Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20160607 AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING June 07, 2016 4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISIT II. ROLL CALL III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public IV. MINUTES A. Draft Minutes for May 3, 2016 B. Draft Minutes for May 17, 2016 V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 230 E Hopkins Ave - Conceptual Commercial Design, Off-Street Parking and Growth Management Quota System Reviews VII. OTHER BUSINESS VIII. BOARD REPORTS IX. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 4, Series 2016 Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legaJ notice (affi d avit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clari fications of applicant 7) Public comments 8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met. Revised April 2, 2014 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 3, 2016 1 Mr. Goode, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Brian McNellis, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Ryan Walterscheid, Spencer McNight and Keith Goode. Jasmine Tygre arrived a few moments later. Skippy Mesirow, Jason Elliott, and Jesse Morris and were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jessica Garrow and Justin Barker. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES March 15, 2016 Ms. McNicholas Kury motioned to approve the draft minutes and was seconded by Mr. Goode. All in favor, motion passed. April 19, 2016 Mr. Walterscheid motioned to approve the draft minutes and was seconded by Mr. McNight. All in favor, motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. PUBLIC HEARINGS Aspen Alps Planned Development Mr. Goode asked if public notice had been provided. Ms. Quinn asked Mr. Alan Richman, applicant representative, if any documentation had been provided to any members of the public regarding neighborhood outreach as indicated in the summary. Mr. John Corcoran, Aspen Alps General Manager, responded he had provided some of the drawings included in tonight’s packet to Mr. Donnie Lee, General Manager of The Gant. Ms. Quinn then informed Mr. Goode notice appeared to have been properly provided. The affidavits were submitted as Exhibit E (in packet) and E.1 (not in the packet). Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to Staff. P1 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 3, 2016 2 Ms. Hillary Seminick, Planner, noted this is a public hearing for the commission to provide a recommendation to City Council for the replacement of the 300 building at the Aspen Alps Planned Development (PD) and subdivision. The project is currently in a project review phase which approves the building dimensions including floor area and height. There are a number of reviews to be considered including: • Amendment to the existing Planned Development (PD) • 8040 Greenline Review • Mountain View Plane, particularly the Wheeler Opera House • Growth Management Reviews • Residential Design Standard (RDS) reviews Ms. Seminick noted the application was deemed complete before Referendum 1 as well as the recently adopted design standards, so it will be compared to the older standards, not those adopted more recently. Ms. Seminick then provided the history and site orientation of the proposed building. Using a slide of the site, she stated the Aspen Alps consists of eight parcels and is located to the east of the Little Nell Ski Run. Building 300 is located on lot 3. The Aspen Alps was developed over a period of about 10 years starting around 1960. It was the first condominium building in the state of Colorado. Overall, the Aspen Alps has a total of 73 multi-family units, three affordable housing units and a parking garage. The parking garage and affordable housing are located on lot 7. Presently, the existing structure suffers from lateral loading causing the entire building to be somewhat out of alignment. The management and homeowner’s association (HOA) initially explored repairing the structure, but with the potential of identify other structural issues and the associated expense it was decided to replace the structure. This is a 100% multi-family residential building and it will be replaced with the same use. Ms. Seminick then displayed and explained elevations of the existing building as approved in 2013 in the PD process. The building orients north-south and is built into the hillside. While the project review includes proposed dimensions, she wanted to touch on design changes as they pertain to other aspects of the required 8040 Greenline and RDS reviews. The applicant is proposing the following: a) Change the overall architecture of the building while maintaining the basic form b) Add a green roof c) Include more glazing as demonstrated on the east elevation Similar materials will be utilized and the stone chimney features will be retained. Egress is currently off the west elevation. On the new building, the egress will be provided from the inside on the west elevation and a second egress will be included as required by code. Ms. Seminick then displayed a slide of the proposed dimensions (Table 2, p38 of the agenda packet). The applicant is requesting to increase the overall floor area, number of units and height in the new structure. She noted this project is within the lodge zone district with a PD overlay. During the PD process, the dimensions are compared to the underlying zone district. The lodge zone district allows for 1:1 floor area ratio and a maximum building height for a single residential use of 28 ft. The existing structure has seven units averaging about 1,300 sf. Units 302 and 306 were combined some years ago P2 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 3, 2016 3 and they are planning to split the units back out. The proposed project also includes two new units. All the units will have a net livable of 1,500 sf and each unit will grow on average, 377 sf of net livable area. Staff wanted to point out the 300, 400 and 500 buildings were built at approximately the same time and are of equivalent size. The approved dimensions of the 300 building include 9,942 sf of floor area with 3,131 sf of deck area. The applicant is requesting to increase the approved dimensions to 17,547 sf of floor area with 8,495 sf of deck area. The amendment represents an increase in floor area by 7,865 sf or 79% increase in overall floor area. The deck area will increase by 5,328 sf representing an overall increase of 170%. Additionally, the applicant has proposed increasing the height of the structure to 44 ft which is currently 35 ft with a 44 ft chimney allowance. Staff does not support the floor area amendment request and feels there needs to be a reduction in the massing, floor area and the deck area to respect the surrounding buildings and be more consistent with the neighborhood context and to be better aligned with the underlying zone district. The applicant has also requested to amend the setback dimensions. In one area of the property, the proposed building setback is 1 ft 8 in. The underlying zoning allows for five ft on all sides and Staff feels that by reducing the deck area, the setback requirement would be reduced in the particular area. As mentioned previously, the building suffers from structural issues and the preliminary geotechnical investigation did not provide the level of detail required to place the mitigation such as retaining walls and other features. The mitigation will be assessed in the detail review process. Staff is proposing an additional setback requirement of zero ft pertaining to the retaining features to allow greater latitude in the placement of the features to ensure they are appropriate geotechnical solutions. Concerning the Growth Management Review, this project will generate 4.51 FTEs. The applicant has proposed to satisfy the mitigation requirement by acquiring affordable housing certificates. The application has been referred to APCHA and they would prefer to see a combination of both on-site and certificates. Regarding the Mountain View Plane review, the proposed building is within the Wheeler View Plane and is about 2,000 ft from the point of origin. She provided a slide demonstrating where the view plane intersects the building. The applicant provided a series of photos showing the relationship of the 300 building to the view plane both from the ground level and from the second floor. She noted there are structures on the Hyman Ave Mall and beyond prohibiting viewing the structure even if trees were not there. Staff feels the impact on the view plane would be minimal from the project. In regards to the 8040 Greenline review, the primary issues are geotechnical in nature and the preliminary investigation looked into why this is happening at the site and has determined a need for mitigation. The Engineering department was referred to and they have provided a number of requirements and conditions to be met during the detailed review and build permit process. Staff does have concern of potential light leakage and light pollution on the elevation of the building. Next, Ms. Seminick discussed the RDS. Multi-family uses are only touched on in a few areas of the RDS. One being street facing principle windows and the proposed windows project into the no-window zone between 9 - 12 ft above the first floor plate. There is also a requirement for a minimum of two street facing entrances on the project and a requirement for no stairwells forward of the front most wall of the building. The applicant met with staff after they received the memo and noted they would provide the dimensions for their front entryway to show how they meet the requirement. The applicant will also propose a solution to the 9 - 12 ft window zone and incorporate retaining features into the stairwell. Staff does feel the number of windows on the façade is an improvement from the existing condition. P3 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 3, 2016 4 Overall, Staff is supportive of replacing the structurally deficient building in the interest of the health and safety of its residents. However, Staff does not support an increase in the overall floor area of the project and the height increase or the glazing proposed. Staff recommends a restudy at this time. Mr. Goode asked if any member had questions for Staff. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked where the 8040 Greenline intersects the building. Ms. Seminick replied it is below the building. Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning Services, represents the applicant and introduced the following individuals of the applicant’s team: Mr. John Corcoran, General Manager of the Aspen Alps Mr. Gilbert Sanchez, Studio B Architects, serving as the project architect Mr. Jesse Swan, Sopris Engineering, serving as the project engineer Ms. Pam Cunningham, former General Manager of the Aspen Alps Ms. Nina Eisenstat, assisting with public outreach Mr. Richman then provided background of the project stating they originally submitted it almost a year ago and have been working with staff on refinements in effort to meet staff concerns. Last June, at a Design Review Committee (DRC) meeting, they heard a number of significant concerns about the design, size of the two new units and the inclusion of a parking garage (11 spaces below the building). The applicant concluded from the DRC meeting they needed to make some revisions including: • Remove the entire parking garage reducing the gross area of the building by about 6,800 sf • Changed the form and skin of the building • Reduce the building in width and length (demonstrating on a slide the outline of the originally submitted building and the current proposed outline) • The two new units (each 2,000 sf) which are allowed in the zone district if TDRs are retired, were reduced to 1,500 sf. They thought these changes demonstrated their responsiveness to Staff’s concerns and felt it made the project better overall. They were clearly disappointed when they saw Staff is not supporting the project at this time. They do appreciate Staff’s recognition of the need to replace the building. They disagree with Staff regarding the appropriateness of the design of the building. Tonight, they want to show P&Z how they have created a design they believe takes its inspiration from the historic influences of the property and sets a modern tone for the Aspen Alps. They will be focusing on: • Proposed height • Size of the units • Important functions of the proposed decks and access ways serve the building – the decks actually help to reduce the perceived mass of the building They feel this building is important for the tourist economy. The condominium segment of Aspen’s tourist inventory never seems to get the attention or the public support the traditional lodging sector receives. P4 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 3, 2016 5 Mr. Richman reviewed the existing conditions of the current structure and showed slides of the history of the Aspen Alps. He noted it is located at the lower reaches of Aspen Mountain and accessed from Ute Ave and via Aspen Alps South Rd. Mr. Corcoran noted the current slide was dated pre-1972 because Ute Ave is shown between the 100 and 200 building and it is no longer there. He thought the closure agreement was in 1973. Mr. Richman continued stating the first building was constructed in 1962 followed by the 300, 400 and 500 building built mid-1960s making the 300 building approximately 50 years old. When the original buildings were condominiumized, the owner essentially cut out donut holes from the existing parcel for the buildings. He demonstrated on a slide the location of the lots within the donut holes for all the buildings. The developer retained the surrounding land. In 1992, a land use application was submitted by the Aspen Alps in conjunction with the developer enabling the Aspen Alps to obtain the title for the surrounding land as well. In 2001, the City rezoned the Aspen Alps which was covered by a series of zoning districts including R-15, conservation, lodge (L-2) to allow condominiums for all the buildings as Lodge with a PD overlay. This made the use conforming, but there were still many nonconformities in the buildings. In 2013, the Aspen Alps obtained approval of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan. This plan did not propose any new development. Its stated purpose was to allow the Aspen Alps to plan for future improvements to the property without being encumbered by the nonconformities. Before this plan, many aspects did not comply with underlying zoning. Density, height and floor area were all more than allowed on the underlying zone district. While the Lodge zone district was appropriate for the use, it did not fit in terms with what had been built on the property. The PUD made all these features conforming which designated the existing dimensions of each of the buildings as the approved dimensions and thereby eliminating any nonconformities. This leads to an issue they have with Staff’s comparison of the building with the underlying zone district. The PUD went on to state any changes to the dimensions would require a PUD amendment. It did not say no changes could be made to the dimensions nor that the dimensions were set in stone. He believes it was because the Aspen Alps and the City recognized the buildings were built some years ago and many aspects of them were dated and substandard in regards to the zoning as well as other codes. He feels if the building is held the dimensions defined, it is being doomed to be a substandard building. He wanted to mention the PUD created eight lots. The lots correspond with the buildings area deeded over by the developer. Lot 6 was basically all the land other than the donut holes which surround the buildings. He pointed out lot 6 on an overhead view of the