAR uivELÂ£ - \ /hr./-V-h I cy I L. ELEVATIONS ! 1 I~L_.r-M' 1 '(9*6 â‚¬, RES 7 -SOUTH ELEVATION I. 41.1 A.--1 /0 9,Â· Â» | &.-IL frb~.. M 47~77~ZI--,qâ€¢Â· S1331I H DMVA33 S3DN3aIS3M NOSSID A-11OIN 99 9 93 ./0 - liot l _1, \4- / r-t)/-...< /0~'.Tk.I 7+TEA~r*~EWâ„¢1;J 1 4 PER â€¢i"i,â‚¬0â€¢ry .D3iiea,6 /f / I. C~â€¢u.i.0-1â€¢ATOâ€¢00 t.7-3 -0-06% 1 ./.*.$../.-.-Il- I Â»90Â»X.Â«//1 / - - â€¢00'â€¢0,â€¢r-G.â€¢riaâ€¢rca.â€¢u...' i â€¢r i,Â·~,1-V-Aa.-.7 1/ 1 1 , 1 \ /J{ \ 1 11,1~ 1. Â· ---111* - ------- -waR.LE=*3 --0-Iill'.lul'. 1 gl-'i I if-61 --24-1 --- --i =. 2 1 - - - --- -- 11111- '311 Â«t.-7.-1 - 4 1(;9%-- - -Ma!/1&11*~ L) i L.-lit-,-236 u DATE: M....'8.2OS 1 HPC DETAEED/ FINAL 15.2: 1 1 PROJEC't NUMBER: FEVIEW $ RES 2 - EAST ELEVATION V 3111 6. r. =-0Â¥ CO Z.Ey[68â€¢ E. 7 7 7 0 U~,Ii ~U ~ =/2/ .Ii.... /Â».Â»n 1954'~ 147~ *g.'-9.V P V.*-.0..~U'.r R #\ 9 1 t---11 :I Â·- A m - ---VQ.L.~iyff*3 j Â· j I UPPER LEVEL A ..7 J -9--,In ill 111 J il m RESIDENTIAL 1 -MALN L CIE-_8 ELEVATIONS 11 1 6 ill 1 - r--L_J-il' C./ VOIME. . --- _12NU LEVEL -1 iryÂ·~ â€¢NO. Eâ€¢K=IRÂ»,0 ./Xzzi_-~-'r-' +413)~ n ./2-NORTHELEVATION .Â¢or......-I. V 1,46' - 1.0* 2/*1.---1â€¢06!~16.-k C..Al ''I #â€¢77Â«S --I'-I--&" S1331IHDMVA i 533N30153H NOSEIID X11001 RECEPTION#: 617290, 02/10/2015 at 10:52:33 AM, 1 OF 25, R $131.00 Doc Code ORDINANCE Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO ORDINANCE NO. 3 (SERIES OF 2015) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPROVAL, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - PROJECT REVIEW APPROVAL AND SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MOLLY GIBSON LODGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 101 W MAIN STREET, LOTS 1 AND 2 OF THE MOLLY GIBSON PUD, AND FOR LOT 2 OF THE 125 WEST MAIN STREET HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2735-124-55-800 2735-124-55-005,2735-124-55-066 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an applicaiion for the Molly Gibson PD (the Application) from Aspen Galena, LLC (Applicant), represented by Stan Clauson Associates and CCY Architects for the following land use review approvals: â€¢ Planned Development - Project Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445. â€¢ Subdivision Review - pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.480. â€¢ Growth Management Review - Replacement of Existing Commercial and Lodge Development, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. â€¢ Growth Management Review -Lodge Development, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. â€¢ Growth Management Review - New Free Market Residential Units, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. â€¢ Growth Management Review - Affordable Housing, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. â€¢ Growth Management Review - Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing, pursuant to Land Use Code c :hapter 26.470. â€¢ Commercial Design Review - Conceptual, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412. â€¢ Major Development - Conceptual for properties within the Historic District, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415. â€¢ Demolition of properties loc ited within the Historic District, pursuant to Section 26.415; and, WHEREAS, all code citat in references are to the City of' Aspen Land Use Code in effect on the day of initial applicati, n - August 11,2014, as applicable to this Project; and, WHEREAS, the Applicatic 1 for the Molly Gibson PD proposes: â€¢ 68 hotel units with ( 8 bedrooms in 20,575 square feet of net livable area located on Parcel 1 Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street . Ordinance No. 3, Series 2015 Page I of 12 .. â€¢ 1 affordable housing unit in 607 square feet of net livable area located on Parcel 1. â€¢ 2 free market residential single family homes located on Parcel 2 in 8,000 square feet of floor area. â€¢ 12 parking spaces at-grade spaces on Parcel 1. â€¢ 4 garage parking spaces, 2 spaces per single fumily home, on Parcel 2; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire Protection District, Environmental Health Department, Parks Department, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Public Works Department, and the Transportation Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing, of the Land Use Code, a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority is required and a recommendation for approval by the board was provided at their November 5, 2014, regular meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Application and recommended continuation; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.445 of the Land Use Code, Planned Development - Project Review approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.480 of the Land Use Code, Subdivision approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 3, 2014, the Historic Preservation Commission approved Resolution 35, Series of 2014, by a 5 -1 vote granting Conceptual Major Development approval, Conceptual Commercial Design approval, Demolition approval, Residential Design Standard variances, and Growth Management approval, and recommending City Council approve the Molly Gibson Application and all necessary land use reviews, as identified herein, with the recommended conditions of approval; and, WHEREAS, all required public noticing was provided as evidenced by an affidavit of public notice submitted to the record, a public open house was provided by the applicant to meet the requirements o f Land Use Code Section 26,304.035, and the public was provided a thorough and full review of the proposed development; and, WHEREAS, on January 12, 2015 the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 3, Series 2015, on First Reading by a five to zero (5-0) vote; and, WHEREAS, during a public hearing on January 26, 2015, the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 3, Series 2015, by a five to zero (5-0) vote, approving with conditions the Molly Gibson Lodge Subdivision/PD and all necessary land use reviews; and, Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street Ordinance No. 3, Series 2015 Page 2 of 12 .. WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission, the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion o f public health, safety, and wel fare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby grants the Molly Gibson Lodge Planned Development - Project Review approval, Subdivision approval, and Growth Management approvals, for a Site Specific Development Plan for the Molly Gibson Lodge Subdivision/PD, subject to the conditions of approval as listed herein. The approved dimensions are attached as Exhibit A. Section 2: Subsequent Reviews Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Applicant is required to obtain Final Commercial Design Review, Major Development Review - Final for properties located within the Historic District, and Planned Development - Detail Review following approval of the reviews outlined herein. The applicant shall combine these applications, and they shall be made no later than one (1) year following City Council approval of the reviews outlined herein. Section 3: Historic Preservation Reviews Major Development- Conceptual approval for properties located within a Historic District, Conceptual Commercial Design Standard approval, and Demolition for properties located within ' a Historic District are granted for Parcel 1 of the Molly Gibson PUD and Parcel 2 of the 125 West Main Street I listoric Landmark Lot Split pursuant to HPC Resolution No. 35, Series of 2014. Section 4: Growth Management Allotments The following Growth Management allotments and credits amend those approved via I IPC Resolution No. 35, Series of 2014. 4.1 Reconstruction Credits. Based on the existing Molly Gibson Lodge development, the Applicant represents the following reconstruction credits, pursuant to Land Use Chapter 26.470 Molly Gibson Lodge 10 1 W. Main Street Ordinance No. 3, Series 2015 Page 3 of 12 .. a, A total of 53 lodging bedrooms, equating to 106 lodge pillows, is credited toward the Project's lodge GMQS allotment request. b. 1 unit of affordable housing. 4.2 Growth Management Allotments. The following growth management allotments are granted to the Molly Gibson Lodge: a. 15 lodging bedrooms = 30 lodging pillows. Added to the reconstruction credits, the entire project represents 68 lodging bedrooms or 136 pillows. b. 2 free market residential allotments. Section 5: Affordable Housing 5.1 Mitigation Requirements. The mitigation for the project is as follows: Affordable Housing replacement: Replace existing one-bedroom affordable housing unit which houses 1.75 FTEs with an onsite one-bedroom affordable housing unit which houses 1.75 FTEs. Lodge: Mitigate for the additional 15 lodge bedrooms 15 lodge bedrooms * 0.3 FTEs = 4.5 FTEs generated 4.5 FTEs @ 10% mitigation = 0.45 FTEs required mitigation for lodge Free-Market Residential: Provide 10% of free-market residential square feet as affordable housing 11,121 sq ft * 10Â°/0 = 1,112 square feet net livable area required as affordable housing To convert to FTEs- 1,112/400 sf net livable per FTE = 2.78 FTEs Affordable Housing Credits equal to 3.23 FTEs at a Category 4 or lower to mitigate the Lodge and Free Market Residential requirements are approved. A one bedroom unit that is Category 2 and is provided onsite to mitigate the demolition of the existing onsite one bedroom unit is approved. 5.2 Affordable Housing Conditions. The affordable housing rental unit shall be deed restricted at Category 2, and shall meet the following conditions: a. The unit shall be deed restricted at Category 2. b. All tenants shall be approved by APCHA prior to occupancy. c. The hotel has the right-of-first refusal to place a qualified tenant in the unit upon approval from APCHA. Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street Ordinance No. 3, Series 2015 Page 4 of 12 .. d. Employees of the hotel will be exempt from maximum assets and maximum income for the on-site unit; however, the tenants cannot own any other property within the ownership exclusion zone and must work full time as defined in the APCHA Guidelines. e. Minimum occupancy shall be obtained for each unit (one qualified employee per bedroom). f. The unit cannot be vacant for longer than 45 days, unless APCHA is notified as to why the unit has been left vacant. If an employee of the lodge is not interested in renting the unit, a qualified tenant based on the APCHA Guidelines shall be allowed to rent the unit. g. The deed restriction shall be recorded for the affordable housing unit prior to Certificate of Occupancy (CO) of the free-market component. The CO for the affordable housing unit shall be issued at the same time or prior to the CO for the lodge, free-market residential units, and commercial space. h. The Condominium Declaration shall include language, to be reviewed and approved by APCHA, that should the affordable housing unit become an ownership unit: a. The unit will be sold through the lottery system. b. The dues will be based on the assessed value of the deed-restricted unit vs. the free- market unit as well as the square footage of the units; c. No common expenses will be charged to the deed-restricted owners, unless approved by APCHA, especially the common expenses associated with the lodge. Section 6: Planned Development - Detail Review In addition to the general documents required as part of a Planned Development - Detail Review, the following items shall be required as part of the Application's Planned Development - Detail Review: a. An Outdoor Lighting Plan, pursuant to section 26.575.150. b. An existing and proposed Landscaping Plan, identifying trees with diameters and values. c. A draft Construction Management Plan. d. A snow storage and snow shedding plan. Snow is not permitted to shed off roofs onto neighboring properties. Demonstrate that any snow which sheds off roofs will remain on-site. e. Preservation of the historic fence. f. A completed Transportation Impact Analysis. g. Confirmation from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District that the 0' rear yard setback is constructible without damage to the sanitation sewer lines in the alley. Section 7: Subdivision/PD Plat and Agreement Lot 1 of the Molly Gibson PUD and Lot 2 of 125 West Main Street Historic Landmark Lot Split are hereby merged into one lot: Lot 1 of the Molly Gibson Planned Development. Upon filing of the Subdivision Plat Lot 2 of 125 West Main Street Historic Landmark Lot Split is hereby removed from the Aspen inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street Ordinance No. 3, Series 2015 Page 5 of 12 .. The Applicant shall submit a Subdivision/PD agreement (hereinafter "Agreement") that meets the requirements of the Land Use Code within 180 days of final approval. The 180 days shall commence upon the granting of Final Commercial Design, Final Major Development and Planned Development - Detail Review approvals by the Historic Preservation Commission. The recordation documents shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements of Section 26.490 Approval Documents of the Land Use Code. a. in accordance in Section 26.490.040, Approval Documents Content and Form, the following plans are required in the Approved Plan Set: l. Final Commercial and Historic Design Review/ Architectural Character Plan. 2. Planned Development Project and Detail Review Plans. 3. Public Infrastructure Plan. 4. Final Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). b. In accordance with Section 26,490.050, Development Agreements, a Development Agreement shall be entered into with the City. c. In accordance with Section 26.490.060, Financial and Site Protection Requirements,the applicant shall provide a site protection guarantee and a site enhancement guarantee. d. In accordance with Section 26.490,070, Performance Guarantees, the following guarantees are required in an amount equal to 150% of the current estimated cost of the improvement: 1. Landscape Guarantee. 2, Public Facilities and Public Infrastructure Guarantee. 3. Storm Water and Drainage Improvements Guarantee. Section 8: Engineering Department The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. 8.1 Drainage: The project shall meet the Urban Runoff Management Plan Requirements and Engineering Design Standards. 8.2 Sidewalk/Curb/Gutter: All sidewalk curb and gutter shall meet the Engineering Standards of City of Aspen Municipal Code Title 21. a. The minimum sidewalk width on Main and Garmisch Streets is 8 ft, detached. The minimum width of the planting strip is 5 ft. It is understood that potential conflicts may limit the sidewalk width and or planting strip width. While the applicant should attempt to achieve the code width. the sidewalk width can be reduced to 6 ft where conflicts exist, subject to approval by the Parks and Engineering Departments. a) The Hopkins sidewalk is in a residential area and therefore, the minimum sidewalk width is 5 ft, detached. The minimum width of the planting strip is 5 ft. Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street Ordinance No. 3, Series 2015 Page 6 of 12 .. b) Curb and gutter likely needs to be replaced except for the new curb and gutter on Hopkins Ave. The turning radius may need to be address at the intersection of Main and Garmisch Streets. 8.3 Excavation Stabilization: Due to the proximity of the neighboring property and the excavation of the building, an excavation stabilization plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department prior to building permit submittal. 8.4 CMP: The Construction Management Plan shall describe mitigation for: parking, staging/encroachments, and truck traffic. 8.5 Snow Storage: A minimum functional area equaling 30% of the paved area shall be provided contiguous to the paved and designed to accommodate snow storage. For heated areas, the functional area can be reduced to 10%. 8.6 Parking: parking must be located within the property boundary. Parallel parking is required for Garmisch Street. At least one signed loading zone parking space is permitted for Garmisch Street. Additional spaces are subject to approval by the Engineering and Parking Department. Section 9: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met, subject to review and approval by the Fire Marshall. Section 10: Parks Department Tree removal permits are required prior to issuance of a building permit for any demolition or significant site work. Mitigation for removals must be met by paying cash in lieu, planting on site, or a combination of both, pursuant to Chapter 13.20 of the City Municipal Code. Significant mitigation is required due to the large amount of trees that are on both of the properties that appears will need to be removed. We would like to see a detailed landscape plan that shows all trees with the DBH (diameter at breast height) that they want to remove as well as a proposed planting plan. A tree protection plan indicating the drip lines of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site shall be included in the building permit application for any demolition or significant site work. The plan shall indicate the location of protective zones for approval by the City Forester and prohibit excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, and access over or through the zone by foot or vehicle. The municipal code requirements regarding tree protection fencing being required & the excavation, storage of material, construction backfill, equipment, foot or vehicle traffic being prohibited is applicable. Section 11: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street Ordinance No. 3, Series 2015 Page 7 of 12 .. â€¢ All clear water connections are prohibited (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) including trench drains for the entrances to underground parking garages, â€¢ On-site drainage and landscaping plans require approval by the district, must accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations and specifications. â€¢ On-site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD. â€¢ Oil and Grease interceptors are required for all new and remodeled food processing establishments. â€¢ Plans for interceptors, separators and containment facilities require submittal by the applicant and approval prior to a building permit application. â€¢ Plumbing plans for the pool and spa areas require approval of the drain size by the district. â€¢ Glycol snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and must preclude discharge to the public sanitary sewer system. â€¢ When new service lines are required for existing development the old service lines (3) must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements and prior to all soil stabilization activities. â€¢ Below grade development will require installation of a pumping system. â€¢ Generally one tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. â€¢ Permanent improvements are prohibited in areas covered by sewer easements or right of ways to the lot line of each development. â€¢ All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the issuance of any permits. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. â€¢ Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. â€¢ Due to the depth of the main sewer line in the alley and the need to replace this sewer line in the future, the District would not support the applicants request for an exemption to vacate the five foot setback requirement from the alley lot lines. â€¢ The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed building and utility plans are available. Section 12: Environmental Health Department The State of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regard to asbestos. Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements, noise abatement and pool designs. The trash enclosures for Parcel 1 have received approval by the Environmental Health Department for an enclosure that is 9' 8.5' x 20' for the trash and recycling receptacles. This area is within the property line and is not encroaching on the alley The trash and recycling for Parcel 2 (the single family residences) shall be located on Parcel 2, Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street Ordinance No. 3, Series 2015 Page 8 of ] 2 .. Section 13: Transportation Department The applicant shall update the Transportation Impact Analysis report for approval by the Transportation Department prior to Detailed Review. Consideration for the BRT bus stop shall be considered in the Construction Management Plan. Section 14: Water/Utilities Department The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. All Water System Distribution standards in place at the time of building permit shall apply, and all tap fees will be assess per applicable codes and standards. Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. Section 15: Outdoor LiEhting and Signage All outdoor lighting and all signage shall meet the requirements of the Aspen Municipal Code. Section 16: Public Amenity Spaces The Applicant has committed to providing ground floor public amenity spaces as shown on Exhibit B. These spaces shall be permanently accessible by the public. Section 17: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 18: 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 19: I f 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. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 124 day of January, 2015. Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street Ordinance No. 3, Series 2015 Page 9 of 12 . .1 a A fteven\S a ron, Mher ~Tr-rK;j: A tfinda Manning, City Clerk~ FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 268 day of January, 2015. APPROVE1) AS TO FORM: ApPROME[~1AS TO CONTENT: Q --- 927Â« ..3= Almes R. True, City Attorney SteNin,Skadr{1~Mayor ATfrEST:- n U C W U Linda Manning, City Cle; Attachments: Exhibit A: Approved Dimensiona] Requirements Exhibit B: Approved Elevations, Site Plan and Public Amenity Space Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street Ordinance No. 3, Series 2015 Page 10 0 f 1 2 .. Exhibit A - Approved Dimensional Requirements ..............................................................................1 Parcel l of Molly Gibson PlJD (Main Street) and 125 West Main Street Lot 2: Approved Dimensions minimum lot size 18,000' minimum lot width 180' front yard (Main St.) see site plan - up to 2.5' variance side yard (Garmisch) see site plan- up to 0' variance side yard ( west) 3.5' rear (alley) see site plan- up to 0' variance maximum height 32' public amenity 1,869 or 10% trash access area 20w x 9' 8.5" d x open to sky minimum off-street 12 (Current deficit maintained) parking spaces cumulative noor area (1.5:1) 26,959 sf lodge floor area (1.46:1)26,314.8 s f affordable housing floor 644 sf area average lodge unit size 303 sf number of lodge units 68 total number of 136/68 pillows/bedrooms lodge net livable area 20,575 sf affordable housing net 607 sf livable area Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W. Main Street Ordinance No. 3, Series 2015 Page 11 of 12 .. Parcel 2 of Molly Gibson PUD (Hopkins Ave.): Approved Dimensions minimum lot size 9,002 sf minimum lot width 90' front yard (Hopkins 10' Ave.) side yard (east) 7' side yard ( west) 7' rear (alley) 10' distance between 10' buildings maximum height 25' maximum % site 51.3% coverage total 8,000 sf or 4,000 sf per allowable floor area single family residence minimum off-street 4 parking spaces Molly Gibson Lodge 101 W, Main Street Ordinance No. 3, Series 2015 Page 12 0 f 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 :....... *IM- - - 9- -r#-Â·-- - ~i =-, =.&.=.....M.=.*=.).m.=.~1.- ..-"._ 1 _. - (2) Â·FTÂ·Â£22_1>:L-_bdi â€¢ â€¢' 1 I -p.~.1; . i' '&/. J I ..2 4.-...Â·211 .: 1 Â· i.,p-i 9 r -,; 1. i 21% -. . ht, O./ I 1 - f i .. 1 . 1 '-1 le ' 1 M--- 1 1 1 1 D- 1Â·. 1 1 TERUCt |'Â· ~ 1--t _: 3-1!-Â·-i-~- 2-1-:1-2-i-~ ~-!~~-_ ~j_~ ~~~~_P r .â‚¬II i #-4-4Â· : 1 ,-2.0 11 ; w.:0~__---------1-4,-----i------te----,h-~.- 1 ... :-----A:-::y:,-it- ---- , ii i. 1 1 1 5,Â·: ! 1 1 i .. Â·Â· : i __1:p. F:d#itlin- - :-2 1:-4--4 .... i ~ i j 1 1 1 '!i L Â».Â·Cics,lic i 1 4 A. 6 0 0%# 6 9 9 4 03 09 0.; ... (6. L. 0 6 i F . I E -1 ii --11 -1. -I + T-El 93 SITE PLAN 1 1- 10 -0~ 'r-,--4' Â© r YARCHITEC TSIAL2.0 MGL 1 DECEMBER 19, 2014 NORTH ... L 6 6 2019 lill :11, 1 1 1 - -7 - ; i.- .r 'i ' ... 1 ..0, - 1 -: .:. .--/ 1 1 % 9 --1 - - 7 . Â· Â· i !1~ 1 1 1 . --:1>1'.......:P.:17\,9 . 1 -- Â·LI I / -1 /,/1 1 :, 1 1.... 