property. He also pointed out the parcel line of lot 3 and how it does not bear any relationship to any real factor on the ground. When floor area ratios and set backs are calculated, the land area in lot 3 is taken into consideration. But if you look at in a bigger perspective, there is a lot more open land around the building not considered in the calculations. He noted the location of the 1 ft 8 in setback is where the lot line is nearest the building. The open area behind the 300 building will remain open. He asked P&Z to keep this in mind. Mr. Corcoran noted he has been the General Manager of the Aspen Alps for eight years. He noted the Aspen Alps was one of the earliest players in the short term rental of apartments to visitors. He showed some historical pictures of the 100 and 300 buildings. He noted by 1992, 777 Ute petitioned into the Aspen Alps, the property was about 7.5 acres with 83 condominiums. He then discussed the condition of the 300 building. He noted throughout the discussions, P&Z will see dramatic changes to the two spruce trees located behind the building as well as other plantings on the property. He stated the issue began when a concerned owner called stating he felt the building was leaning. Mr. Corcoran showed images of the hallway and noted he called a geotech engineer, Dr. Allan Thurman. It was his opinion the access to and livability have been severely impacted by ground P5 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 3, 2016 6 movement at the 300 building location. Unless the building is stabilized, the ongoing movement and ever increasing lateral loads will destroy the building. In exploring their options for repairing the building, they learned more about the costs and uncertainty from jacking up and straightening a 52-year-old building and were not sure this was an optimal outcome. They then started to think about replacing the building. Obvious improvements including access, safety, materials, and energy efficiency. In conversations with some owners, they clearly wanted the necessary improvements in safety and access as well as improvements to the space for families and extended families. Mr. Corcoran noted people are looking for better and more expanded spaces than they did 50 years ago in their vacations for their families and extended families. Most people come to Aspen for the outdoors and they want patios and decks to blur those lines. They want to offer more than the ability to have two chairs with a cocktail table. They also wanted ceiling heights higher than 7.5 to 8 ft. As designed, they feel the apartments will provide a better living space for their customers including some modestly sized three bedroom units. In the past, Community development and others have communicated to him that rental condominiums are an important part of our tourist economy which is 40% of the bed base in Aspen. He feels experts in mountain resort travel would describe the inventory as aging and in need of refurbishment. Throughout the process they have obtained feedback from the Design Review Committee (DRC) and City Staff to improve the proposed building. he as well as the owners to see this project move forward. The owners want to continue to be a part of this community. They have had four generations of families in some of the condominiums. Mr. Sanchez provided slides showing the placement and boundaries of the existing and proposed buildings on the site. He discussed the uniqueness of the site including the existing vegetation and setbacks. He pointed to the corner where the smallest setback exists. The edge of the property is another 65 – 70 ft away from this corner. The open lawn is an amenity of the Aspen Alps and also the de facto backyard for the 300 building. The defining parameters for the location of the 300 building is the 400 building, S Alps Rd, existing cottonwood trees and spruce trees. They have negotiated with Parks on how to keep the Spruce trees. The proposed building is actually shorter, but fatter than the existing building. The proposed building is further from the road to accommodate four parking spaces, sidewalks, curbs, a bike rack and landscaping opportunities. In addition, some site walls are included to retain the street and mountain as well as manage any flow of debris. They are not certain at this time exactly of the location and size of the walls. They will also expand the existing trail. They are proposing a green roof to allow the water to be treated before entering the storm water system and contribute to the thermal performance of the roof. He then provided a slide of the proposed building showing 4 stories of habitable space as does the existing building. He noted they are adding mechanical basement space. He then discussed how the height is determined. It was their intent to respect the 44 ft height limit for the tallest element of the current building as identified in the PUD. Their application within the agenda packet includes heights along the roadside of 24 ft 6 in to 28 ft 6 in as measured from the proposed grade to the top of the building. The lawn side is more challenging and measures 42 ft 6 in to 44 ft. They expect substantial concrete work in order to hold back the mountain. They also want to minimize the floor structure to keep the height as low as possible. The floor system or floor pack will be anywhere from 16 in to 20 in. The floor systems are thicker than they were in the 60’s to accommodate greater loads and sound transmission reduction requirements. The ceiling heights will be from 9 ft to 9 ft 6 in to provide better spaces and harvest daylight. The Staff recommendation is very challenging because the proposed 35 ft height results in floor to ceiling heights of 8 ft 9 in minus the floor pack allows for ceiling heights of 7 ft 3 in which is shorter than the current building and is not in compliance with the commercial design guidelines for buildings serving P6 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 3, 2016 7 the same purpose as this one. He then read section 1.33 which states the height should be 9 ft for all rooms on all floors. The International Building Code states the ceiling height cannot be less than 7 ft 6 in. The feel what they are asking for is reasonable and achieves the goals of the City guidelines and the spirit of the PUD. He then provided and discussed floor layouts of the proposed building. The main distinction between the proposed and existing buildings is that the existing building consists of duplex units that are two floors each. The original proposal recreated this concept but in response to the mass and scale issues raised and discussion with the owners, flats were designed on the ends of the building and the two new units located in the center of the building retain the two floor design. The building circulation is against the road and includes corridors, stairs and an elevator. One of the exits to the street requires a step up to the street due to the grade change. On the upper floors, the end units are exposed on three sides and take advantage of the available light. Mr. Sanchez this discussed the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Staff’s memo notes they are asking for 377 additional sf on average per existing unit. The memo also states about 125 sf of this amount is used just to satisfy current code for thicker walls to achieve better thermal performance, acoustical separation and larger spaces for ADA accessible doors. The remaining 250 sf is distributed among the other living spaces to make them more comfortable. Another topic discussed in detail is the deck area. In the memo on p 38, a chart identifies the deck area as 8,495 sf. The third footnote on p 39 notes the deck area includes exterior stairs and walkways. To be accurate, the number actually includes interior stairs, elevator, corridor as well as the decks. Just the interior access area includes almost half of the deck sf. In order to comply with current code, the new building has two stairs instead of one, an elevator, wider corridors on all floors to support the flats. The current decks for the units are less than five ft wide limiting their use. The owners want to experience more of the outside. The new decks range in size from six ft to eight ft and up to 10 ft. Mr. Sanchez then discussed the design influences including Mr. Fritz Benedict who initially designed the Aspen Alps 300 building. He provided pictures of other buildings designed by Mr. Benedict and Mr. Frank Lloyd Wright emphasizing strong horizontals, balconies with a limited palette of materials. He discussed the design of the existing building noting how the decks play a part in the character of the building as well as the use of glazing. Mr. Sanchez also displayed and discussed the design of the 100 building which was also designed by Mr. Benedict. The 700 building was not designed by Mr. Benedict, but also expresses similar horizontal qualities. Mr. Sanchez feels their proposal attempts to pick up these same qualities. He provided drawings of the building to scale (noting the ones in the packet are not to scale) from each side and described the form elements and massing that mimic the existing building. The materials used will still be wood, stone and glass. Each entrance will be identified with a porch and the measurements will be 50 sf. Exterior walkways incorporated in the front plane of the building. The intent of the windows above the entrance is to help identify the entrance and is broken by the floors. He then showed the lawn façade and described the design features including the horizontal and vertical elements. The materials on this side is glass, concrete and stone at the base. They feel the glass on this side is appropriate to help establish indoor and outdoor relationships. They will consider other details including the type of glass, reflective vs. non-reflective properties, thermal performance and how it is distributed. They may utilize opaque glass in some areas. They feel the glass is appropriate for this side because it will maximize daylight and reflect park elements instead of buildings to diminish the mass of the building. P7 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 3, 2016 8 The end elevation also includes balconies which they feel help to break up the mass by providing deep shadow lines. The east elevation is a very integrated assembly intended to maximize the daylight harvesting while controlling the heat gain from the direct sun. He provided a slide demonstrating how the design also helps to control light spill from viewers on the ground by using the angle of the balconies to the light to reduce more than 50%. Light is also diminished as the distance increases from the building. He also noted the parapets of the balconies serve as shades for the light for an observer standing outside the building. The parapets will be higher on the lower levels to further reduce the light from the building. He noted it is a balancing act to maximize the daylight harvest while controlling the sun from inside the building and minimize the and light pollution. These details will be further studied. He then displayed some perspective views of the proposed design including: • Up by 400 building looking south • Looking back toward end of building • Lawn side view Mr. Richman then discussed compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). He feels the project’s compliance to the AACP is a measure of its success. He read a section from the AACP identifying a basic theme of the AACP which guides future development supporting the tourist economy including replenishing the inventory to support a diverse visitor base. In order to achieve this goal, the City has paid a great deal of attention to small lodges and creating incentives for the development of smaller lodging units. While critical, it is not the only segment of the inventory that needs to be renewed or replenished. A report produced in 2012 by himself focused on the condominium portion of the inventory and identifies about 40% of short term rental is condominiums and many of those units built in the 60’s and 70’s are aging. The report focused on areas of the code which present obstacles for upgrading and redeveloping the condominium lodging. First and foremost are the dimensional limitations in the lodge zone district. Residential multi-family structures in the lodge zone district have height, floor area and density penalties. The lodge zoning was typically applied after these structures were built and then the lodge zone district was significantly modified in 2005 to encourage lodge development and discourage multi-family. Many multi-family structures at the base of the mountain became non-conforming with this iteration of the lodge zone code. The second major obstacle is the limitation of the City’s nonconforming provisions which prevent redevelopment from occurring. The report included possible strategies to deal with the obstacles. One being the City might consider “leveling the playing field” between multi-family and lodge structures. Lodging is heavily favored over multi-family structures. Another suggestion would be to add a new zone district for the multi-family structures to include greater flexibility. The report noted the PUD process might be a way to address the nonconformities. The Aspen Alps designated it property with a PUD in 2013 to eliminate the nonconformities. Mr. Richman noted the following: • The building largely fits within the existing footprint • The proposal basically complies with the impact oriented standards of the code including parking, affordable housing, engineering standards and sustainable building. • The Aspen Alps has been moving towards more sustainable operations including a policy requiring the use of electric vehicles, or per foot, bike or public transportation for employee trips. • Free bus passes for staff. • Storage for owner’s bicycles. • Noted as being the first condominium complex to reach the Z-Green summit certification. • Provide memberships to the We-Cycle program for employees, owners and guests. P8 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 3, 2016 9 Other aspects that have been in compliance with the AACP for years include: 1) Parcels around the Aspen Alps purchased to protect open space including Spar Wedge and an access between the Aspen Alps and the Little Nell complex. 2) Affordable housing built on site as part of the parking garage when it was constructed. They provide housing for five to six employees. The owners decided they would offset the requirement of this project today and not use the previously build units. Mr. Goode then asked for a break. Upon return, Mr. Goode asked if there were questions for the applicant. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked for clarification on the applicable zoning. Ms. Quinn stated the underlying zoning is uses as a reference point and does not necessarily dictate what must occur. In a situation where the current building is disappearing and the heights were established in the PD overlay, it might be appropriate to look at the underlying zoning. Ms. Seminick stated in the project review standard it does state the underlying zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not as an absolute limitation to the dimensions which shall be considered during the development review process. The project did undergo a PD review to essentially lock in what was on the site in 2013. This application would be an amendment to the allowed dimensional tolerances previously granted. Staff is supportive of the 35 ft height limit granted by the 2013 review. However, because they need to consider the underlying zoning as the standard required, which is 28 ft for a multi-family residential unit as a single use, Staff does not have a level of support for an increase in the height. Ms. McNicholas Kury then asked for clarification for the reference to a 44 ft height limit for the tallest building element. Ms. Seminick stated the 44 ft height limit was from the 2013 approval and is an allowance for a chimney. Ms. Tygre asked what percentage of the Aspen Alps units are available as short term rentals. Mr. Corcoran responded two thirds. Ms. Tygre asked for further explanation of the lateral loading. Mr. Sanchez responded the mountain is moving downhill. The building sits in a cut in the mountain and the back wall is essentially holding back the road as well as the mountain. As water infiltrates the soil, gravity pushes the soil downhill. The foundation is more stable than the vertical walls, so it remains in place while the vertical walls are pushed. Ms. Tygre asked what they will do with the new building to prevent this. Mr. Sanchez responded the new building will be designed more substantially to retain the movement and the building will be built as a retaining wall. Site walls will be used to address the change in grades and deal with mud flow. Ms. Tygre asked what would happen if the geotechnical reports dictate they move the building. Mr. Sanchez responded an engineer could devise a solution to almost any problem. There is a cost associated with any solution and it may be cheaper to place the building elsewhere, but they are dealing with a fairly limited footprint. Mr. Richman noted a building would typically be moved if located below a site specific hazard you wanted to avoid such as snow or rock. In this instance, the slope is a factor to be considered, but moving it incrementally on the lot will not change the geologic factors. P9 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 3, 2016 10 Ms. McNicholas Kury then asked for clarification regarding if the entrances being included in the decking sf calculation. Mr. Sanchez responded the internal access area is included in Staff’s overall calculation total. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if they have illustrations of the 400 building given it is closest in proximity. Mr. Sanchez responded it is almost exactly like the 300 building. The 400 building is essentially 35 ft to the eave. Neither the applicant or Staff had the height measurements of the 400 building. Mr. Corcoran noted because of the grade, the 400 building sits 12-14 ft above the 300 building. He added the 400 building was rebuilt in 1992 and the 500 building was half rebuilt in 2010 after a fire. When they rebuilt the 400 building, it was soil nailed in. The 400 building was tested at the same time the 300 building was checked and it remains plum. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if there are decks on the street side to which Mr. Sanchez responded there are none. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if concrete will be used for the balcony walls to which Mr. Sanchez agreed. He added the decking of the balcony will be concrete, but the railing will be glass. Mr. Walterscheid asked on the 2013 approval, was the determined height at existing grade or lowest point. Mr. Sanchez believed it was from the existing grade. Mr. McNellis asked in regards to the lodge zone district, what is proposed vs what is allowed. He sees the difference only at 200 sf. Mr. Richman noted the floor area for parcel 3, the 200 sf difference is correct. Mr. Richman noted the PUD recognizes the same numbers and identifies it per building and as a total. Mr. Walterscheid asked for the existing ceiling heights. Mr. Corcoran noted they are a hair over 8 ft. Mr. Sanchez noted they are lower on the upper floor where the eave of the vaulted ceiling is close to 7 ft 6 in. Mr. Goode asked if they considered a roof top patio instead of extending patios on each floor. Mr. Corcoran responded they did not. He feels there are a lot of governance issues with use of common elements. Ms. McNicholas Kury wanted to acknowledge there were some concerns raised with the trash enclosure. Ms. Seminick stated the applicant was referred to the Environmental Health department regarding the enclosure and will need to go through a special review for the proposed enclosure and will be addressed at the detailed review. Mr. Walterscheid noted the application notes there are eight spaces across the road. The applicant had proposed a below grade garage which was later removed from the project. Mr. Corcoran noted on the PUD there were eight spaces established, most are located up the hill across from the 500 building. The application includes the creation of four additional spaces and there are also six spaces in the garage. Staff informed they needed three spaces for the new units and they decided to create four spaces to provide an accessible space. Mr. Corcoran noted all the street spaces are unassigned. Mr. Goode asked if they are mitigating the affordable housing with 50% on site and 50% off as certificates. Mr. Richman responded they had considered options for onsite mitigation and determined it was too difficult when only considering one building. Any land is owned by the entire home owners’ association. They will mitigate entirely with certificates. P10 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 3, 2016 11 Mr. Goode then asked if there was any public comment at which no one requested to comment so he closed that portion of the hearing. Mr. Goode then opened for commissioner’s discussion. Mr. Walterscheid stated he was on P&Z for the 2013 approval. He completely understands the cleanup of all the random zoning and dictated heights. He has a bit of heartburn trying to now change the heights. He understands it currently is one building, but this is the first in a series. He is nervous to allow the change in height. There is exemption in the code for elevators and chimneys, but the overall height should be held at 35 ft. He feels they are really close on FAR. He can also agree to the setbacks because they own the surrounding property. He appreciates the history and location and understands the need for this application. Ms. Tygre felt the 2013 PUD wasn’t in the classic sense a PUD. It was an approval of existing conditions so people could get loans for improvements. She voted against if for the very reason P&Z is now facing. She feels the applicant is asking for a variance from the PUD which was itself a variance. The issue of nonconformity is important because you are not allowed to increase to a nonconformity. In this case she does not feel what they are asking for is all that unreasonable and she is torn because a facility like the Alps should be continued. She agrees with Ryan regarding the setbacks. She feels the height is an issue even when you can’t see it from anywhere. It is more a matter of principle to allow an expansion on the height which will then be requested by other buildings. She is reluctant to set this type of precedent. She encouraged the applicant to reduce the height to get it closer to the PUD amount of 35 ft. She realizes the reflection in this location will reflect trees as opposed to other buildings is much more appropriate, but is concerned about leakage. She does not like the tall windows and feels another solution should be sought to identify the area as an entrance. Mr. McNight enjoyed the history provided during presentation. He has similar concerns with setting a precedent for any decisions made by the P&Z. He originally did not think this application was a good fit, but their presentation has changed his mind. He is concerned with the height as well. In regards to the glazing, it is frustrating to really understand what it will be by looking at renderings. He likes the direction of taking the Aspen Alps into something of this time. He is also concerned about what may happen to the rent of the units and will it remain affordable. His main concern is the height. Ms. McNicholas Kury feels there are conflicts between traveler’s trends and preferences and residential trends and preferences regarding building needs. She is supportive of the setbacks and feels the site constraints make it appropriate. She is supportive of the windows over the entrance. In 8040 review, she has concerns with glazing but given the forested nature of the site lessens her concerns. She feels it is appropriate to include some encouragements for Council’s consideration. She feels the request regarding the view plane is appropriate. She feels the height is problematic and feels it is appropriate to look at the approved PUD dimensions and encouraged the applicant to reconsider. With regards to affordable housing, she is okay with it but feels it may set a precedent for the other buildings since they are not addressing a comprehensive master plan for the Alps and what that might include for employee housing. Mr. McNellis shares most of the comments already made. He would like to see the total sf adjusted to be below the allowable for the lodge zone. The height also gives him heartburn mainly because of the precedent as discussed by the others. He is somewhat comforted that if building 700 were to go through the same process, it would have to go through the same process as the 300 building at which point that building would be evaluated as to if the requested height was appropriate. He does not have too much of a problem with the requested height on this building, but does not feel it would be necessarily appropriate for the other buildings. P11 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 3, 2016 12 Mr. Goode agrees with Ms. McNicholas Kury regarding looking future affordable housing. Unfortunately, it is not part of this application. He is agreement with the others. He likes the project and appreciated the description of how the light from building. He feels it may be helpful to have something that depicts nighttime light coming from the building. He agrees with the other regarding the height. He was also at the 2013 meeting and recalls it being a very difficult with conflict. He thinks they are on the right path. Mr. Corcoran remembered a conversation with Ms. Jessica Garrow when they were doing the PUD. The problems they wanted to resolve all dealt with nonconformities. The first step was to eliminate the conformity. He said Ms. Garrow called him one day and asked if they wanted to add height to the buildings. At the time he did not know but asking for it then would have generated a question regarding what it would look like. He felt the mission of the PUD was to memorialize and eliminate conformity, they did not ask for more, understanding at the time the PUD provides a platform to ask for it later if appropriate for a particular site. He felt he had been directed at the time that a PUD provides for site specific improvement requests. Mr. Richman asked P&Z to think about if from a practical numerical standpoint. They have a four story building and if they limit the floor to ceiling height in each story to 7.5 ft, it would be below design standards as well as what the market is looking for and building. Based on the minimal required height between the floors, the building would be 36 ft. He understands their attachment to the 35 ft in the PUD, but it has no practical meaning for the project because it can’t be achieved. Mr. Sanchez heard everyone mention precedent but feels this project is unique because it is an existing four story building. The 700 building is three story and the 100 building is two story building. It is his understanding that P&Z is to weigh applications case by case on its own merits. Mr. Goode stated if they were to ignore the residential design standards, they what is to stop them from asking for a six story building. He added they have to set a standard at some point. Mr. Richman added they will look at the height, but he doesn’t feel it technically doable. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated P&Z want to see the best product and a substandard building is a lost opportunity. They want to respect the public process which resulted in the code. Mr. Goode asked if there was a motion to continue past 7 pm. Mr. McNellis motioned to continue the meeting for five more minutes which was seconded by Mr. McNight. All in favor. Mr. Goode suggested a motion to continue the hearing. He noted the concerns regarding height. Mr. Richman acknowledged they need to look at glazing. Mr. McKnight asked why the floor to ceiling heights are changing from what currently exists. Mr. Sanchez responded the current building has 8 ft ceilings. Mr. Corcoran noted it is about 7.5 to the timber beam which supports the ceiling. Mr. Sanchez stated the existing building is a timber frame building and described structure of the current floor section. In modern day construction, there will be a concrete slab which will be 5-6 in thick. On top of it, another floor system 2-3 in thick will be placed to minimize sound. A concrete beam will also be placed below the slab and below that will be a suspended ceiling. The code and structural requirements require more than what was required when the structure was originally built. He thinks the smallest the new system can be will be 1 ft 4 in to 1 ft 6 in. It could be as deep as 2 ft. Mr. Richman noted this is multiplied by the number of floors. He added they won’t come back with a 35 ft number because it is a number they are not going to be at. Ms. Tygre moved to continue hearing to May 17th and was seconded by Mr. McKnight. All in favor, motion passed. P12 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 3, 2016 13 OTHER BUSINESS None. ADJOURN Mr. Goode then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager P13 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 17, 2016 1 Mr. Keith Goode, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Jasmine Tygre, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Spencer McNight and Keith Goode. Brian McNellis arrived a few moments later. Jason Elliott, Skippy Mesirow, Ryan Walterscheid, and Jesse Morris were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan and Hillary Seminick. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Ms. Tygre asked for an update on land purchased years ago by the City that was saved to build employee housing. She remembers three or four parcels and would like to know what has been developed and what has not been developed. Ms. Phelan believed there were three or four parcels on a recent request for proposal (RFP) to be developed. Ms. Kelly McNicholas Kury asked for a status update on the recent request and schedule for commissioners to participate committees for commercial design changes. Ms. Phelan responded she would follow up with a status. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES No draft minutes were presented. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. PUBLIC HEARINGS Aspen Alps Planned Development Mr. Goode opened the continued hearing for the Aspen Alps Planned Development and turned the floor over to Staff. Ms. Hillary Seminick, Planner, noted this is continued hearing from May 3rd for the 300 building of the Aspen Alps Planned Development and Subdivision. The reviews to be considered by P&Z include: • 8040 Greenline Review • Mountain View Plane Review • Growth Management Review • Residential Design Standard (RDS) Review P14 IV.B. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 17, 2016 2 She added the applicant had contacted her on the previous day and requested the reviews not be consolidated into one recommendation to Council. Therefore, P&Z would be the final review authority for the 8040 Greenline, Mountain View Plane and Growth Management Reviews. P&Z would then provide a recommendation to Council for the RDS Review. A drafted a resolution reflecting this change for the P&Z’s consideration was provided to the commissioners (Exhibit P). Ms. Seminick noted everything else in the resolution reflects what was updated in the staff memo. Mr. McNellis wanted to confirm Council was the final review for dimensional requirements. Ms. Seminick answered Council is the review authority for any dimensional changes from a recommendation from P&Z. Mr. Goode asked if there was a call up procedure for any of the reviews. Ms. Seminick stated there is no call up and remand process for any of the reviews although Council may discuss P&Z’s approvals. Ms. Seminick reminded P&Z the application is subject to the 2015 land use code. The application had been submitted prior to the effective date of Referendum One as well as changes to the RDS. In summary, the applicant is requesting to replace a 100% multi-family, residential building with a new structure. The existing building has structural issues due to lateral loading. The applicant explored and eliminated options to repair the structure due to the expense and unforeseen issues. Staff is overall supportive of replacing the building. Since the May 3rd meeting, the applicant revised the height and design of the buildings. The design has been revised to remove any windows or glazing within the “now window zone”. The applicant is still seeking a variance for the stairwell forward of the front most wall. The applicant plans to utilize this feature as both a mud flow diversion and egress into the structure. At the last hearing, the applicant had only provided one of the two required street facing entrances. Since then, they have updated the design to meet the front entry RDS requirements. Given that the site slopes away, Staff is supportive of the variance required for the reduced entries into the building. In regards to height, the applicant reduced the proposed height from 44 to 42 ft. this permits a 9 ft floor to ceiling height and a 1.5 ft floor to ceiling assembly. Staff still recommends further study of the floor to ceiling height and any construction techniques that may help reduce the proposed height of the development. Staff remains concerned of the proposed floor area. As mentioned in the previous hearing, there are three buildings on Lot 3 including the 300, 400 and 500 buildings. These were built at essentially the same time and are of equivalent size. The 300 building consists of 9,942 sf of floor area with 3,131 sf of deck area. The existing structure has seven units averaging about 1,300 sf in size. One of the units will be split back into two units and the two new units will be added for a total of ten units. Each unit will grow by about 377 sf of net livable area each. The two new units will increase the project size by about 1,500 sf of net livable area each. The applicant is requesting an increase of the approved dimensions to 17,574 sf of floor area with 8,495 sf of deck area. Staff is still concerned about how the massing will relate to other buildings on the site. The proposed building results in a much wider building than the existing building. At the May 3rd hearing, P&Z was concerned with setting a precedent for the overall planned development (PD). While the PD is not being considered at this time, as the property is developed over time, the floor increases may not be available to the other buildings on this site. Overall, Staff recommends the applicant revise the design to reduce the overall massing, height and floor area requested. P15 IV.B. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 17, 2016 3 Mr. Goode then asked if there were any questions from the commissioners. Mr. McNight asked who is responsible for identifying additional options. Ms. Seminick stated the applicant is responsible. Mr. McNight asked if the 42 ft height is approved on this building, would P&Z then be handcuffed to the same height for the surrounding buildings. Ms. Seminick stated this amendment only pertains to the 300 building. In order to amend any dimension of the other building, the applicant would have to go through the same process. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the Recommended columns on Table B on page 7 of the memo include only the deck. Ms. Seminick confirmed this and stated if they reduced the deck area to 5,624 sf, it would better align with what currently exists on the property. Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. John Corcoran, General Manager of the Aspen Alps, provided background of the Aspen Alps and pictures of the 300 building and noted it is largely hidden from views from town. The design of the proposed building was inspired by the architecture of the existing Aspen Alps buildings and is designed to be compatible with the other buildings. He displayed different views of the property including one from Smuggler and then pointed out the location of all the Aspen Alps buildings. He provided a site plan showing the footprint of proposed building over the existing building. The new building will provide dramatic upgrades for safety, access, environmental conservation, modern spaces and amenities. The ceiling heights will meet traveler’s expectations. He noted the floor to ceiling heights are driving the building height. Part of it being this is a four story building. They believe nine ft floor to ceiling heights are the desirable spec, but after the previous hearing he wanted to be sure this height is comparable to what is being built. He noted they visited locations and talked to developers regarding recent development and noted the following heights for lodge and multifamily developments: • Dancing Bear Phase II: 9 ft • Monarch on the Park: 9 ft • Aspen Club: Up to 10 ft • Limelight Hotel: 9 ft • Burlingame Employee Housing: 8 ft 10 in. From their perspective, nine ft seemed to be a contemporary standard. They also feel the building meets the spirit and intent of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) by revitalizing lodging and supporting the tourist and resort economy, providing environmental stewardship and respecting green spaces. He closed stating the height challenge of the building comes from its unique position and being a four story building. Mr. Gilbert Sanchez, Studio B Architects, identified two contributing factors to the height of the building. 1) Floor to ceiling height 2) Depth of the floor/ceiling assembly and roof top assembly P16 IV.B. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 17, 2016 4 Since the last meeting, they have looked at the design more closely and feel they can confidently achieve the 1 ft 6 in floor/ceiling assembly depth. The detail of the assembly is included in the packet and commits the owners to construction methods which are not necessarily the most economical or the easiest achievable. Although Staff’s memo continues the challenge to investigate other construction methods, he is not aware of any other approaches that would reduce the dimensions while still providing the structural depth for the necessary sound, mechanical and electrical systems. He continued stating the nine ft ceiling height makes sense because: • The City’s commercial design guidelines require a minimum of 9 ft ceiling heights on all floors. Staff has noted the guidelines don’t necessarily apply to this project because it is considered a multi-family residential building and not a lodge building. In fact, the property does function as a lodge. It has previously been pointed out two thirds of the building is available for rent which they feel is significant enough to allow the building to comply with the guidelines as a lodge. • It will improve the opportunities for allowing daylight deep into the units which improves the sustainability by reducing the use of electrical lights and mechanical systems for cooling. • They will provide a comfortable and appealing inhabitable spaces for long time house owners and competitive renter spaces. He then provided an elevations illustrating the building height for the different sides of the building. On the west side, the building is only 20 ft 10 in which is its lowest point. The highest point of the east side of the building is 34 ft 10 in. On the park side, the highest point is 42 ft. He reiterated the reasons for the height of the building as proposed including: • Replacing a four story building with a new structure which needs to accommodate the existing owners. • Providing the minimal floor/ceiling depth. • Providing ceiling heights mandated by the commercial design standards. • Site can provide the dimensions with little or no perceivable impact. • The closest building is 48 ft away. • You are unable to see the three dimensional relationships between the neighboring buildings. The 400 building is 10 ft higher and the 500 building is 18 ft higher. He feels the lack of clarity regarding the proposed deck area is continued in Staff’s memo, particularly Table B. The table includes real deck area consisting of the outdoor space and the access space of the building including corridors, egress stairs and the elevator. He provided a diagram of the floors of the building and pointed out the areas used for egress and the outside deck space. The access space is almost half of the total deck space as defined in Table B. The access space represents the same amount of space in the existing building. The stairs on the existing building only go to the third floor and will need to go to the fourth floor of the new building. Current building codes require an additional stair and an elevator. The actual deck space per Table B is 48% of the buildings floor area. His calculation of actual deck area is only 26% of the floor area. They believe their deck area proposed is reasonable because: 1) The decks contribute to the indoor/outdoor living opportunity desired by the owners and renters. P17 IV.B. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 17, 2016 5 2) The decks are consistent with the physical historic context of the Aspen Alps buildings with the continuous use of wrap around corner balconies. 3) By creating the deep shadow lines, the balconies server to break up direct sunlight and reduce the mass of the building. 4) The balconies serve as solar shades to block direct sunlight while permitting desired daylight. 5) The balconies mitigate the light spilling on to the lawn and control the light pollution into the night sky. In closing, he hopes the unique qualities of the site accommodate the amendments to the dimensional requirements of the project including: • Visual isolation of the site • Adjacent green space and dense vegetation creates an effective buffer between the building and its neighbors. • The significant change in topography • The need to replace a 50-year-old building that is failing with one that needs to meet current codes. Mr. Corcoran want to respond Mr. McKnight’s earlier concern regarding the decision on this application setting a precedent for future applications. He wanted to point out the 300, 400 and 500 buildings are all four story buildings. The 100 building is two story and the 200 building is a two/three story building. The 700 building is three stories. In regards to earlier concerns expressed the height of the building as related to the PUD in 2013. He feels the PUD was completed in collaboration with Staff to remove nonconforming status of the buildings as they relate to height, density, and floor area. They were told the nonconforming status makes it very difficult for any future improvements. At the time the City gained valuable knowledge of the Aspen Alps it previously did not have and Staff was supportive of the PUD. He feels if they had tried to reserve height at the time of the PUD, people would have been skeptical. Mr. Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning Services, wanted to discuss how the site is conducive to absorbing the proposed height and floor area. In regards to PUD flexibility, their proposal is appropriate for this site. The PUD tool has been around since the late 1970’s. When it was first created nationwide, it was supposed to apply to larger sites such as the Aspen Alps. The City’s code at the time prohibited the use of PUDs for sites less than on a sites less than 27,000 sf. Some may say it is abused in more recent times because it was never meant of small core sites. The tool was to be able to look comprehensively at a larger piece of land to identify where development might best occur and not occur on the property. A PUD allows the density and floor area to be clustered on the buildable areas. He feels it has turned into a “let’s make a deal” in terms of community benefits in exchange for giving more development to applicants. The Aspen Alps was not originally developed under a PUD. You will see the way it was developed includes clusters of buildings surrounded by significantly larger areas of open space. This development pattern and the location of the property with the buffers makes the proposal appropriate. If look at parcel 3 in isolation, the numbers do go above the underlying zoning because there is no accounting for the large areas of undeveloped land surrounding the developed buildings. He also believes this PUD should be looked at differently than a PUD in the core where buildings sit next to each other and consider height comparisons, shadow conditions, and blocked views. None of these factors are part of this application on this property. In regards to the height, they are not throwing out numbers to see if they will be accepted, they are proposing a height that they can do with the new building. P18 IV.B. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 17, 2016 6 In regards to splitting the reviews as discussed earlier by Ms. Seminick, he is used to P&Z having final authority over the 8040, view plane and RDS reviews. He feels they are a bit in double jeopardy when all the reviews are combined. He feels Council has delegated the reviews to P&Z as final authority. Mr. Goode then asked the commissioners if they had any questions. Ms. Tygre asked how the average size of the current decks compares with the average size of the proposed decks. Mr. Sanchez responded the existing units have at least two small decks which are usually five ft wide and up to 10 ft for 95 sf times at least two or four. Some units have almost 400 sf of deck currently. He estimated the proposed to be double the current size. Mr. Corcoran noted the proposed decks are more useful to allow occupants to use them more as living space. Ms. Kelly McNicholas Kury asked Staff for more details on how the decks are calculated. Ms. Phelan stated the calculations have been in place for at least 10 years. The calculation allows for 15% of floor area for deck space and it doesn’t count towards the sf. If more deck is desired, the house will be smaller. She thinks it goes back to massing and she also sees applications asking for more and more. She also wanted to point out to lodging comment in regards the floor to ceiling height. She noted the department sees application where the penthouse unit has taller heights creating an upside down tiered look. The heights are in the lodging and commercial design guidelines and not in the residential guidelines. She understands everyone wants the higher ceilings for a higher volumes and better spaces. Even though the Aspen Alps currently rents units, it is not guaranteed they will continue to do so in the future so Staff has been looking at the application as a residential project. Mr. Richman wanted to note there is a peculiarity in this building. For some reason when the PUD was done in 2013, the floor areas were documented for each building. Numbers were provided for the floor area and the deck and access space separately. He stated Ms. Phelan is correct in the way the code treats deck space. Based on this, they tried to provide an apples to apples comparison. Mr. Goode asked where they found the two ft that was proposed at the last meeting. Mr. Sanchez responded the two ft reduction was from floor/ceiling assembly. Mr. McNellis asked for clarification if the no window zone has been modified since the last meeting. Mr. Corcoran stated it was modified and Mr. Sanchez demonstrated the location of the zone. Mr. Goode then opened for public comment and there was none presented. Mr. Goode then opened for commissioner discussion. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated she is fully supportive of all the final approval reviews. She feels this project is a great example of why PUD is useful planning tool. It is also an example of why people can’t stand them because she feels what is being asked is a mixed bag in regards to how it is zoned residential and how P&Z is asked to consider lodge zone requirements for some items. She is fine with the setback variance request and feels it is appropriate since it is a PUD. She also feels losing another 6 inches would matter to those who live there. She does struggle on the request for overall massing and feels it is hard when they are requesting lodge relevant massing for residential use. She is fine with the setback and the 42 ft height. Ms. Tygre agrees with Ms. McNicholas Kury for slightly different reasons. She supports the request for the height and it really doesn’t have anything to do with lodge or residential. Many of the older condominium complexes are a mixture of residential and lodge use. She feels the ceiling height is very important and low ceilings are a drawback and a quality issue. She commends the applicant for reducing P19 IV.B. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 17, 2016 7 the overall height using construction techniques. The decks do bother her because she feels they will be enclosed with glass to increase the year-round living space. She does agree with Ms. McNicholas Kury in that if you reduce the size of the decks, you reduce the massing of the building. She supports everything except the decks. Mr. McNellis agrees with the others and feels most of what is proposed is appropriate for the site. He was originally a little dismayed with the 225 sf and sees it as an easy fix. He does have some comfort in the cumulative allowable sf as indicated in Table 2. The proposed sf is eight ft below what is allowed for the lot. In his opinion, the bulk and mass belongs lower on the lot in building 300 and not in buildings 400 and 500. No one from building 400 or 500 has attended the hearings to oppose the application. He supports the proposal as it stands. Mr. McNight also agrees with the others. He agrees with Mr. McNellis and is supportive of the building based on the site. He also agrees with Ms. Tygre regarding the ceiling heights. The massing on the decks bothers him a bit but mostly because he is trying to look at the code. But he thinks it makes sense when you look at the property. He believes it has his vote. Mr. Goode thanked the applicant for dropping the height two ft. He doesn’t think lowering it to 40 ft will make a difference. He is okay with the 42 ft height. He is in agreement with Ms. Tygre and Ms. McNicholas Kury regarding the deck massing. He feels the mass is what is holding up the project currently. Overall, he loves the project and the site. Mr. McNight stated the site is unique and not many will notice the building when it is built. He feels when P&Z has the ability to use common sense in regards to projects, it should be used. Mr. Goode countered the code still exists. Mr. McNellis noted there is more open space associated with this building. He noted the two massive evergreens serve to break up the mass of the building. Ms. McNicholas Kury wants to have a consistent thread for weighing, but also feels the PUD provides an opportunity to look at it differently. Ms. Phelan told them they could consider adding a condition in the recommendation to Council stating the commission recommends further review of the exterior decks for further refinement and to reduce the mass of the building. She added they could include something in regards to the land use code. Ms. Tygre felt this would be good to add and would like to see the application move forward. Mr. Sanchez note as the architect, it wasn’t his vision for the decks to be enclosed. Mr. Corcoran noted he could see it happen. Mr. Sanchez thought it could be discussed internally to see what safeguards could be put in place to prevent enclosures. Mr. Richman felt it would require a permit, but Ms. Tygre responded owners do not typically obtain a permit when they do this. Mr. Sanchez asked the commission to specify an order of magnitude for reducing the massing of the decks. Ms. McNicholas Kury felt it would be appropriate to maintain the overall square footage of the decks. Mr. Corcoran asked if this would be a number or a percentage. Mr. Richman did not want to put a number on it at this meeting. He wants it to respect the function and ensure they break up the massing. He gets from the commission they are talking about a dramatic decrease and not just shaving the size. Ms. Tygre wants to have language in the condition to provide direction. Ms. Phelan then proposed the following statement to Section 1 requesting further study the size of the exterior decks prior to Council review to reduce the mass to better align with the existing ratio of deck area to floor area. Ms. Seminick noted 26% of the 17,574 sf would be 4,569 sf. Ms. Phelan added the numbers would be verified prior to going before Council. P20 IV.B. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 17, 2016 8 Ms. Tygre then moved to approve Resolution 3, as amended. Her motion was seconded by Ms. McNicholas Kury. Roll call: Mr. McNight, yes; Ms. McNicholas Kury, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; and Mr. Goode, Yes; for a total of five Yes and zero No (6-0). Mr. Goode then closed the hearing. OTHER BUSINESS None. ADJOURN Mr. Goode then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager P21 IV.B. Page 1 of 11 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge June 7, 2016 P&Z Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planner THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director RE: 230 E. Hopkins – Request for Conceptual Commercial Design, Off-street Parking, and Growth Management Quota System Reviews. Resolution No. __, Series of 2016 DATE: June 7, 2016 APPLICANT/OWNER: WEB Capital LLC, PO Box 3807, Aspen CO 81612 REPRESENTATIVE: Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. LOCATION: 230 E. Hopkins Avenue CURRENT ZONING: Mixed Use (MU) SUMMARY: The applicant requests P&Z approval for Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Growth Management Reviews. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission continue the matter to address the design and growth management issues. Staff recommends denial of the request to demolish the on-site affordable housing unit. Figure A: Image of subject site as seen from Monarch St. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission:  Conceptual Commercial Design Review (Chapter 412 and the Commercial Design Guidelines) for remodel of the mixed-use building including height review. City Council will have the ability to call up P&Z’s decision in this matter, and may choose to remand the decision back to P&Z for further review. Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority. P22 VI. Page 2 of 11 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge June 7, 2016 P&Z Meeting  Demolition or redevelopment of an affordable multi-family housing unit (Subsection 26.470.070) for the removal of an on-site deed-restricted affordable housing unit. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority.  New free-market residential units (Subsection 26.470.070.7) for two growth management allotments for the increase in net livable floor area. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority.  Affordable Housing (Subsection 26.470.070.4) for required mitigation due to an increase in net livable floor area. Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority. LOCATION: The subject property is located at the corner of S. Monarch St. and E. Hopkins Ave. and is within the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district. The lot measures 6,000 sq. ft. and encompasses two traditional townsite lots. BACKGROUND: The building was formerly the studio of artistic blacksmith Francis Whitaker who lived in both Aspen and Carbondale CO from the 1960’s through the 1980’s. The existing mixed-use building was constructed in 1963 and includes a number of legally-established non-conformities: 1) The structure was built to the lot line on nearly all sides; 2) The building extends past the property line along part of the northern façade; and 3) There is a large areaway at the south/southeastern end of the property. Height as measured from the bottom of this areaway is 34’8”. The MU zone district allows height of 28’ by right, and up to 32’ through Commercial Design Review. These existing nonconformities may be maintained or lessened, but not expanded. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing a remodel of the existing building which includes changing the roof forms, removing the on-site affordable housing unit, adding two free- market residential units, and reducing commercial net leasable space. The applicant is also proposing on-site and adjacent public amenity space in the form of landscaped open space and a reduction in off-street parking. Figure B: Location of subject site P23 VI. Page 3 of 11 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge June 7, 2016 P&Z Meeting Demolition of the existing structure is proposed at 39%. Upon redevelopment, should the structure reach a demolition point of 40% or greater, the entire building is considered demolished and all existing non-conformities must be brought into compliance with the current code. Below is a table outlining the dimensions associated with code requirements, the existing development, and the proposed redevelopment. Zone District: Mixed Use (MU) Code Requirement Existing Development Proposed Development Height 28’ or up to 32’ through Commercial Design Review 34’8” at south/southeast façade, 28’ in all other areas 34’5 ½” at south/southeast façade, 32’ at gable, 28’ in all other areas Setbacks Front (Hopkins Ave.) – 10’ Rear (alley) – 5’ Sides – 5’ Front – to property line Rear - meets Sides – both east and west sides to property line Front – to property line Rear - meets Sides – west: to property line, east: meets in all areas except for areaway at southeastern end of site. Commercial Floor Area Commercial = .75:1 or 4,500 sq. ft. 5,029 sq. ft. 3,671 sq. ft. Residential Floor Area Free-market residential = .5:1 or 3,000 sq. ft.; Affordable housing = no limit other than cumulative max FAR of 12,000 sq. ft. 792 sq. ft. 2-bedroom affordable housing unit 2 free-market residential units: Unit 1 – 500 sq. ft. Unit 2 – 1,845 sq. ft. FAR 2:1, or 12,000 sq. ft. 5,821 sq. ft. 6,016 sq. ft. Public Amenity 25% of the existing site. An existing deficit may be maintained so long as no less than 10% of public amenity is provided through on-site, off-site, or fee-in- lieu per P&Z review. 600 sq. ft. is required for this 6,000 sq. ft. lot. 490 sq. ft. = 8.2% 960 sq. ft. total (16%) - 450 sq. ft. (7.5%) provided on-site in the form of landscaped open space; 510 sq. ft. (8.5%) provided adjacent to the site in the form of improvements to the right-of-way. Parking 1 parking space per residential unit, 1 space per 1,000 net leasable sq. ft. – 100% may be provided through fee-in-lieu. 7 spaces currently on-site. No deficit to current parking. 2 garage spaces, 1 for each residential unit proposed; fee- in-lieu payment for the 3.67 additional parking spaces required for mitigation of net leasable floor area. The building is planned to remain two-stories in height, as viewed from street-level. The applicant is proposing to change many of the building’s roof forms, which will impact height, P24 VI. Page 4 of 11 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge June 7, 2016 P&Z Meeting and is of particular concern in the area that already exceeds the permitted height for the zone district. The applicant proposes to raise the finished grade of the areaway by 27” to prevent a further increase in the building’s non-conforming height, and to lessen it slightly in this area. The applicant is also proposing a gabled roof form that will require a height approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission to increase to 32’. This roof form is located on the southeastern façade of the building and is discussed in detail below. The applicant is proposing to demolish the on-site affordable housing unit and to provide mitigation either through the purchase of an off-site unit that will be approved by APCHA and deed-restricted or through Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. Two free-market residential units are planned for the second story that will measure 500 sq. ft. and 1,845 sq. ft. respectively. The applicant proposes to mitigate for this increase in net livable floor area through the purchase of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, or through purchase and deed- restriction of an APCHA approved off-site residential unit. Lastly, the applicant is proposing to maintain two parking spaces on-site, for use by the residential units, and to provide a fee-in-lieu payment for additional parking spaces found currently on the site. STAFF REVIEW: Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds the following. COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW. Conceptual commercial design review focuses on issues of height, scale, massing, public amenity, trash/recycling/utility areas, and parking. The purpose of commercial design review is “to preserve and foster proper commercial district scale and character and to ensure that the City’s commercial areas and streetscapes are public places conducive to walking.” The subject site is located in the city’s Central Mixed Use Character Area. The immediate area is primarily two-story, single-family, Victorian-style residences. The overall goal for this character area is to encourage offices and supporting commercial uses with a somewhat higher density than found in traditional residential areas. This area provides a transition between residential uses and the commercial core. Height, scale and mass. The height of the existing building measures 34’8” at its tallest point, from the areaway at the south/southeastern facades of the building. At this point the building is three stories in height, Figure C: Image of sunken areaway viewed from sidewalk on Hopkins St. P25 VI. Page 5 of 11 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge June 7, 2016 P&Z Meeting although it remains two stories as viewed from street level. The MU zone district allows for a height of 28’ by right, which may be increased 32’ through Commercial Design Review. This existing non-conforming height may be decreased or maintained but may not be increased. The applicant is proposing to remove the current pitched roof and replace it with a gabled roof form. Different forms are measured in different ways per the code. The current pitched roof form is an 8:12 design and height is measured to the 1/3 point from the eave to the ridge. This results in a height of 34’8” as measured from the finished grade of the areaway. The southern-most side of the proposed gabled roof (as seen in Figure E) is 6:12, and is measured to the ½ point from the eave to the ridge; therefore increasing the height in this area. To ensure the non-conforming height is not being increased the applicant has proposed a partial fill of the areaway, bringing finished grade up by 27 inches. The fill will lessen the non-conforming height and will maintain the southern side of the gable at 34’5 ½”, a slight lessening of the non-conforming height. Per Figure E, the northern side of the gabled roof is proposed with a pitch of 12:12. Height at this roof form is measured to the 1/3 point