1 KA' 1 V., i i ! -- -Id -1 - 5=7 i '. / 1 : 1 ' 1 1 1 -1 un -- (3- t---'- i 1 : - ' i' .11 i I. 1 , 1 1 i li i 'ii 1 f li i 11 1! ~1 i 11 :1 1 41 (31.1. ./ : 1 I 1 1 ,4.-3.- 1. . . E i iÂ· i .. t.-0 1-: , I , - i , - ' 1 1 , 11 1 F r-'1Â·2.J -Â·-:r~_ _..,h__ -â„¢-, IICI Â· Il ' 1 1.1 11,1111 I i Â·.;1 : 51-- 11 Â· 1Â· 4, & 4 4% 4 4 6 4 9 0 @ 03- i ~ I lin -1 1 1 N i i ' 1/ , 1 11 1 If 1 . 1 1 1 -i-1 1 1 VARIANCE SITE PLAN I r=10 0 MGL | DECEMBER 19,2014 C CY A It (., HITE CTS I AL2.1 30Â¢33*813*8[389 :2) (3 ' _1Â·I_ 1-â€žUY @r .4 1. 11 :1 r-------------1 11 1 0<i:~t:.1-0.i :'- -%, . . -~ R I ..Â©â„¢ 1 -1 1'.- 1 : 1 L-- I l...2 . .Wiâ‚¬Â»rÂ». i...U OUÂ·â€¢4 1,1 1 . m . 11 . 4 1,1 . /-2 .1 1 1 B-Al~ .Y...olâ‚¬04 ~out.Mt/ rot.3Â£2 CwlÂ·E~ '.ra'1~il, O~NL[ el# 1 ....=.. .'2'2~.'22 i==tiL._._ . -: 154 1 Â·1 -: 11@12 !' it i , Â· ac<- I. 1 i i i ' i I 1 1 1 l. . . , 1 1 i LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 1 1/80 - 1Â·-O- Â·r-L- O Mel 1 DECEMBER 19, 2014 NORTH CCY ARCHITEC I SI AL3.1 * ~) 8 02 (â‚¬: 64 * * r Â» 43 '4) 41 1 1 00 11 1 III!: 11 - I .1 Â· -i 1 '1 1 1 1 1 11 * i; I lili .1 1... 1 1 !1 -Â·t - 1 2 Â·1 ..1' ----7 LF !- 19,1 s '11 ~ 1 1 ... 12 40 Col. F CLE{ 9 '.:0 1 1 .1.- 1 1 1 ,n ~V-41 G.. 1 H 1 . I I 17.Â·. ..>0Â·,Â·Â·Â·Il Â· . il 'Â·i . ID' : i 1 , r i Â·Â· . 1 - g.cÂ·Juiri :*212Â£0.Â£Â·1 2091Â£Â£(*Er, DOUEÂ·ECUED, Doeitf'Jf~'1 ====/.11, Li Â·' I. i 1 i&- :ED - OUWN ' ~ r ** *# ..J.....EE' 0 '-to=- C.E. ----- -1 . - 4 ---- .---- - -.- - ~-- 1--- -1---t-941.--t i--tÂ·-IL-] -I-1.OFEr-jit-1,-t--th--1-4~- -Ta3 . -7 1 ! .i -- 'Â·,3-: . 3 tw itt Ng. 4-6 1 I. ::0:/ ! 11%21 1 ! 'i' ;-C~ 0Â·, !.JI.lil'\ r' ~ c.. .>, . I i !1 ; '. 1 1 1 1 1: Â· ~R brb,-- 162 -9-X:---:4 ~ -i>Â·-; 3-~0 --~~ l .-~ 1 1 j ' '' ' :,1 :| .14'-5.'O''A,/21.44-4.,- i i 1. - i.9. -I -I r.-Ili'ltÂ·..[_1 .:rr'I ' ' ~' ~' Â· '102.k::.mil.1 - .Â· , 1, i '. .-1 oeopi al1jt~fl-,-12..1.LA-._-~ ~ i ' ' 1. 1 11 l i MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 1 1/8Â· = 1'-0Â· 3-1-;--â‚¬ O MGL 1 DECEMBER 19, 2014 NORTH CCYARCHITEC ISI AL3.2 4 9 '3 9 3 3 f 9 4 + 9 + 33 I ' 1 1 1 IIi ' 1 L Â·Â· ' 1 r.oul I O..'. mf OUEÂ£â€¢i 1.-*CUU' li...EN- - â€¢â€¢10 1 on.,tl.*EN lit ' ~r===1 : ..L.... 93.Al...... 1 1 r=L-4 1 1 0 111 un fi / 72 I 1 - LF 1- -.-- / v.,41 3-â€¢20 : , 114 1 Â«47 , _--1 y--_-Lit - --.~T---1 1 . 1 Iii Â· 1 1] ~ ===1 ! i ........ . i J I 1 1 1 1 . 000..FUREN itx.KI.<Uttl .... OVEE' DOL...... O<Ulloâ€¢JECN . .~_._t l I . a,5.'dE.4 k 1 ' 1 1 1 . 1 1 - -- i 1 ! i ... 2- 1 ,- 4 , L ,-, i.. 1 ii z-- 2 1 1 Â· I ' ! 1 Â·Â· 1 1 1 1 1 i 'li : 1 1 SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 1 1/8" = 1' 0" -__i MOL 1 DECEMBER 19, 2014 NORTH CCY ARC:HITFC[-SIAL3.3 Â® 3 9 9 + 6 3 + 00 9 9 9. 4- 514 ! ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 | 1 I 1 _Â· pbulÂ·r ..Im CO#E....1 1 C......... 0.*'.~Eâ‚¬1Â£t' 1 1 1 . 1 . . . i ./_ble (.1*:4 8 I 4- adua E.,UN ''~ - a 11]1 1 1 11, Ilil UtE -- - OR '*pUBLE'.CH 1-1 1 1]fk/ UOUIEOUFFN .21.11.11,4 roat*. f Â©Â·:,6: i 19*.Caul I 00'1:â€¢RE :*EUN Â·-,ff ~ . Â· 1 i Â»:11 1 0.3.94 11 1 li i 'Â· 1 1 1 ' 1 1 3 1 1 - 1 1.-------- 1 1 1 ..1 1 ; 1 1 1 mEmmll '' 3 -- ' 1 1 : ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 : 1 . , rt. 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 THIRD LEVEL FLOOR PLAN~ 1/8~=1'-0' 1-0_J---â‚¬ (9 MGL 1 DECEMBER 19, 2014 NORTH CCY ARCH I -1-ECTSI AL3.4 I 1 1 i q .:11 11 1 1 1 1 KIN. 1 i 1 i I i i I i i 11 . 1 1.1 1 1 1 1 I. 2-,1 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 04 ----------- ------ [ Er 10/ 1 1 -4 ! -i i. ."/ i : 1- 0 1 1 1 : ............. 1 1 Il.U,VE./1 1 it ~ ~ ~ 1 ! it.: lt, ..7 . A.1 ~ 0%' 1 i ! 3: - 1 1 b :1 1,1, :1-.Ii ji 1' : i.-*:Â·iti J ;! 1.2 l! 1 : i n. L]]1,-it.-1: n 01 :1 11.-1 Â· ...,. 1 ~ 1 Â¢E -i' Â·Â·.Â· 1 .FAr = i i Â· 1! / 1 - *, -~:.-,.j i 0 i i - 2......1 0. ' Â· It I -'irÂ·' r . i H 4.-1 -4.4 iriGH'l:III c I.i.....~ N,Lig/. - , 1.n.JE.Â·Â·ni 1 1 1 .1.- 1 , 2 kiÂ· 1. ' i ' 1 0 9 :5 8 (b 4 0 4 E (3) CL) 0 Â·,-: 1Â·4:91.OC'z.WV )Ml'.CA.W.Â·9 ROOF PLAN 1 1,8" = 1'-O" Â·- "c_J --â€ž: MGL 1 DECEMBER 19, 2014 CCYAR CHITECISI AL3.5 i M,45*4.9Â«-1 1 4-1/1 1 SUULOING:97 }1 19/412 - - iu/7.7,1 .1 . i 9 1. f Â·' . FI tF I. =__#f:-:v- -ArWiWIJ - -44===fr-== --- -- - - - ALLEY - -- 1 - 407=U- --a...-- --_ RT:12.1-- --4 | tic..21 .1.... 1 9 -Ili RES "TUTY . ~ 767Â· 3.1<fw -+- REE 1 Â· u-Â·lror *: /1-r.' :1, __ F.â‚¬TEA LOCAT,~4 1.V Sf Â· - Ml i 1 1 1 1 -031r.dj 1 1 I. 1 1 -41/fir -*f '4 11 I. ~~ 1 MULTI STORY; 4 ~J 1 --- - - 1 1 ! FRAME 1 BUiLDING , D . 1 - ..el.1.1 -4 1 1 - 1 --- ] I \\1.-1 ? 4 -- +91 tr 0 1 ? 1 r /4 ..~ I .0/44 ,Â·-r- OK 1- - RigM,Â«.0 _-1 - 1- /Â®fsuyÂ·41 -1- EGRESS U'GlfrWELL ~ ,/4,ss....'ll . ---I ./29\'tky :qi 8â‚¬10Â«PER COUE Baove rE' c<Â»w - - : f. 11 - /1 =844$#1 5., rn"1 /Â»1Â» - -_ __u _ _-i~i_~2~-r_- COACI ROOF ..BY Â· I -- - - ~RCH ROOF BE-av ' :F FÂ»94 \--f- 4./.41 0.\C---44 ] 1 ! --0 7 ,;*3IPSf#Â§$032*:~5964.:486'434?1;&?NA-*~9~,;2844.:448:Rfti?%*N Â·. Â·- Â·. - -HOPKINS - -HOPKINS - HCPKINS STREET 13~CHsâ€ž.*.EK:"Dn A IRCM STE P.AN ./O/0:ED l.5 r../Â· RES. SITE PLAN 1 1'= 10Â·-0" '-Â·--7 0 MGL | NOVEMBER 24.2014 NORTH C C Y Alt(SHITE C 1-61 AR2,0 Anaced (".4 V 11 1 $ 2 ; 1 1 5 1 ' t_ --4 - - 6 -1........-'....'.,I'.- 1 -1- 1 4 0 7 -1 r -1 ~ , 1 1.-- -1-7- --17 ,-4 , 1 1 [ lili I 1 1 1 ' I. e 3. I i 11 1 1 11 *TAAâ‚¬~ . U%- t.Â»'â€¢' i 1 L. 1 ;7: ...4.- I 11 11 ...0.-1 4 ' e I / 1 1 1 : J F- 1 [-1 Fri 71 . i 'ft - iCA;r.:a.. Tai~ .,-- O,â‚¬.Cul -..... .----- R.-+NE ' ,/ 1 "Â©-'-:' f--:be-- .-T.Â·EL'fÂ·e.* t=:1 1277. I ~ r----t' ,[.LLj~ .: 1 111 r - . ... '..1.-- I 4-7 61 ' 1 n 41 -,Â·Â·â€¢Â· r-.Â·, 1, ItÂ»,'Â·4~1 :12 i i ,=6Â·WI i ~~Â¥1 11' 11 i iii#i ,+4 Il! 1-1 A 4 4 e DELLOE__--_- 0 123'ygi ... RES. FLOOR PLANS 1/8" = 1-0" '--4 _ i---i' ~ MGL | NOVEMBER 24. 2014 NORTH C CY ARC HI 1-ECTS I AR3.0 42 9 09 8 421 9 .1 Â¢ . 1 1,4 1 -U- ' i if-\ ..1 1 . Fi. 41=12. I 2 L.Il- NO: i----Â£/ 1 1 9.15 : 11- Iii ' i i Lr\!t;Â· 1 ~,12-1, -...i ' 2:I' Â·â€¢,-â€¢ ~ ~J i ~ 1: 1 11 11 1 1 i=:1 r .. - ..1 7 U 1 /9. *71,Â·:M 11 - (4, - - '4j> Â· Â·'ll . i I 3 i- 101 - â‚¬ WIT: 1 El.1 11 - ... '.t" 1=-53 f ~ 24,%,ILAR:. IliLKMT $ 1 .:nâ€¢râ€¢D~â€¢Â·â€¢ 1 1 1 4 .7:=9231 0..:072 Â·Â· 1 -~ "1. .Â·'Â·9:4 -t ~ ~ 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 j. 1 1 . A A (841 ' A CD A 23 6 (7' iFIER#En- ) ROCF 57Â·N W te-,Â·IÂ· , .'4 4 1'Â·0Â· RES. FLOOR PLANS f 1/8- = 1'4" .-Ch--' ~ MGL | NOVEMBER 24.2014 NORTH CCY ARCHI -I- 9 C TSIAR3.1 .*:lj n yÂ·.c/TYÂ· . ~ ' trm===mliaR22bl L 'a _131 v *A_ __ .2- ~ - .0-.s:Â£'. . . 2 -94#% /3 i <h.; Â·252~lk,*22~1*14*t~kitki%i ~41=t*,ate*ist.utr54rH L, 1 ; 0"hi ~plo'~ ..4. i.% .1 ~ Fyi. -1 lEi . 157712, '6 :1,1 71 F7 [-1 :-7-771 j 130% 4- . 1 . 4 4 2, - . 1 FTn fa 2 _ -Â·kra ./4 1 U- 0 A/. t.3. *>5 4 1 ....ER./.l ./ V.0 1. 7 Re I Â· t,4, ICÂ»1/4 .'1) Fis 1 .///ftâ„¢. a/,/i'w 1 ' 1.j~W.-I.- --- - I -- -- .-1-i E- . 1 -1 --k _lick\-L~-i 2 -4-'CkL.1- 3 '. a....3 ! RO~ DECI I 1.- 1.-r=FAUT & \ Â·1 4:~~=-:=urn, .., -1-5 f- 1 1.-- - - 'i. Â¢ 78, i P"'~=trt=n .3 Â·Â· ; .21 1 Â·Â·Â· fÂ·Â·~-i[IWE17-17-0.-1. -Il- . 41 712=1Â· 53 ,-7. I ..1: . 1-1 r ' 4 49 1 1 . 1,9151. 1.-1 , ..m:/7..Â·-Â·' lip 1 1,: 1.0.4- 4 1 1 u.â€¢ , i - - - --6 --.3 -- - 7 -.7 - 71: - ..~69>Stek --6 J -1-7. 1 - - _Lemt,jyÂ®b-4 1-, RE, , .So,B ELEV..1,0. 1~ Ais 1 *T 20/TIC~ i . U' W,Â· â€¢ t.'-47 V 12* . 1/ 1 T [Elp/Â§ 1 FliE#~3 FR0~5Â·TOrâ€¢,~0~~ADDTIO~ Â·AL.ELEVATIONS R{30'CD TC S-40 W : *LASE . SIDE YARD SETBACK REV,510â€¢~S Stâ‚¬OW..... MANS 'D We'M S T R~:I Ett:YA./Klâ€¢â€¢$) ~ ____ J :Â·te â€¢ W RES. ELEVATIONS CCY ARC. HI TFC 'f- SIAR4.0 MGL | NOVEMBER 24.2014 iÂ·yee . . ... f - \ ItiÂ»=-75,4MC-==-- . 1.,G- u~-irprÂ·. r--- 2- I -87.Ta Â·9 ~ 7 - -#* F - 9~ -1 ~ [EDÂ¢jtd it \ 1. 33*1*m.wRr~-*r-:1.-I=â‚¬=TZ-2liTTE+2-4-4 1.rt# I j :1 9- % t 'li >. ~I././* ji' 1 ta--- 1 - 1,14 4 r--1 f-l n r-- FF- 1. LIJ 779 iÂ·Â·Â·Â·~-7=.lrit ~ ~4 41 12,' -%111 1-- T-1 ~ _ Â»â€¢99-s _...'E.... 7. I. liF : 0 48841 REÂ¥ 2. 4/.pAT,r~ .,/RER-Â·,OR~r~E.Â·ATte,% V Wâ€¢re @ 1.8 .1 a. ---- - 2121-r-- -'~-4- 7/t_ _~.___ _ ACâ‚¬(Yi~ u __~_~_]_ -1â‚¬237127-;- ~--_L- "~7: , i 141=21:7-4 -1.,2 1 A 21 4 1 t' 1.-"RA.1... L...,--* | Â·4<~ t.7 " - - i -g,7.â‚¬3 4--4-1,-Â·' L".Rt:1.9 -18 --1 11 ' i -5.:1#-';' Â·.â€¢*..L A . !'~ 11Â·1&5'ks A .-- =1.Al.%4/fl Â·7.0' I. ' lili 'Al LC1410/g'EVEL . Â·, '7.,Â· I. le.. WES' f.5Â·Anvrâ€¢ . 0 ./.1. 1*. 4510Era*SETBAC~ Aaâ‚¬Lâ‚¬â€¢â€¢,[Erâ€¢SRE'.aSEO TO 9-.077 ...15 IC./.Al am'll !2|1'Â·941. 1EallÂ¢@0461;- IM <Â»t i Â· RE....S S),0.4 . I....INS .>, NOÂ«IH Sâ„¢KE.ELEVAâ„¢Â»gâ‚¬Lix)- --- U /16Â· â€¢ iÂ·-0~ REi ELEVATIONS MGL I NOVEMBER 24, 2014 CCYARCI-Ill-ECTSIARt...1 Â· MAIN STREET Â· Â· \ p~nk:'r:-...~:>19~:Â·#t--. ~2~1*<1~7~ ~~ ~:~.~.~~Â·:Â·t.,~:.33.'-'92Â·.~--94 -.4 -77-'*35 *t.fT~Â» :.i i, i.i F~~PE??197 TREES . I /\ 1,..Â·,i '--3 -LI: Â·--7,2>-m.:S;'~-~:....'Â·.*33--,z..:,4*4.- .Â·,2 ,-1.-2,1-- - -beAPERTY ,?5*~U,-~1~~fi~, -Â·:t~it,\ fi- EXISTING CROSSWALK 1Â·FriNIA't?46~2-_7~.1-~-Â·Â·Â·tu--;.1#Â», ' '- â€¢4Â¥R?Â·820:.-ak=CZZ~40 - k.,el....1.1 .....937 ",1 i Â· ..lt,jv,KÂ·gfr2Â·~0.- â€¢ 1--,rÂ·-Â·7 PROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALK I Â·..1Igh@rtÂ·Â· 1 7 0;Catem-'-1=Ir,~ Â·Â·:tÂ·=rn-rrent . 1 -- f -.- GRANITE PAVERS AFFORDABLE HOU51NG ACCESS i v, Â· . 1 1Â£1/45*i' Â·; Â·Â·D ' 0211 PL BLIC AMENITY SPACEE â€¢1.- 1J---IZZ .11 = GRANITE BENCH TYP. 1 PERENNIAL GARDEN - PROPOSED TREES 6.& ......Â· I ./ I I Â· f~P.1 68.5.1 .1.HUI i DROP OFF / PICKUP . -2 -MAIN ENTRANCE 2-2 4.eNE, / STAIR & LOBBY ACCESS -SÂ·,44*.bf 62:01 HOTEL ROOM ACCESS *=-*----21.,i~ de ~~~ . - d#'... I -7- :Ne <\*F:%4.- ; ...., Â· SM,em NA 4 -I.* PRIVACY FENCE . 1 :' ... ..., I , ' in .r.Â·o=<*Â« I .' COVERED OUTDOOR DINING ~8*4.iÂ·*f bfÂ¢.-:@Ilf@.~Pfil##AporjiWN~x~ OFFSITE ENHANCED PUBLIC AMENITY 143--49Â·22??.AiiÂ·%Â· <0 5-174:, ~.,212,5,-,U:.*,4,541 X,~L,9,~~f,Si~"g~.~.~4~.', Â·i I ..r F.If~:Â·1{..~.s:.g*~~~41?jaf-Nllâ‚¬42-â‚¬UntE:TRSK.;.4,RkekE[AGir#6%bAg.,437-0Â·;S~~MB<fifi:~?Â·f#fft- =f-2.~521~112~-~~ ~ rt , - *- -=:.11â‚¬*PÂ·R 1:.1:2 :~-291-i Y~:247Â·t .045::Â·35:13Â·~Â· 4,4'21. ;362,3.. . Â·.,<42.v;t-,-,Â·i:Â·t.,.-t , Â·Pi*2::44 :4 - %3311%2633Â¢i**flaxz#Saidka@*it-#/449Â£MBJP*.33:littl)<6/1652''LTÂ·i).%2*e./42.:j'U-i..'.'.71.. tÂ»92Â·34&0 - 1, dh - 112 -1.: " MOLLY GIBSON LODGE 101 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ;'Ip?'" *Â¥iÂ·'~' 'Â·-, '.P '.-1@ SIAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATESING Conceptual Landscape Plan I-'A r ... 29 July 2014 Â·Â· 43 0 ; *26.21 -ft,@."0,1,-",cor- -Â·~,iâ€¢el-'Voâ€¢ 8 SINE-AfF,QNA.SCC .,CR. 129911 CH' STREE'6 1Â¥!Ull, Mall VJ, DWIJ ~ ~ VVIV-7.-W 10851222 I 8 1 (43 Non Ad Ticket #5 /4/10 (l 9 6 1 * k._ 0/13 Acct: 1013028 Name: Aspen (LEGALS) City of Phone: (970)920-5064 Address: 130 S Galena St E-Mail: ANGELA.SCOREY@CITY Client: Caller: Angela Scorey City: Aspen Receipt State: CO Zip: 81611 Ad Name: 10851222A Original Id: 0 I Editions: 8ATI/8ATW/ Class: 0990 Start: 01/08/15 Stop: 01/08/15 i Color: Issue 1 Copyline: atw Molly Gibson 101 W. MAIN ST. Rep: AT Legals PUBLIC NOTICE RE:101 W. MAIN ST. AKA MOLLY GIBSON AND LOT 2 OF 125 W. MAIN ST. HISTORIC LAND- MARK LOT SPLIT- PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REVIEW, GROWTH MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION Lines: 41 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN thal a public hearing will be held on Monday. January 26.2015. at a Depth: 3.43 meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council. in Council Chambers. City Hall. 130 S. Gatena St., Aspen. City Council is asked to Columns: 1 consider an application submitted by Aspen Gale. na LLC. 605 West Main Street. Suite 2. Aspen. Colorado. represented by Stan Clauson and Asso- Discount: 0.00 ciates. and affecting the property located at 101 West Man Street. Lots 1 and 2 01 the Molly Gib- son Lodge Planned Development. City and Town- Commission: O.00 site of Aspen. Colorado. and Lot 2 of the 125 West Main Street Historic Landmark Lot Split. The appll- cant requests approval to demolish the existing Net: 0.00 lodge along Main Street and Hopkins Street. to merae Lot 1 01 the Molly Gibson Lodge PUD with Lot j of the 125 West Main Street Historic Land- Tax: O.00 mark Lot Split. and to construct a new 68 unit lodge along Main Street with one affordable housing unit. and to construct 2 detached single family homes along Hopkins Street. The following reviews are Total 20.75 requested of City Council: Planned Development - Project Review and Subdivision. and an amend- m etit to GroÂ¥,111 Marlag eni ent approvals. For fur- Payment O.00 ther information. contact Sara Adams at tile City of Aspen Community Development Department. 130 S. Galena St.. Aspen. CO. (970) 429-2778. sara.adani s@cityofaspen.com. 2/8/2ggiLE"Guiulo Aspen Mayor Published in tile Aspen Times on January 8.2015 (10851222) Ad shown is not actual print size -- t .. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2014 Vice-chair, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Nora Berko, John Whipple, Jim DeFrancia and Patrick Sagal. Absent was Sallie Golden. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Sara Adams, Senior Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 229 W. Smuggler/426 N. Second - Conceptual Major Development, On- Site Relocation and Variances, Continue Public Hearing to a date certain MOTION: Jim made the motion to continue 229 W. Smuggler/426 N. Second to January 78, second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. 101 W. Main St. aka Molly Gibson Lodge and Lot 2 of 125 W. Main St. Historic Landmark Lot Split - Planned Development Project Review, Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Commercial Design Conceptual Review, Design Variances, Growth Management, Subdivision Debbie said the affidavit of posting is in order including the public outreach and the applicant can proceed - Exhibit I. Exhibit II - Staff Presentation power point Applicant power point Exhibit III Sara Adams said the parcel along Main Street is in the mixed use zone and the portion along Hopkins is zoned R-6 and the entire property has the lodge preservation overlay on it. Sara said the reviews will be the demolition ofthe existing lodge along Main Street, Conceptual Major development review, Conceptual commercial design review, residential design standard review for the single family homes along Hopkins. A planned development referral with city council for a project review. A project review is where all the dimensional requirements are established. HPC is also asked to do growth management review for affordable housing mitigationand you are asked to make a recommendation 1 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2014 to City Council on subdivision. The subdivision review relates to merging the Molly Gibson lodge with the vacant lot that is adjacent to it. The purpose of the lodge preservation overlay is to encourage development that is compatible with the neighborhood and respective of the manner that the property was historically operated. It applies to lodges that are usually in residential zone districts. It allows flexibility in dimensional requirements to allow boards to find a balance to allow more floor area in exchange for in this case small lodge rooms and the development that meets the context of the neighborhood. The proposal is for Parcel 1 along Main Street and Parcel 2 will be the two single family homes along Hopkins. The proposal is the demolition of the entire lodge and staff is supportive of the demolition along Main Street. It does meet the review criteria for demolition. They intend to add a two story building above grade with a basement. They have surface parking offthe alley and have one affordable housing unit to meet their on-site affordable housing requirement. They have one free market residential unit on the third floor of the lodge. They purpose a three story lodge which will be a great addition to Main Street. The modules and overall style of the project is exciting and will compliment Main Street. The Main Street parcel including the vacant lot is 18,000 square feet. We are also supportive of the height of 32 feet. The mixed use zone district has a height limit of 28 feet but you can increase to 32 feet through commercial design review. There are some setback variations along Garmisch Street for roof overhangs and a variation along the alley. Staff feels these setbacks are appropriate considering the lodging use on the parcel. We are extremely supportive of the site plan. The applicant is proposing to break the property up and have residential along Hopkins and have the lodge use along the Main Street. They are asking for a variance for their cumulative floor area from 18,000 the underlying mixed use zone district to about 27,000 square feet. If you take into account putting lodge on both parcels their overall floor area which is based on how big your lot is much much larger. One ofthe reasons we are supportive for the proposal along Main Street is because we are supportive of the site plan to alllodge use along Main Street as opposed to breaking it up which they could do and put lodge along Hopkins. Their growth management is a calculation of FTE "full time equivalents" is determined and needs mitigated and the applicant needs to tell us how they are going to do it. They are providing one on-site unit which will be a one bedroom rental and they will buy housing credits to make up the difference. 2 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12,2014 Staff is supportive of their growth management proposal. Staff feels there can be some restudy o f the Main Street parcel setbacks. Most of the building is five feet back and the required is ten feet. Through special review you can decrease that to five feet. Some of the upper floors encroach 2 96 feet into the setback. The existing building encroaches into the right-of- way so any improvement would be a great improvement to what exists now. The commercial design review requires a delivery area that needs to be along the alley and delineated. There needs to be some information as to how they are going to receive deliveries. The biggest issue for staff is to restudy the two story module which is adjacent to the historic landmark. They have dropped down the height and set it back to align with the historic landmark. Because they want to merge the two lots together we feel the purpose of the landmark lot split is not met because it is basically creating one long building. There is a step down for the two story module but we feel they can go a little further. Maybe make it appear that it is detached or detach it to reflect the different patterns on Main Street. Parcel 2 - two single family residences. Sara said staff is supportive o f the residential use. This is a 9,000 square.foot lot. Staff is supportive ofthe architectural style and we support the growth management review. We are recommending a restudy of the neighborhood context. There are concerns about the requested floor area. The maximum floor area for those homes is 4,080 square feet and they are proposing 9,000 square feet to be split between the two homes. Staff feels that is too much floor area on the site and that impacts their ability to meet the residential design standards and the ability to meet the maximum site coverage and side yard setbacks. We feel there should be a slight reduction to better relate to the neighborhood. Staff is recommending a continuation to resolve some of the issues. Stan Clauson & Associates CCY Architects Michael Brown, owner thanked staff for a great ongoing dialogue on the project. We worked hard on the western exposure ofthe hotel. We feel the project is sensitive to community needs and the surroundings of the Molly Gibson Lodge. The Molly is one of the few remaining locally owned hotels. I have owned the hotel since 2007. This project is a culmination ofthe Hotel Aspen experience and the feedback we got from the community and various boards. Our ownership has continually invested back into the hotel. 3 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2014 Michael said this project is the lowest floor area density and lowest height of any lodging project presently proposed in the city. The current hotel is 53 rooms and we are replacing it with 64 new rooms which is over a 20% increase to the current bed base. There are two free market homes on the Hopkins side and the lodge condominium is just under 1,500 square feet. The project has no requests for building fee waivers, affordable housing waivers or parking waivers. It conforms to the height of both respective zone districts. There is a need for a meeting space inside the hotel. We also intend to use local artists throughout the hotel. We have attempted to respect the neighborhood. We were also one of the early adopters of bikes for our guests to get them connected to Aspen. We also supply our staff with bus passes and complimentary airport transportation as well. John Cottle, CCY architects The rooms are small and smart, just over 300 square feet. The core of the hotel needs to be efficient and simple. The larger rooms have double queens and kings. The average size of the Limelite room is 450 square feet. The eastern part of the hotel on the ground level faces Paepcke Park and that area is public space. With the Hotel Aspen they have a full size pool. On the Molly we have a large hot tub which is 16 feet long as a private space for guests. With the historical society we are creating a Molly Gibson history corner. The building is 90 feet long facing Paepcke Park and 50 feet of it is two stories. Our intent is focusing on year round activities. The hotel fits within the grain o f the town. Porches on small lodges are important. IWe are pulling the hotel five feet back in order to have a detached sidewalk and - allow the street trees to continue All of Aspen is built on 30,60 and 90 foot modules. We tried to design this building around that in order to fit into Aspen. The materials are durable. We are proposing a wood siding with a metal. The residences are 112 and 114 Hopkins. There is a ground level bedroom, porch, stair roof and a secondary roof. All of those elements are between 16 and 25 feet wide. We are significantly reducing the scale on the street. Hopkins Street is a very varied street. 112 is the western house that has a first floor bedroom 16 feet wide and the gable is set back 60 feet from the curb line. 114 has a flat roof and is 7 feet lower than 1 12 and the flat roof is set back 60 from the street. We are requesting two variances one for a front door which is set back 13 feet and the requirement is ten feet. The other is the height o f the break in the glass. We are asking 8 to 10 feet rather than 9 to 12 feet. 4 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2014 Stan Clauson said the bones ofthe building which was the Smuggler Motor Lodge was built in 1954. In the 70's it was changed to a hotel. At the open house the only concerns were about construction and construction management plans. There were no concerns about the building and size etc. The AACP plan gives us guidance and calls upon the community to replenish the lodging base. The average room is slightly over 300 square feet. Since the 1990's the bed base has been lost. With the lodge preservation program that exists today allows free market development to be associated with the lodge as an incentive as a way of financing the development. You have the lodge, amenities and free market units and unfortunately the addition of those three components frequently does not compute. It essentially brings you to have larger numbers than the underlying zoning and brings you into the PUD process in order to bring forward a lodge plan. The City of Aspen's top ten goal in 2013-2014 was to implement an incentive program for the short term bed base. Stan said the project is L-PUD in the front and LP-R-6 on the Hopkins side. The site is 27,000 square feet and the current zoning is R-6 on Hopkins and on Main Street it is Mixed Use with a lodge preservation overlay. The LP overlay determines the permitted uses and the maximum of the floor area for the residentials. The proposed project is almost 36,000 square feet but it does have a significant amount of affordable housing and on lot 1 a free market component and on lot 2 a 9,000 square foot component. Lot 2 has less floor area than across the street and fits with the lodge incentive program as well. The height jfthe hotel is at 32 feet which is the maximum. The lodge rooms are 304 squ: re feet from 360 square feet