from the eave to the ridge, causing the height in this area to reach 32’ to complete the northern side of the gable. The applicant may request a height up to 32’ as part of Commercial Design Review. Figure D: Current roof form as seen from southeast corner 32’ Figure E: Roof forms and proposed height as measured from finished grade at new gable roof. 34’ 5 ½” P26 VI. Page 6 of 11 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge June 7, 2016 P&Z Meeting Staff is supportive of the gabled roof design, as well as the increase in height to 32’ at this location of the building. All other areas of the building maintain a height less than 28’. Changing the pitched roof to a gabled roof echoes the roof styles found on the Victorian buildings in the surrounding area without mimicking them exactly. The proposed roof form provides a softening of the chopped pitch of the existing roof and breaks up the massing of the building along the Hopkins Ave. façade by stepping up to an additional gabled form at the property line. The applicant has maintained the large floor to ceiling windows on this Hopkins St. façade providing interaction between the pedestrian and the interior of the building. The applicant has proposed to remove the pitched roof that extends to the northern end of the building, creating a flat roof for the middle module which measures 23’ in height, and stepping the building up to a gabled roof at the northeastern corner to mimic the form found at the southeastern corner of the building, measuring 23’ 4 ¼” in height. Removing the long shed roof reduces the massing of the building along the Monarch St. façade and creates a more favorable pedestrian experience. Stepping the building up at the southeastern end also provides articulation and interest in the building form. Figure G: View of existing structure from Monarch St. Figure E: Height of each side of gable as measured to the finished grade of the areaway. Figure F: Proposed roof form on western-most part of building along Hopkins St. P27 VI. Page 7 of 11 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge June 7, 2016 P&Z Meeting Two separate pedestrian entrances are proposed along the Monarch St. façade with easily identifiable access points. Staff finds the building scale and mass to be improved with the proposed design. However, Staff recommends removing the large areaway along Hopkins Ave. by fully in-filling this space. The areaway creates non-conforming conditions with this building that include height and encroachment into the setback. While the proposed application does not require the amendment of these issues, infilling this area would create a better pedestrian experience by allowing the building to meet its required height and setbacks, and could be used as a successful public amenity space. Public Amenity. Proposed public amenity is required to be uncovered, contribute to a successful pedestrian experience, and contribute to an active street vitality. Upon redevelopment the code requires provision of public amenity equal to at least 25% of the lot; however if the current development does not meet the 25% requirement the deficit may be maintained so long as no less than 10% of the public amenity is provided. The subject site measures 6,000 sq. ft., and the current on-site public amenity measures 490 sq. ft., or approximately 8.2% of the site. Given the existing deficit, the applicant is responsible for providing a minimum of 10%, or 600 sq. ft. of public amenity. The applicant is proposing 450 sq. ft. of public amenity space on-site in the form of landscaped areas along the Monarch St. façade, and 510 sq. ft. of public amenity off-site, as landscaped areas directly adjacent to the property along Hopkins Ave., for a total of 960 sq. ft. (16%) of public amenity space. This exceeds the 10% requirement for public amenity space associated with the redevelopment. The proposed public amenity along Monarch St. provides visual relief from development and creates a buffer between the building and the sidewalk. The public amenity along Hopkins Ave. is proposed as a landscaped area between the street and the sidewalk. The applicant has indicated the option to provide bench seating and an interpretive marker and a sculpture reflecting Francis Whitaker’s work in this area; however improvements within the public Figure H: View of proposed structure from Monarch St. P28 VI. Page 8 of 11 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge June 7, 2016 P&Z Meeting right-of-way must be reviewed by the City Engineer. Staff requests a specific plan that includes the size and location of any proposed improvements to be reviewed by the Engineering Dept. prior to final review. All public amenity areas are proposed at sidewalk level, and will contribute to a positive pedestrian environment as the area transitions from residential to the west towards the commercial area to the east. No variations from design or operational standards are being sought by the applicant. Staff recommends approval of the proposed spaces. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. The applicant proposes to maintain the existing trash/recycling enclosure that is located on the western side of the site, and is accessed via the alleyway. The Environmental Health Dept. has reviewed the proposal and determined that the existing trash area can be maintained and does not need to be upgraded. The on-site utility area has been reviewed by Engineering staff for compliance and meets the minimum standards required. Utilities are collocated with the trash/recycling along th e western façade of the site. A new transformer is not required at this time, as the utility pedestal that services this property is located on Aspen St. at the end of the block. If a new transformer is required in the future to service this property it will be required to be located on the subject site. Delivery to the site building will continue along the alleyway, and will remain accessible to all tenants of the building via the interior elevator. Parking. The code requires one parking space for each residential unit and one parking space per each 1,000 sq. ft. of net leasable floor area. Upon redevelopment a deficit in parking may be maintained. In considering the current parking conditions Staff has performed multiple site visits and reviewed a site plan and a current survey provided by the applicant. Staff has found there are seven parking spaces on the site. These parking spaces are striped, signed for use, and utilized, per Figure J, below. Figure I: Existing on-site parking spaces P29 VI. Page 9 of 11 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge June 7, 2016 P&Z Meeting The existing building has one on-site residential unit and a net leasable floor area of 5,029 sq. ft. Therefore, one space is required for the affordable housing unit and five additional spaces for the commercial net leasable floor area, for a total of 6 required parking spaces. There is no current deficit on-site that may be maintained upon redevelopment. The current redevelopment proposal includes the addition of two free-market residential units and 3,671 sq. ft. of commercial net leasable floor area. The applicant is therefore required to provide two parking spaces to satisfy the residential unit requirement and four additional parking spaces to satisfy the commercial requirement, for a total of six parking spaces if on- site spaces are provided. The applicant has proposed two on-site parking spaces, one for each residential unit, to be located in the garage accessed from the alleyway. The applicant will therefore be required to provide mitigation for the 3.67 parking spaces not provided on-site through a fee-in-lieu payment. GROWTH MANAGEMENT. The applicant is proposing the creation of two free-market units on the site, which will require growth management allotments. The new units will require two residential growth management allotments from the 2016 allowance. The applicant is proposing the addition of 2,345 sq. ft. in net livable floor area to the site which will require mitigation. The mitigation requirement generated by this addition is calculated at the rate of 30% of the free-market floor area. The calculation for this site is as follows: Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) Generated by Residential Net Livable Floor Area  500 sq. ft. (Unit 1) + 1,845 sq. ft. (Unit 2) = 2,345 sq. ft. / 30% = 703.50 sq. ft.  Conversion to FTEs = 703.50 sq. ft. / 400 = 1.76 FTEs. The applicant is proposing to mitigate for this increase in net livable floor area through the provision of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. The Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Board has reviewed the proposal and has recommended the applicant mitigate for the 1.76 FTE’s through either the purchase and deed-restriction of an APCHA approved off-site unit or through the purchase of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. Staff supports these options as code-compliant mitigation options. Figure J: On-site parking use P30 VI. Page 10 of 11 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge June 7, 2016 P&Z Meeting There is no increase in commercial floor area proposed that requires mitigation. Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family affordable housing. The applicant is proposing to remove the on-site deed-restrict affordable housing unit and mitigate for its removal through the provision of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit or through the purchase of an off-site unit. The existing unit is located on the second floor, is 792 sq. ft. in size with two bedrooms, and is currently occupied. According to the code, a two-bedroom unit houses 2.25 FTEs. The code recognizes the removal of the affordable housing as demolition of the unit. The code further requires affordable multi-family replacement units to be developed on the same site where the demolition occurred, unless it can be demonstrated and the Planning & Zoning Commission can determine that the replacement of the units on site would a) be in conflict with the parcel’s zoning, or b) would be an inappropriate solution due to the site’s physical constraints. If either criterion is met, P&Z must determine the appropriate number of units that the site can accommodate, and allow the remaining units to be replaced off-site, at a location determined acceptable to P&Z. Staff finds the criterion for this standard is not met. Replacing the housing unit on-site would not conflict with the parcel’s Mixed-Use zoning which permits affordable multi-family housing as a right. The inclusion of an affordable housing unit on the site is not an inappropriate solution, and currently an affordable housing unit exists on the site. There are no physical constraints associated with this site that would preclude the inclusion of the affordable housing unit. Staff proposes the affordable housing unit remain on the site. Furthermore, the existing unit is located downtown, adjacent to the Commercial Core, making this a unique and valuable rental within the City’s affordable housing stock. The applicant has not provided an adequate reason why this unit cannot be maintained on the site, and Staff does not support the removal of the unit from the site, as it directly conflicts with the Land Use Code requirements. Staff acknowledges the issues associated with financing a for-sale unit, but supports the affordable housing unit remaining as an on-site rental unit. The APCHA Board has recommended mitigation for the 2.25 FTEs through an APCHA- approved, off-site, buy-down unit deed-restricted at a Category 3 rate. The Board would also accept Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit at a Category 3 or lower rate. The Board’s decision to allow the demolition of the unit was made in part due to the issues associated with obtaining financing for ownership of a unit in a mixed-use building, as well as enforcement issues involved with managing rental units. During the Board hearing the applicant presented a plan depicting partial replacement of the unit (one-bedroom) on-site. The plans depicted the majority of the unit in the basement of the building, and therefore did not meet the code requirements associated with affordable housing which requires 50% or more of a unit to be located above-grade. APCHA referral comments, Board meeting minutes from May 5, 2016, and the plans viewed by the Board are included in Exhibit C to this memo. P31 VI. Page 11 of 11 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge June 7, 2016 P&Z Meeting REFERRAL DEPARTMENTS: The application was reviewed at a Development Review Committed (DRC) on April 27th. Referral comments were received by the following Departments: Environmental Health, Zoning, Building, Parks, Engineering and Housing. All referral comments are included as Exhibit B1 – B2 to this memo. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission continue the applicant’s request for Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Growth Management to revisit the design associated with the removal of the areaway and to maintain the existing affordable housing unit on-site. PROPOSED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): “I move to approve the request for Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Growth Management requests related to the demolition of an affordable housing unit, mitigation for t he demolition of the affordable housing unit through Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, Growth Management Allotments, and the acceptance of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation for the increase in net livable floor area.” ALTERNATIVE MOTION “I move to continue the request for Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Growth Management requests related to the demolition of an affordable housing unit, mitigation for removal of the affordable housing unit through Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, Growth Management Allotments, and the acceptance of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation for the increase in net livable floor area to June 21, 2016.” EXHIBITS: A.1 Staff Findings – Commercial Design A.2 Staff Findings – Growth Management B.1 Department Referral Comments B.2 Housing Referral Comments B.3 Housing Board Minutes B.4 Drawings presented by Applicant to APCHA C.1 Application C.2 Architectural Drawings & Elevations P32 VI. 1 Exhibit A.1 Staff Findings Commercial Design 26.412.050. Review Criteria. An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards. Staff Response: The proposed plans meet the requirements of the Commercial Design Standards. The Suggested Design Elements have not been fully complete at this time, but the applicant will be required to meet the code requirements for outdoor lighting and signage as these items are proposed. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the façade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. Staff Response: This application does not involve the conversion of an existing structure to commercial use. The existing structure contains both commercial and residential uses, and these uses are proposed to continue. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. Staff Response: This application primarily complies with the standards of the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines; however subsection 2.15 suggests that a building should step down in height when located next to a single story historic building. Across the alley to the north is 101 S. Monarch St, a landmark designated building. The proposed design does not step down towards the alley. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. P33 VI. 2 26.412.060. Commercial Design Standards. The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed-use development: A. Public Amenity Space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-of-way or private property within commercial areas. On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. 