and with new common spaces and energy e ;ficiency. Stan said the LP protects exi .ting smalllodges and directs you to the L zone for free market parameters. ' 9he net livable lodge use is 19,000 and the average size room at 304 sql. ire feet permits 60% residential development and that means you would hi ve an allowable floor area of 11,491 square feet. This project is propose g 1,000 square feet less than what would be permitted by the lodging inc.:ntive free market development parameters in the code. Stan said there will be a five foot parkwaf and aA 8 footlidewalk whici~ conforms to the engineerinj standards on Main Street. Parking on Garmisch/ will be parallelÂ¥This is thdast property on Main Street that Ras an attached 5 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2014 sidewa#. There are bench seating insets along Main Street. . There is also a. little patio area along Garmisch./ The guest parking is off the alley and there are 12 parking spaces that meets the requirement for parking based on the ability to retain the existing parking deficit. fI'here is lots of landscaping along the parkway along Main Street and landscaping along Garmisch. We are maintaining the integrity of the historic district with the modularity and other factors. We have also maintained the building widths and we have maintained the roo f forms. We step back and step down in scale. Nora inquired about further dialogue between the western module and the historic structure. John said one possibility would be to break the element further apart and consider changing the character of it. We would prefer not to change the character. We could study breaking it up further. Willis asked about the collaboration with the Hotel Aspen and the overhangs. Michael said there is an overlap and it is challenging to run a small lodge. We have shared staff and marketing as well as the shuttles. The pool can be shared and we have incorporated meeting space into the Molly Gibson. There are overhangs on the second floor that do not meet the five feet. The setback on level two and three is to accommodate queen queen configured rooms rather than just a king room which lends itself to the affordability of the lodge. The variance would be 2 96 feet. The deliveries will be on the alley. Willis said Sara's recommendation is that everything meet the five foot setback. Michael said if we reduce the setback the room becomes smaller and two queens won't fit. Nora asked ifthere was a way that the side yard dimension be within the setbacks on Parcel I, the residential. Stan said in terms of the design that is the way it was developed and fits well on the site. There is a ten foot requirement between the buildings and that is dictated by the land use code and the building code. The ten feet is met. 6 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2014 Vice-chair, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Willis thanked staff for doing a great job presenting this which is highly complicated and HPC is not used to seeing. lt is very digestible. Willis identified the issues: Restudy the 2 story module adjacent Meet a minimum of a5' setback along Main Street Provide information on delivery area Reduce the floor area of the residence along Hopkins Meet the RDS standards Meet the site coverage and setback requirement for single family homes Parcel II. Willis said this is an exciting project and crafted well. The two story module does not meet the intent of the lot split. The aesthetic being contemporary are OK but the dialogue should be split between the historic property and the hotel. Willis said he can support the mass and scale of the project. A connector piece might be an option. Meeting the five foot setback along Main Street seems easy to do. The two vertical windows over two vertical windows needs restudied. All the public spaces are in the right places. Possibly see more development of the public amenity space. Willis said on Parcel Il these are two houses that need to conform to the RDS's. The metrics in the code help to ensure the scale and that the context is respected. Patrick thanked the applicants for designing something that is close to fitting something that the public has longed for and that fits into most of the staff review. Possible introduce a connector to parcel I. I am in favor of the five foot setback and the RDS regulations. This project will benefit the community. John commented on the two story module on the historic lot split. With the inflection and the fact that the historic building is only one story in my opinion a more modern approach is fitting. If this lot was purchased by someone else and they tried to fit something on a 3,000 square foot lot we would have more issues. The design is fitting. 1 also enjoy the undulation of 7 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2014 the second story stepping out 2 % feet. I am not opposed to that and it breaks up the fagade to have it step back rather than one sheer wall going up. I am also in favor of the increased square footage on Hopkins especially since you are not asking for a lot of other things. Hopkins Street should be residences. I feel the RDS standard are out dated. The few variances you are requesting one to change the window height and setting back the front door 13 feet are fine. Regarding the site coverage I am in favor of what is being proposed. This building still feels like the Molly Gibson and its fabrics. This is a well thought out project. They could be asking for huge height increases. We need to work with the applicants in order for them to move forward. Jim said he likes the project a lot and the public amenity is very positive. You aren't asking for any waivers. 1 don't have a problem with the setback in order for the queen beds to fit. I am in favor of the site coverage conforming to the code. I am in favor of approving this with conditions. Nora thanked staff and the team for their presentation. The hotel part is great. The historic corner is an exciting evolution of this hotel. On the residential side my concerns are Parcel II. The RDS's guidelines are there and should be met. I am in favor of approving with conditions. Willis said he is fine with the setback variance on Main Street. Patrick agreed with Willis. Willis said he has a problem with approving Parcel I with the two story modules. Debbie pointed out to the board that you cannot condition mass and scale. Willis suggested restudying the two story module, layout of the delivery area and to meet the design standards for Parcel I I. MOTION: Jim moved to continue 101 W. Main Street Molly Gibson and Lot 2 of 125 W. Main Street until Dec. 3rd, second by Patrick. Patrick said for parcel I I the side yard setback is not met for the residential parcel. 8 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2014 Sara said both side yard setbacks are not met. There is supposed to be ten on each and five feet is proposed. They do meet the distance between the buildings often feet. Patrick asked about the FAR. Sara said staff is asking that the floor area be reduced. They can't meet the 4,080 ofthe R6 and that is not entire appropriate because they are doing an economy lodge project. Its reducing it a little bit in,trying to get closer to the setback requirements and trying to make it a little bit smaller to fit into the context but not meeting the letter of the law. John said this is a PUD and we are essentially making a recommendation to council. Willis said the dimension for R-6 is 4,080 FAR and under the lodge overlay it is 11,000,4091 square feet and we are somewhere in between. Nora said the side yard setbacks have to do with livability as well for the neighbors. Willis said the side yard setbacks are right now 5 feet east to west. In the R- 6 zoning it is ten feet. Stan said the lodging incentive program as it currently exists today provides for 60% of the lodging net [easable in the rooms be transferred to potential floor area. It is impossible to do that and at the same time reduce the floor area and provide a full ten foot setback on either side of the two residential units and reduce the site coverage and still have anything that comes close to the amount of lodging incentive that the code provides for. This is where the numbers don't compute. The LP should cause us to look at the buildings themselves and whether they work or not. What John Cottle has presented is a huge advantage over the current condition of having the Molly Gibson on Hopkins with its over 7,000 fuot floor area. Coming back with ten foot setbacks on either side you have taken away the viability of the project. Michael Brown said we have learned from the Hotel Aspen to not go up higher. There has to be somewhere to put the residences. 9 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12,2014 Jim said he finds validity in the comments and the applicant should discuss this with staff. Willis said the applicant is seeing a range of things from the board and others are accommodating to the variances. John said when you have two neighbors that have bought their property and have lived there a long time with five foot setbacks. We aren't taking away anything. We are leaving them what they have and making a good use of the development rights. They could come back with an 11,000 square foot Molly Gibson lodge on Hopkins rather than two residences. This is a win win situation for that neighborhood. Roll call vote: Patrick, yes; John, no; Willis, yes; Nora, yes; Jim, yes. Motion carried 4- 1. MOTION: Jim moved to adjourn, second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. 4 -1.- ' 1.4 b . L~vux.Â¢-,- '4 14 11 2-- i nivEALL Kathleen Stfickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 10 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3,2014 Vice-chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Patrick Sagal, John Whipple, Nora Berko and Jim DeFrancia. Sallie Golden was seated at 5:06. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Sara Adams, Senior Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: John moved to approve the minutes ofNov. 12,2014, second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. 101 W. Main St. aka Moly Gibson Lodge and Lot 2 of 125 W. Main Street Historic Landmark Lot Split Sallie said she is working with John Cottle on a project and she has no personal interest or financial gain on this project. She can be completely impartial and biased. Jim echoed Sallie's comments. He is working on a project with John Cottle also and has no financial interest in this project and can be impartial. Sara said the project is for the re-development of the Molly Gibson. The reviews for tonight are conceptual major redevelopment because a portion of the property is in the Main Street historic district, demolition, residential design standard variances for the two single family homes that are proposed along Hopkins and conceptual commercial design review and growth management review. The two reviews that are recommendations to city council are planned development project review which establishes the dimensional requirements for the project and subdivision review which is requested to merge the vacant lot along Main St. where the Molly Gibson is currently located. We find that the applicant has addressed all of our concerns and we are supportive ofthe project. The applicant restudied the two story module which is adjacent to the landmark and they are proposing two different roof forms, a flat roof and a gable roof. The applicant prefers the flat roof option. Staff prefers the gable roof as it is more literal and an obvious relationship to the historic landmark. They have also created a 1 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3, 2014 porch element. We are also supportive of the subdivision to merge the two lots and the review criteria are met. A setback variance is requested for the side yard that is closest to the landmark. Parcel II is the two single family homes. The applicant has really squeezed the two single family homes and they have lost about 1,000 square feet of FAR. They were asking for four variances per house and now they are just asking for two per house. Staff is comfortable with the two variances per home. They have also reduced their site coverage. They have increased the side yard setback to 7 feet to give relief on the two residences on either side of the property. Their site coverage went from 56 96 to 51%. The review criteria are met and staff recommends approval. On the RDS's they need a variance from secondary mass and intlection. Stan Clauson & Associates Michael Brown, owner John Cottle, Cottle & Yaw Architects Stan said they will address the changes made from the responses at the last hearing. Michael said this project is consistent with our small town character. It is the lowest density of any lodging project and it is the lowest in height of any project. We have 53 rooms now and we will go up to 64 rooms. We have two free market homes on Hopkins and one condo within the hotel. We also have on-site affordable housing and there is a detached sidewalk on Main 9 Street which is a major improvement to Main Street. We are not requesting building fee waiver, affordable housing waivers, parking waivers and both buildings conform to the height in their respective zone districts. Stan said the delivery area is in a portion of the alley. The alley has a 20 foot right-of-way which allows a delivery to be stationed to the building and on Parcel II the setbacks have been increased and there is a decrease in floor area and the Residential Design Standards have been reduced by 5096. The western module on Main Street has been modified. Option I includes a flat roof and a step back first floor element which creates a porch which reflects the porch on the Victorian and a connecting element. Option 2 has those qualities but adds a peaked roofto the design. John said there is a five foot overhang on the second story that ties into the elements of the Victorian next door. We feel the flat roof is more successful 2 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3,2014 and is tied to the Herbert Bayer design era. The gable roof although ties into the Victorian over time will not be successful. It will feel like the post modern has come back. The flat roof is more consistent with the building and it ties into Aspen's strong rigorous design heritage. The side yard setback has been increased from 5 to 7 feet. Stan said the narrowing of the buildings resulted in the total reduction of 1,000 square feet of FAR. John said the front door is ten feet back rather than 13 feet back. Stan said there is public space inside the lodge and there is an 8 foot sidewalk. The Main Street elevation will be a vast improvement over what is there now. Jim inquired about the flat roof. Michael said they would prefer the flat roof because it relates to the building betler; however, we feel good about both roofs. Patrick inquired about a duplex functioning better because then you wouldn't have to have the ten feet inbetween the two buildings. John said we wanted to return that side of the street to single family homes. Willis opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Willis identified the issues: This is a comprehensive review The subdivision will be referred to city council The planned development is also a recommendation GMQS Commercial Design Review Residential Design Standard Variances Willis identified the issues on Parcel 1 Setbacks along Main Street - They are asking for a cantilever on the second floor that triggers a variance. The delivery area has been identified 3 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3, 2014 Willis identified the issues on Parcel II Reduction of 1,000 square feet of FAR RDS's have been reduced from 4 to 2 Site coverage and setback requirements have been increased Willis said staff feels the gable roof better represents the incentives for the lot split. The gable is a little richer overall and Shakespearian. The setbacks are fine and the delivery area has been identified. Ihe 7 foot setback works for the residence to the east but not quite as well on the west. Sallie said this is a good project and she has no issues with any of the setbacks or design standards. The flat roof is simpler and easier on the eye to look at. Jim said the flat roof is entirely appropriate. This is a great project. Nora said the flat roof ties into the project. I am grateful to see a project in which we are not talking about parking and height. John said on Parcel Il you are giving the neighbors an additional two feet, 7 total. Returning the neighborhood to its intended us is great. The reduction of 1,000 square feet total is really generous and probably not necessarily needed. On Parcel I when you look at the pictures the gabled end pops out instead ofthe Victorian house so the flat roof is a better design. It is a successful project and I am looking forward to having it built. Patrick said he feel the gabled roof is more appropriate because of the nature of the development. Eaves in the soffit are also recommended so that there is more of a transition. On Parcel II the shapes are the same on the outside but the setbacks are different. Willis said the conditions on either side ofthe houses are different. The setbacks should be the same on either side. John said the applicant has made a real effort to give the neighbor more space and i f the neighbor was concerned about gaining a two feet of setback and wanted more they would have voiced their concerns. 4 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3,2014 Willis said there is plenty of breathing room on the house to the west but less so on the east. Sallie said hours and hours of study have been put into this. Jim said there have been a lot of concessions and this is a good project. John agreed that the concessions should be considered. Nora said we have design standards that need met. Willis said variances are there to create design excellence and a better situation. Nora said if this becomes a flat roof is the integrity and intent of the lot split lost. Sara said applications are on a case by case determination and the I-IPC needs to balance what is presented and how that relates to the historic resource in order to meet the lot split criteria. Sallie said the lot split relieves more development that could happen without it. We need to look at projects on an individual basis. MOTION: Jim moved to approve resolution #35 in the format as drafted by staff with the condition that the flat roof is approved; second by Sallie. VOTE: Jim, yes; Sallie, yes; Nora, yes; John, yes; Patrick, no; Willis, yes. Motion carried 5-1. 232 E. Main - Planned Development Project Review, Demolition, Growth Management, Conceptual Commercial Design, Conceptual Major Development in a Historic District, Waivers and Variances, cont'd from Nov. 198 Mitch Haas Mark Hunt Charles Cunniffe Spiro Tsaparas 5 0 E Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council Januarv 26,2015 Annual Meeting Aspen Public Facilities Authority 7 CITIZEN COMMENTS AND PETITION 7 COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 7 Agenda Addition 7 Board Reports ... ? CONSENTCALENDAR .3 L Resolution #19, Series of 2015 - Approving Contract for Internal Audit Services..........................4 E Resolution #14, Series of 2015 - ARC Waterslide Replacement Contract . 4 L Resolution #1, Series of 2015 - Designating the Public Place for the Posting of Notices of Public Mertingq . 4 E Resolution #9, Series of 2015 - Updating Financial and Investment Policies 4 C Board Appointments . 4 E Resolution #16, Series of 2015 -Burlingame Phase II Construction Contract Amendment ...........4 C] Resolution #17, Series of 2015 - Galena Plaza Improvement Project - Construction Administration Servire< .4 El Minutes-January 12,2015 4 Ordinance #6, Series of 2015 - Amending the Election section of the Municipal Code regarding Mail Ballot Elertiong .5 Resolution #13, Series of 2015 - Limits of Variations to Land Use Code Requirements, Policy Resolution .5 Resolution #20, Series of 2015 - 305 S Mill Street, Temporary I ke . 8 'Ordinance #3, Series of 2015 - 101 W Main Street (Molly Gibson Lodge) - Planned Development, â€¢ GMQS, and Design Review...il~.................,i:......:-~â€¢â€¢- Ordinance #2, Series of 2015 - 730 E. Cooper St. (Base 1 aka Domino's) Planned Development, GMQS and Design Review 15 Action Items.......... ..... .........21 1 .. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council Januarv 26,2015 Mr. Bendon added one additional condition that it be inspected and the snow removal practices reviewed by the chiefbuilding official. Councilman Romero moved to approve Resolution #20, series of2015 with conditions; seconded by Councilman Daily. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Mullis, no; Romero, yes; Frisch, no; Daily, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. Ordin ance #3, Series of 2015 - 1 01 W Ma i n Street (Molly Gibson Lodge) - Planned Development, GMQS, and Design Review Sara Adams, community development, told the council they are reviewing planned development, subdivision and growth management. The applicant has been responsive to Staff and HPC and she thanked them. The lodge is located on Main Street and occupies two lots. The lodge is zoned mixed use and a portion is R6 and located on Hopkins. There is a proposal to merge the lot. It is a landmark that was created through a historic lot split. Staff is excited about the project. It is a lodging project. It will move all the lodge use onto Main Street. There will be two single family homes on Hopkins. It was approved five to one at HPC. The lodge will be 68 rooms with 15 new. The rooms will be approximately 300 square feet. There will be one affordable housing unit on the ground floor. With the merge, the Main Street parcel will be around 18,000 square feet. Staff is supportive of the architectural style and it meets the design guidelines. They are meeting the allowable height. Staff is also supportive of the setback variations requested along the alley and Main Street. The applicant is requesting some floor area variations including one for cumulative tloor area. With the mixed use zone it allows for 18,000 to 22,500 through special review. The request is just under 27,000. If the request was considered as a whole they would be allowed 27,000 square feet floor area for lodging. Staff feels it is the most appropriate design and they are supportive of the floor area variances. HPC and Staff fell it will be exciting and contribute to the context. Along Hopkins it is a 9,000 square foot lot. Staff is supportive of the change to residential use and the architectural style. Staff supports the requested variances. Looking at the project as a whole they would be allowed 12,700 for the free market residential. Using the underlying zone district it is about 4,000. There is a big difference with the underlying zone district. There are some historic landmarks and larger single family homes nearby. They are allowed to maintain a deficit of parking. There is currently no onsite parking. All of the parking is in the right of way and they don't count as spaces they would have to replace. The lodge is required to have 7.5 spaces and they are providing 12. They are meeting the single family home requirement with two spaces each. Staff is supportive of the planned development, project review, lot merger and growth management amendment to remove the free market residential unit in the lodge building. The applicant is mitigating through housing credits. Because the vacant lot was a landmark and zoned historic Staff would like the landmark status to go away when the plat is filed. Mr. Bendon said the applicants approach to this project and their experience has been a 180 degree difference to the Hotel Aspen project. It has been a positive responsive approach with Staff and the review boards. Councilman Frisch said taking off the historic aspect is serious and fairly rare and asked if it happens often. Ms. Adams replied this type of scenario does not happen often. It is typically seen in the west end. HPC has prevue over what happens on this vacant lot. Councilwoman Mullins asked to clarify the FAR calculations. Ms. Adams said the floor area variances are within the allowances ifthe project came in as mixed use lodging on both lots. The cumulative max would be 27,000 if using the mixed use underlying zoning. Councilwoman Mullins asked if we are counting some of the FAR twice. Councilman Frisch said if this was one lot regardless it could be 39,000 of bulk and mass. Ms. Adams said it is mixed use and R6. If using mixed use it is a 1 to 1 or 27,000 max. Councilman Frisch said he is happy to look at it as one lot. They could allow up to 27,000 in lodging and up to 12,000 in residential when they are only asking for 8,000. It is 4,000 less than the 11 .. Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council JanuarÂ¥ 26,2015 maximum. Ms. Adams said there is a cumulative maximum of the total amount on the parcel and within that the categories of uses. It does not mean adding up all the maximums to get to the cumulative. Mayor Skadron said we are dealing with R6, mixed use, lodge and free market residential. Ms. Adams stated she applied the lodge preservation allowances and applied the different aspects of the code and what they are asking for is less than what they could do i f they did it as a whole. Mayor Skadron asked how does staff prioritize what category to use. Ms. Adams said the lodge preservation overlay provides some flexibility and they are required to go through a planned development. They are required to go through the planned development because ofthe lodge. Mayor Skadron asked what district is applied to the free market. Ms. Adams said along Hopkins it is R6. Using the LP overlay the free market is a percentage of the lodging. It is 60 percent for this project or 12,700 square feet. The underlying is 4,000 and the LP says 12,700 and they are at 8,000. Councilman Daily asked what your interpretation ofthe neighborhood context is. Ms. Adams said they did a great job architecturally. The increase in the side yard set backs and the reduction in site coverage were positive changes. They are great additions to what is currently there. HPC varied two residential design standards for each house. Councilman Romero said the LP overlay is what allows those variances to be entertained in exchange for preserving the lodge. Councilwoman Mullins said the residential for that neighborhood are too large and too tall. The site coverage is too great. It is a neighborhood of very small modest homes with generous front and side yards. The two proposed houses are quite a bit larger than the surrounding residential units. They probably don't have to go down to 4,000 but need decreased in size. They meet the height limit but are squeezed into the lots. Michael Brown. owner. stated he is excited about this project. It is a plan that is sensitive to the community and surroundings. It will be an asset to the community for years to come. He thanked staff for working closely with him. The enhancements benefited the project. They incorporate community sensibilities into the plan. It is a locally owned hotel. He has been doing business here for 15 years. He owned the Molly since 2007 and lived there briefly. It is a very special place. He has continually invested back in to the hotel. The density is consistent with the small town character while revitalizing the community. Currently there are 53 50 year old lodging units to be replaced with 68 rooms. Rooms will be between 302 to 360 square feet. It will be affordable for Aspen. There will be exceptional community space. There was a residential unit in the lodge building that was approved by HPC but it was removed and replaced with four lodging units. The two residential homes on Hopkins enhance the neighborhood. They meet the onsite affordable housing requirement. The Main Street corridor is exciting. The current hotel is on the lot line and this will provide a set back and landscape buffer off of Main Street. There are no request for fee, affordable housing or parking waivers. It fully conforms to the height of the zone districts. They have done the most they can with the hotel. They hear from their guests that they like congregating together in a shared communal space. The key design driver is to respect the rich history of the hotel. It is a showcase for local artists and businesses. They have a great relationship with the historical society. They like to do locally sourced products in the hotel. They were an early adopter of their own bike fleet before we-cycle. There is a station across the street. They agreed to purchase a we-cycle station and provide guests with passes. They give employees bus passes to encourage them not to drive. They have an airport shuttle. John Cottle said he wanted to take Michael's experience and community and embody it in the architecture. The guest rooms are small and smart. The key to being affordable is the building needs to be efficient. There are a variety of room sizes and community space. Other public areas include the front porch. There will be seven tables and residential in scale. There is a meeting space down stairs that will seat 60. There will be a Molly Gibson history corner. The vision is to connect the guest to the rich Aspen history. It will create vitality off of Main Street. They will work with the historical society to curate it. It will enrich the guest experience and greater visitation to the historical society. They are pulling the hotel I Â¢ back tolnakeIUm for the sidewalk. It will be replaced-ith a landscape buffermnd eight foot wide wall, Nax.They worked with parks on this. They pulled back the building from 5 to 15 feet., 12 .. Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council Januarv 26,2015 The proposed materials are a vertical wood siding and paneled metal siding. The residences are improving upon the existing and do fit the neighborhood. The houses are comprised of four elements including the bedroom, stair tower, entry and gabled roof. The houses comply with the residential design standards. Changing from a hotel to a residence is a big deal. Hopkins has a varied context of buildings. The new Victorian next door is big and dense. The Holiday House is 65 feet wide and three stories. Stan Clauson said the entire area is covered by a LP PUD and it is important to consider. Even though there is underlying zoning the LP determines what is possible. Questions from first reading include what are the variances requested. There are minor reductions of side yard setbacks for residential on both sides. The LP specifies 60 percent free market as an incentive. The applicant is only requesting 38 percent. The existing setbacks are being increased. They did public outreach door to door. The next question was about the nature of the relationship of hotels and cars. He said some guests will bring cars. The current lodge use accommodates vehicles. There is access to parking within the neighboring blocks and 12 proposed spaces more than meet the requirement. The Molly encourages being car free in Aspen. It is walking distance to the commercial core and there is a bus stop in front. Bikes and a shuttle service are provided. The single family residential fits well into the neighborhood. They are providing the largest set backs on the block for both faces. The gabled heights are no taller than those of adjacent residences. They made modifications during the HPC review and followed staff recommendation. They decreased the floor area of the single family by 1,000 square feet. It allowed for the additional width of the setbacks. They go to the AACP often for guidance. There is a City of Aspen top ten goal to implement an incentive program and they have not taken advantage of the full incentives. They voluntarily reduced the amounts. During a clicker session after the withdrawal of the incentive ordinance 80 percent agreed the city should allow free market residential and 65 percent said the city should be aggressive in replacing lost units. The LP zone district purpose statement encourage development that is compatible with the neighborhood. Mayor Skadron asked why they replaced the free market residential with additional rooms. Mr. Brown said to create a pure lodge. Mayor Skadron asked what is the business advantage of a pure lodge. Mr. Brown said they see the value of not having an owner in there. It is also important to the community. Mayor Skadron said in terms of numbers, a penthouse would get four to five million dollars. Why walk away from that. Mr. Brown said they went with volume of rooms. As proposed it will return a profit. The two single family homes are important. A stand-alone lodge on its own would never work. Mayor Skadron asked about the side yard set backs for the residential component. Mr. Clauson said they are required to have a ten foot setback. There is seven feet between each unit and the property line. That is a greater setback than any that exists on that block face. On a 6,000 square foot lot the minimum is five feet. For this size lot it is ten feet. If you were to do ten it would create a building that is too narrow for an appropriate interior design. Councilman Frisch said if they were looking at one lot it would be 12,000 residential and 27,000 lodge. How does site coverage work. Ms. Adams replied only in R6 not mixed use. The set backs are different in mixed use than R6. Mayor Skadron said the justification for the side yard setback is it is not as bad as the neighbors. Councilman Romero said they are getting closer back to the original intent of set backs. They need to look at the totality of the circumstances. The guidance of the LP encourages and ties back to the AACP to provide some mechanism for lodge operators to enhance or increase lodge rooms. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. 1. Sonja McCarthy stated she has lived here for 15 years and is a neighbor to the Molly. She appreciates all the hard work and thoughtful planning. It is a marked improvement. They have been a pleasure to work with and she is pleasantly surprised with the plans. She is excited for the potential changes and they are long overdue. She read a comment from Kristi Cavanaugh who said the charm and soul of the community is what makes us tick and a healthy vibrant place to live. The Moll Gibson encompasses all the right pieces of a successful build. 13 .. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 26, 2015 2. Kelly Murphy from the historical society said they typically don't take a position. She is not here to do that. The Molly is a terrific community member and partner. They care very much about the cominunity. They are very forthcoming and have been very active about seeking input. 3. Nicole Gogolak, historical society board, said she is an artist, educator and mom. She is on the board of the Wyly art center. She appreciates they are showcasing local artists in the hotel. She is a hockey, lacrosse, dance and ski mom. They are always inviting people to this community to compete and a new hotel would be a great place for parents to come in with their kids. It is an asset to our community. 4. Roberto Soria said he is a 40 year resident and has seen many changes in hotels and the town. He is excited for the new hotel and supports the new project. It will better serve the guests and a newer place to work. It is an old hotel and there is only so much you can do to make it work and be affordable. 5. Tom Brinkmeyer said he walks Main Street all the time. It is the worst side walk on Main Street. He was sold on the new sidewalk. 6. Lex Tarumianz said he is a19 year local. This new project with 63 new rooms will be a great thing for town. He wants council to think long and hard about the two homes in back. It will be very well done and in character with the neighborhood. It is a great thing for the neighborhood. 7. Courtney Shore, Michael's fianc6 said she is a school teacher and artist. The lodge is not the concern but the two houses. You can't make everyone happy. She would like to have this project approved tonight. It is great for the community. Mayor Skadron closed the public hearing. Councilinan Daily said it is a very thoughtful proposal. He appreciates the balance and hard work that has gone in to it. I can feel it. It is a very successful evolution. It is important to the community. He likes the balance. The single family homes don't bother him. They fit the context of the neighborhood. He is quite comfortable with the way the homes are designed. He thanked them for the special effort. It is a benefit to the entire town. Councilman Romero said the process is exemplary. It is a testimony to have half a dozen positive comments. It is a critical aspect and is refreshing. He recognizes the amount of heavy lifting and work. They are building relationships that don't occur over night. There is clearly a lot of thought in the design product. It is conforming to the community values but meets the investment criteria. The LP overlay affords this broader conversation where we can find a way to meet our goals while being respectful of yours. I think your goals are the same as ours. Coming in this evening I had a negative bias around the houses but now have a better understanding of the context and fit. He is willing to support it this evening. He asked about the commitment to We-Cycle. Mr. Brown said they are purchasing an additional station to be located at the discretion of We-Cycle. Their guests will receive passes and can utilize the station across the street. Councilman Romero said he is reminded of the broader community conversation over the magnitude of cars. There is going to be a broader policy level discussion about this. All of us need to pitch in. The tone and tenor is refreshing and it compels him to respond in the same manner. Councilman Frisch said the houses fit right in. He appreciates some of Councilwoman Mullins concerns. The houses do fit and the lodging component is great without any free market. They can operate a moderate lodge with not as much parking as what one thinks. There were not a lot ofneighbor complaints and no letters with concern. He is taking that as broad community support to see the application approved. Mayor Skadron asked if he has any concern over the excess floor area. Councilman Frisch said this is one unit of land that is part of lodge, free market and affordable housing. In context of that there is an extra 4,000 square feet o f residential that could be put there. It is a good ratio of free market to lodging. The neighbors appreciate that. It is a healthy, fair and balanced way to look at it. 14 .. Regular Meetine Aspen City Council January 26,2015 Mayor Skadron stated he wants Council to look at the review criteria. Councilman Frisch said he supports Staff point of view. Councilwoman Mullins said she has been on HPC and Council and has never heard such overwhelming support of a project. It is well deserved. She completely supports the parcel one development. The ,'sidewalk is scary. She has reservations with the residential. The applicant did make a good case for the diversity and range of set backs. It is a really compelling reason to approve private residents to support the lodge. Floor area is a good example of how to use that incentive to make the lodge work. She wishes the residential was a bit smaller but the tradeoff and public support she can support. Mayor Skadron said regarding excess lodge floor area, 18,000 is allowable 26,000 is proposed. 18,000 is based on parcel one not the entire parcel. Ms. Adams said the 60 percent is the incentive for the free market residential which is an incentive of the LP. Mayor Skadron said the application needs to require three sets of criteria including PUD. subdivision and growth management. He can't find that the application fails to satisfy those. He is supportive since it satisfies the criteria. Ms. Adams said there is a typo in exhibit A. She would like to amend exhibit A with tables one and two of the staff memo. Councilman Daily move to adopt Ordinance #3, Series of 2015 with amendments; Seconded by Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Daily, yes; Frisch, yes; Romero, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. Ordinance #2, Series of 2015 - 730 E. Cooper St. (Base 1 aka Domino's) Planned Development, GMQS and Design Review Sara Adams told the Council the property is located on the corner or Cooper and Original and is zoned commercial lodge with a planned development overlay. The project is required to go through the planned development process to establish dimensional requirements using the commercial lodge zone district as the underlying zone. The reviews include planned development, growth management and commercial design. The proposal is to redevelop the existing site with a three story lodge building with commercial on the ground level and accessory commercial in the basement. It will have 44 lodge rooms that average 177 square feet. There are also plans for a publicly accessible roof top deck. The maximum height for a commercial building in this zone is 40 feet. The proposed height is 35.5. The code allows exemptions to height for elevators and stairs. The bathrooms fall into the roof top amenity height exemptions. The applicant is requesting a variation of two feet for the bathrooms. They meet the floor area requirements, set backs, lodge floor area and commercial floor area. Council is asked to establish the parking requirements through the planned development process. The applicant proposes offsite parking. The parking requirement is based on the number of lodge rooms. The proposal is for 44 rooms and the code does not provide incentives for high density lodges. The requirement is half a space per lodge room. The code does not differentiate between luxury lodge or economy lodge as it does in other sections. The applicant is committed to offsite parking. The requirement is 25.5 spaces. The applicant is comfortable with 13. There is a proposal for a valet service and a request to possibly use the Rio Grande garage. The ordinance specifies the parking is to be off site. Since first reading the applicant has been working with We-cycle. The applicant is proposing to purchase the station near the site as well as one at the Rio Grande garage. The affordable housing mitigation is between .099 and 1 FTE's. Based on average size of room it brings the mitigation down. Council is asked to establish the generation rate. In this zone it is .6 employees generated per lodge room. This is based on the level of service provided. For LP lodges it is hal f or .3 employees per room. The code recognizes the level of service differentiation. The mitigation would be for .099 or 1 FTE. The applicant is requesting a waiver of that. 15 . . F Memorandum Frorn: Josh Rice, P.E. Development Engineer City of Aspen Engineering Department To: Sara Adams Senior Planner City of Aspen Planning Department Date: September 19,2014 RE: DRC Comments for the Molly Gibson Lodge Redevelopment These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project packet submitted for purpose o f the DRC meeting. 1) Transportation Impact Analysis: a) Provide a report that follows the layout presented on page 12 of the TIA guidelines. b) Provide more detail explaining why credit should be given for each selected measure within the TIA tool. Explain and show the location of each measure utilized on site. c) Explain why the specific measures were chosen and how they will better serve the public. 2) Drainage: a) Provide a full major drainage report that meets tJRMP and Engineering Design Standards. This project is located near a storm sewer system and may benefit from utilizing the fee-in-lieu of detention program. 3) Snow Storage: a) A minimum functional area equaling 30% of the paved area shall be provided contiguous to the paved and designed to accommodate snow storage. For heated areas, the functional area can be reduced to 10%. 4) Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter: a) All sidewalk, curb and gutter must meet the Engineering Standards as outlined in Title 21 and the Engineering Design Standards adopted by Title 29. b) The minimum sidewalk width on Main and Garmisch Streets is 8 ft, detached.' The minimum width of the planting strip is 5 ft. It is understood that potential con flicts may limit the sidewalk width and or planting strip width. While the applicant should attempt to achieve the code width, the sidewalk width can be reduced to 6 ft where conflict exist. The applicant should coordinate with the Parks and Engineering Departments to find alignment solutions. c) The LIopkins sidewalk is in a residential area and therefore, the minimum sidewalk width is 5 ft, detached. 1 he minimum width of the planting strip is 5 ft. .. DRC Comments - Molly Gibson Page 2 d) Curb and gutter will likely need to be replaced except for the new curb and gutter on Hopkins Ave. The turning radius may need to be address at the intersection of Main and Garmisch Streets. 5) Alley: a) Identify utility pedestals serving the property. Relocate all utility pedestals to within the property boundary. b) Locate any new electric transformer within the property boundary. c) Locate trash enclosure within the property boundary. d) Parking must be located within the properly boundary. e) The entrance to the alley needs to be improved in order to meet ADA and City standards. 6) Parking a) Head in parking along Garmisch should be parallel. 7) Construction Management a) Engineering is concerned about the Construction Impacts of this site. Please submit a construction management plan prior to Council review. The plan must include a planned sequence of construction that minimizes construction impacts. The plan shall describe mitigation for parking, staging/encroachments, and truck traffic. 8) Excavation Stabilization a) Due to the proximity of the neighboring property and the excavation of the building the City will require an excavation stabilization plan prior to building permit submittal. 9) Survey Requirements a) A survey requirement is to pothole and provide depth to utilities. Please comply with this requirement at building permit submittal. 0 6. Sara Adams From: Chris Forman Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 8:27 AM To: Sara Adams Subject: Molly Gibson Sara, I had a meetingthis morning with staff regarding the proposed sidewalk along Garmisch Street. The plans that have been presented to Parks show the alignment of this walk to be attached to the curb line. In situations such as this where there are no tree preservation or other Parks Department concerns in the proposed sidewalk area, we defer to Engineering's direction pertaining to sidewalk alignment. We've not been presented with any plans that show a detached walk inthis area, though we would certainly be supportive of that direction. A detached sidewalk would provide an opportunity to develop an appropriate right of way treatment consistent with what has been proposed in the right of way on the Main Street side of this project. Thanks, Chris Chris Forman Parks Operations Manager 585 Cemetery Lane Aspen, Colorado 81611 970-429-2026 p 970-920-5128 f chris.forman@citvofaspen.com 1 0 0% Memorandum From: Hailey Guglielmo, EIT Civil Engineer I City of Aspen Engineering Department Sara Adams Senior Planner City of Aspen Date: June 18,2015 RE: Molly Gibson Garmisch Sidewalk Alignment The City of Aspen Engineering Design Standards as adopted by Title 29 states the following: Section 4.5.2 Sidewalk Layout and Design Sidewalks shall be placed so that there is a minimum buffer of 5 feet between the back o f the curb and the sidewalk; this is to allow for adequate landscaping and snow storage buffer behind the curb gutters and travel paths. Attached sidewalks will not be permitted; however, the City does understand there may be circumstances where it is unavoidable. In these circumstances a variance request must be submitted. The Engineering Department does not support a variance in this location. There are no site constraints which make a detached sidewalk unfeasible. The project shall meet City standards. A detached sidewalk creates a safer interaction between pedestrians and traffic. The buffer provides space for snow storage which allows sidewalks to be cleared and prevents sidewalks from being buried by snow from snow plows. Overall a detached sidewalk enhances the pedestrian experience. There is significant benefit to detached sidewalks and thus it has been adopted as the City standard. 1 he initial DRC comments, dated September 19,2014, state "The minimum sidewalk width on Main and Garmisch Streets is 8 ft, detached. The minimum width of the planting strip is 5 ft." It was made clear to the applicants early on in the design process that a detached sidewalk would be required along both Main St and Garmisch St.