2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent rights-of-way are encouraged. 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of-way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. 4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. 5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. Staff Response: The code requires provision of public amenity equal to at least 25% of the lot; however a deficit may be maintained so long as no less than 10% of the public amenity is provided. The subject site measures 6,000 sq. ft., and the current on-site public amenity measures 490 sq. ft., which is approximately 8% of the site. Given the existing deficit, the applicant is responsible for providing 10%, or 600 sq. ft. of public amenity. The applicant is proposing 334 sq. ft. of public amenity space on-site in the form of landscaped areas along the Monarch St. façade, and 510 sq. ft. of public amenity off-site, as landscaped areas directly adjacent to the property, along Hopkins Ave., for a total of 844 sq. ft. of public amenity space. This exceeds the 10% requirement for public amenity space associated with the redevelopment. The proposed public amenity along Monarch St. serves as a visual relief from development and creates a buffer between the building and the sidewalk. The public amenity along Hopkins Ave. is proposed to be landscaped area between the street and the sidewalk with plans P34 VI. 3 to include bench seating and an interpretive marker and a sculpture reflecting Francis Whitaker’s work. Any improvements other than landscaping that are made to the public right- of-way will need to be approved by the City’s Engineering Department. All areas are proposed at sidewalk level, and will contribute to a positive pedestrian environment as the area transitions from residential to the west towards the commercial area to the east. No variations from design or operational standards are being sought by the applicant. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum size and location standards established by Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, unless otherwise established according to said Chapter. Staff Response: The applicant proposes to maintain the existing trash/recycling enclosure that is located on the western side of the site, and is accessed via the alleyway. Environmental Health has reviewed the proposal and has determined that it does not require an upgrade that would be triggered by an increase in commercial floor area of 350 sq. ft. or more, and the addition of at least two new residential units. This application proposes a decrease in the amount of commercial space, and the addition of one residential unit. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. A utility area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum standards established by Title 25, Utilities, of the Municipal Code, the City’s Electric Distribution Standards, and the National Electric Code, unless otherwise established according to said Codes. Staff Response: The on-site utility area has been reviewed by Engineering staff for compliance, and has been found to meet the minimum standards required. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located and combined to the greatest extent practical. Staff Response: The utility, trash and recycle service areas are co-located at the western side of the building. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. If the property adjoins an alleyway, the utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be along and accessed from the alleyway, unless otherwise approved through Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. Staff Response: The utility, trash and recycling service areas are currently located along the western side of the building, accessed directly off of the alley or through the building. The P35 VI. 4 applicant has proposed to maintain the service area in its current location, which has been approved by Environmental Health Dept. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be fenced so as not to be visible from the street, unless they are entirely located on an alleyway or otherwise approved though Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. All fences shall be six (6) feet high from grade, shall be of sound construction, and shall be no less than ninety percent (90%) opaque, unless otherwise varied through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. Staff Response: The utility, trash and recycle service area is entirely hidden from the streets, and therefore does not require fencing. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Whenever utility, trash, and recycle service areas are required to be provided abutting an alley, other portions of a building may extend to the rear property line if otherwise allowed by this Title, provided that the utility, trash and recycle area is located at grade and accessible to the alley. Staff Response: The utility, trash and recycle services areas are proposed to be located abutting the alley. The building is not proposed to extend to the rear property line in this location. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 7. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. Staff Response: The utility pedestal that will service this property is located at the end of the block. No new transformer will be required for this property. No new encroachments are contemplated and easements will be provided for the service provider access as necessary. Engineering has indicated that should a new transformer be required in the future it must be placed on the site with the required easements. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 8. All commercial and lodging buildings shall provide a delivery area. The delivery area shall be located along the alley if an alley adjoins the property. The delivery area shall be accessible to all tenant spaces of the building in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. All non-ground floor commercial spaces shall have access to an elevator or dumbwaiter for delivery access. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be utilized as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International Building Code. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. Staff Response: A delivery area is proposed along the alleyway and will be accessible to all tenants of the building via elevator. The alleyway adjacent to the site is not proposed to be used as a pedestrian pathway. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P36 VI. 5 9. All commercial tenant spaces located on the ground floor in excess of 1,500 square feet shall contain a vestibule (double set of doors) developed internal to the structure to meet the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen, or an air curtain. Staff Response: There are no individual commercial tenant spaces planned for the ground floor in excess of 1,500 sq. ft. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 10. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. Staff Response: The proposed plan indicates mechanical venting to be located on the roof in two locations. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 11. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. Staff Response: Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting is anticipated to be located within the building. If located on the roof the applicant plans to minimize or screen the device such that it is not visible from the public right-of-way. A preliminary roof plan has been included which will be finalized and reviewed for compliance prior to the issuance of building permit. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 12. The trash and recycling service area requirements may be varied pursuant to Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code. All other requirements of this subsection may be varied by special review (see Chapter 26.430.040.E, Utility and delivery service area provisions). Staff Response: The applicant is not requesting any variations from the trash and recycling service area requirements. Staff finds this criterion to be not-applicable. 26.412.070. Suggested design elements. The following guidelines are building practices suggested by the City, but are not mandatory. In many circumstances, compliance with these practices may not produce the most desired development, and project designers should use their best judgment. A. Signage. Signage should be integrated with the building to the extent possible. Integrated signage areas already meeting the City's requirements for size, etc., may minimize new tenant signage compliance issues. Common tenant listing areas also serves a public way- finding function, especially for office uses. Signs should not block design details of the building on which they are placed. Compliance with the City's sign code is mandatory. Staff Response: The applicant plans to integrate signage into the building but has yet to finalize these plans. A sign permit for all signs will be submitted by the applicant prior to any signage on the building, and will be reviewed to ensure compliance with the City’s sign code. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P37 VI. 6 B. Display windows. Display windows provide pedestrian interest and can contribute to the success of the retail space. Providing windows that reveal inside activity of the store can provide this pedestrian interest. Staff Response: Large floor-to-ceiling, first-story windows are planned along the E. Hopkins St. façade, similar to what exists today. The same style windows are also proposed at the north eastern corner of the building. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Lighting. Well-lit (meaning quality, not quantity) display windows along the first floor create pedestrian interest after business hours. Dynamic lighting methods designed to catch attention can cheapen the quality of the downtown retail environment. Illuminating certain important building elements can provide an interesting effect. Significant light trespass should be avoided. Illuminating the entire building should be avoided. Compliance with the City's Outdoor lighting code, Section 26.575.150 of this Title, is mandatory. Staff Response: The applicant has not yet submitted a lighting plan for this project, but will do so as part of the final design. The applicant does not anticipate the use of any dynamic lighting methods. The lighting plan will be reviewed for compliance with the City’s outdoor lighting code prior to the receipt of building permit. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P38 VI. 7 Central Mixed Use Character Area Conceptual Review Design Guidelines 2.1 Development on a site of two or more traditional lot widths may accommodate additional public walkways and through courts. These should: • Respect the setting of and avoid conflict with an adjacent historic building • Design the frontage of any walkway or through court with similar attention to articulation, detail and materials accorded the primary street façade(s). Staff Response: The site encompasses two traditional lot widths. A public walkway is planned for the entrance on Hopkins Ave. which leads to the building’s lobby. Two walkways are proposed along Monarch St. that leads to additional entryways. No through courts are planned for the site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2.2 Public walkways and through courts shall be designed to facilitate access to uses within the link and/or to the rear or the site. • Locate walkways at the sidewalk level. • Locate retail frontage along walkways. • Use architectural detailing to enhance the pedestrian experience. • Design lighting, signage and landscapes to create a human scale and to enhance the pedestrian experience. Staff Response: The aforementioned public walkways are designed to access the main lobby and commercial spaces within the building. The walkways are located at the sidewalk level and are delineated by use of pavers leading to the doorway. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2.3 Parking shall not be positioned between the building and the street and visual impacts shall be minimized in one or more of the following ways: • Parking shall be placed underground whenever possible. • Where surface parking must be provided, it shall be located to the rear or the interior of the property. • Surface parking shall be externally buffered with landscaping, and internally planted landscaping. Staff Response: Two parking spaces are proposed for the site which will provided off-street parking for the two residential units. The garage is accessed from the alleyway, and is not visible from the street. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2.4 Structured parking access shall not have a negative impact on the character of the street. The access shall be: P39 VI. 8 • Located on a secondary street where feasible. • Designed with the same attention to detail and materials as the primary building façade. • Integrated into the building design. Staff Response: The garage structure is integrated in the building’s design, utilizes the materials that are found in other areas of the building, and is accessed from the existing alleyway. Staff does not anticipate this structure having a negative impact on the character of the street. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2.5 Public Amenity Space should take the form of: • Public space adjacent to the street edge. • Public links through the site. Staff Response: The proposed public amenity is located on the site, along Monarch St., and just adjacent to the property, off-site, between the Hopkins Ave. and the sidewalk. Both areas of public amenity are proposed as landscaped areas. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2.6 A street facing amenity space located on a corner or within the street block may be considered. Staff Response: All proposed public amenity areas are street-facing and located within the street block. All areas provide accessible green space and provide relief from development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2.7 A street facing amenity space shall meet all of the following requirements: • Abut the public sidewalk • Be level with the sidewalk • Be open to the sky • Be directly accessible to the public • Be paved or otherwise landscaped Staff Response: The proposed public amenity spaces are street-facing and meet all review criteria – the three separately proposed spaces are level and abut the public sidewalk, are open to the sky, are directly accessible to the public, and are landscaped. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2.8 Street facing amenity space shall contain features to promote and enhance its use. These may include one or more of the following: • Street furniture • Public art • Historical / interpretive marker P40 VI. 9 Staff Response: The applicant has proposed public seating and a historical/interpretive marker at the public amenity space along Hopkins Ave. The historical marker will provide information on Francis Whitaker’s Forge. Public art is also considered for this space. Improvements of this nature within the public right-of-way are outside of the purview of Planning Staff and must be reviewed by the Engineering Departmetn. Furthermore, the inclusion of bench seating in this area may be redundant with the location of Francis Whitaker Park across the street, and may underutilized due to parallel parking along Hopkins St. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 2.9 New buildings on a site occupying more than two traditional lot widths may provide a walkway or through court within a single development or between two developments. This may also extend only part way through the parcel. Staff Response: This is not a new building on the site, nor does the site exceed two traditional lot widths. Furthermore, no walkways or through courts are proposed. Staff finds this criterion to be not-applicable. 2.10 Mid-block walkways shall remain subordinate to traditional lot widths. • Mid-block public walkways shall be between 8 ft. and 10 ft. in width. Staff Response: There are no mid-block walkways associated with this proposal. Staff finds this criterion to be not-applicable. 2.11 The existing setback pattern within this area should be maintained. • A front yard should be provided. • Position a new building to be within the established range of front yard set-backs. • Side yard setbacks should frame the perimeter of a development. Staff Response: This project is a remodel rather than a new building. The current building extends beyond the front yard setback to the property line on Hopkins Ave. and the applicant is proposing to maintain this non-conformity, as the building is not being demolished and the feature is not being significantly altered. The applicant is proposing to fill in the existing window wells along Monarch St. and landscape these areas which will cause the building to come into compliance with the five foot side yard setback. The western side yard of the building maintains its current condition by extending past the side yard setback to the property line for over half of the length of the lot. Given the limited changes being made to that façade and that the building is not being demolished, this non-conformity may continue. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2.12 Maintain a sense of open space around a building. P41 VI. 10 Staff Response: As mentioned previously, the existing location of the building encroaches into the setbacks and therefore allows for less open space on the site. The public amenity space planned for Monarch St. creates more green space directly between the sidewalk and the building. The enhanced public amenity space along Hopkins Ave. creates more open space adjacent to the building. The open space is further enhanced by the location of Francis Whitaker Park across the street to the south of the site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2.13 A building should be oriented perpendicular to the street frontage within the traditional lot arrangement. Staff Response: The building maintains the existing building orientation, which is perpendicular to the street frontage. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2.14 A new building or addition should reflect the existing range of two to three stories. • Refer to the zone district regulation to determine the maximum height on the subject property. • Step back upper levels to reduce the perceived scale at the street edge. • Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the following reasons: o In order to achieve at least a two-foot variation in height with an adjacent building. o The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum, Civic Building, Performance Hall, Fire Station, etc.) o Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another area may be appropriate. o To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units. o To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contribution to the building’s overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved daylighting. Staff Response: The building’s remodel maintains the building at two stories, as seen from the street. The height of the existing building is non-conforming in that it contains a large areaway at the southern and southeastern façade. This exposes the building to three stories in this location. The current height of the building is 34.8’ when measured from the most restrictive grade at the bottom of that areaway. The Mixed Use zone district permits a height of 28’, which may be increased to 32’ through Commercial Design Review. The proposed design incorporates a new roof and raises the finished grade by 27” to reduce the building height slightly to 34’5 ½” in this location. While this is still not in compliance with the zone district’s height requirements it is an improvement on an existing non-conformity. P42 VI. 11 The proposed design reduces perceived height by stepping back the building in height and form, to a flat roof design, at the eastern façade of the building extending towards the rear of the property, at which point it steps back up to 28 feet with a pitched roof form. 2.15 The width of a building should convey a human scale. • A new building should step down in height next to a single story historic building. • Maximum building width should be limited to three traditional lot widths (90 ft.). Staff Response: The width of the building is limited to two traditional lot widths, and maintains the existing building width of less than 60’ and maintains a sense of human scale at the street level. The building is located across the alley to the south of the landmark designated building at 101 S. Monarch St. The building does not step down in height next to this single story building. Staff finds this criterion to not be fully met. 2.16 Subdivide the mass into smaller “modules” that convey a human scale. • Multiple modules can be connected to create a larger building. Staff Response: The building design is articulated with three distinct modules from the Monarch St. façade, and two along the Hopkins Ave. façade. These smaller modules reduce the building’s massing and convey a human scale. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P43 VI. 1 Exhibit A.2 Staff Findings Growth Management 26.470.050. General requirements. B. General requirements: All development applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for growth management review based on the following generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of development: 1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi-year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet this standard. Staff Response: The proposal requests two free-market growth management allotments and no commercial growth management allotments, as the applicant is proposing a reduction in commercial net leasable space. Sufficient growth management allotments are available for the two free-market residential units. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan. Staff Response: The mix of free-market and commercial uses is compatible with the land uses in the surrounding area, which are a mix of residential, lodge, commercial, and mixed-use. There are no regulatory master plans for this area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. Staff Response: This project is a remodel of existing development, and does not conform to the current height of 28’-32’permitted within the Mixed Use zone district. Rather, when measured from the most restrictive grade at the areaway at the front of the building the building reaches a height of 34.8’. Although the applicant is not bringing the height into conformance with the proposed design, they are lessening the non-conformity by bringing up the finished grade that is measured from the bottom of the areaway, thereby creating a height of 34’5 ½”. Staff recommends the non-conforming areaway be filled in to lessen the existing non-conformities. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Planned Development – Project Review approval, as applicable. Staff Response: The applicant is requesting concurrent reviews by P&Z for Growth Management and Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval. The application is P44 VI. 2 consistent with the review criteria for Conceptual Commercial Design Review. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate. Staff Response: The commercial net leasable floor area proposed by the proposed development is less than the existing net leasable floor area, and therefore no Full-Time Equivalents or FTEs are generated by the proposal for a decrease in commercial space. 6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100 Employee/Square Footage Conversion. Staff Response: The proposal involves the addition of 2,345 sq. ft. of net livable floor area related to two second floor free-market units that requires mitigation. The mitigation is calculated at 30% of the free-market floor area, when the free-market proposed is at or above natural or finished grade. The calculation is as follows: I. FTEs Generated by Residential Net Livable Floor Area • Second Floor: 500 sq. ft. + 1,845 sq. ft. = 2,345 sq. ft. / 30% = 703.50 sq. ft. of mitigation required. • Conversion to FTEs = 703.50 sq. ft. / 400 = 1.76 FTE’s. o Total FTE’s generated for proposed residential units = 1.76 FTEs P45 VI. 3 The applicant is proposing to provide mitigation for the new net livable floor area through the purchase of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, and is requesting approval from P&Z on this matter. P&Z is the final review authority. The Aspen Pitkin County Housing Board has submitted a referral in this matter, and is recommending the applicant mitigate for the 1.76 FTEs through the purchase and deed- restriction of an APCHA approved off-site unit, or through the purchase of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. Staff supports these options as code-compliant mitigation options. The applicant is also proposing the removal of an on-site, two-bedroom 792 sq. ft. affordable housing unit. The code provides a mitigation rate associated with the number of bedrooms associated with this housing unit, as outlined below. I. Employees Generated by the On-site Affordable Housing Unit The existing on-site unit affordable housing unit contains two bedrooms. Subsection 26.470.100.2 of the code provides a schedule to determine the number of employees housed by residential units. According to this chart, a two-bedroom unit houses 2.25 FTEs. The relocation of this unit will be discussed more fully in Staff’s answer to Subsection 26.470.050.5.4, following. 7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services. Staff Response: The proposed development adds one housing unit to the site. Staff expects this to add minimal demand on public infrastructure. Environmental Health has approved the on-site plan for waste disposal, and the Engineering has reviewed the plan for the off- site transformer that is being utilized. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 26.470.070.5 Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing. 2. Requirements for demolishing affordable multi-family housing units: In the event a project proposes to demolish or replace existing deed-restricted affordable housing units, the redevelopment may increase or decrease the number of units, bedrooms or net livable area such that there is no decrease in the total number of employees housed by the existing units. The overall number of replacement units, unit sizes, bedrooms and category of the units shall be reviewed by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and a recommendation forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff Response: The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing on-site, two-bedroom, 792 square foot affordable housing unit. This unit is deed restricted with the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) and is currently occupied. The applicant is proposing a buy- P46 VI. 4 down unit to replace the housing unit off-site, or to provide Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. The APCHA Board has reviewed the request at their May 5, 2016 public hearing and has recommended that the mitigation of 2.25 FTEs associated with this unit be satisfied by providing an APCHA-approved off-site, buy-down unit at Category 3, or through the purchase of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit at Category 3 or lower. Staff is not in agreement with this recommendation, as explained in the answer to 4. Location requirement, following. 4. Location requirement. Multi-family replacement units, both free-market and affordable, shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner shall demonstrate and the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that replacement of the units on site would be in conflict with the parcel's zoning or would be an inappropriate solution due to the site's physical constraints. When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of units on site which the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the site can accommodate and may replace the remaining units off site, at a location determined acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard. Staff Response: The applicant is proposing a buy-down unit to replace the housing unit off- site, or to provide Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. APCHA Staff have reviewed the application and provided their preference that at least a portion of the housing remains on the site The APCHA Board also reviewed the applicant’s request at their May 5, 2016 meeting and have recommended that mitigation be satisfied by providing an APCHA-approved, off-site buy-down unit deed restricted at a Category 3 rate. The Board would also accept Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit at a Category 3 or lower rate; however, this is not a viable code- compliant option. The Board’s decision was made in part due to the issues associated with obtaining financing for ownership of a unit in a mixed-use building, as well as the enforcement issues involved with maintaining rental units. At this hearing the applicant presented a plan to the Board that showed partial replacement of the unit on-site. The plans for this unit depicted the majority of the unit in the basement of the building, and therefore did not meet the code requirements associated with affordable housing which requires 50% or more of a unit to be located above-grade. APCHA referral comments, Board meeting minutes from May 5, 2016, and the plans viewed by the Board are included in Exhibit C. The proposal to remove the on-site affordable housing unit does not meet the requirements of this criterion, which state: • The owner shall demonstrate that the replacement of the unit on site would be in conflict with the parcel’s zoning or P47 VI. 5 • Would be an inappropriate solution due to the site’s physical constraints. Replacing the unit on-site would not conflict with the parcel’s zoning, which is Mixed-Use, and permits affordable multi-family housing. Any physical constraint associated with the site is due to the inclusion of two free-market units on the second floor, where the affordable housing unit is currently located. Staff does not find the inclusion of an affordable housing unit on the site to be an inappropriate solution. The existing unit is located downtown, adjacent to the Commercial Core, and is a unique and valuable rental within the City’s affordable housing stock. The applicant has not provided adequate reason why this unit should not be maintained on the site, and therefore Staff finds this criterion to not be met. P48 VI. 1 Exhibit B.1 Department Referral Comments A) Zoning Department 1. Address: The building shall have one address and unit numbers. Please complete and return the address request from, attached. 2. Height: the term ‘technically height variance’ is not a term used in the Land Use Code. Height does not look compliant with the proposed design. The height shall be measured pursuant section 26.575.020(F)Measuring Building Heights. Which means, height shall be measured from the bottom of the lower court yard. The perimeter measurement and the roof over natural grade; both shall meet height limitations of 28’. 3. Demolition Calculations: Please provide structural verification to accompany the demolition calculations. The plans provided lack detail. This project as proposed hinges on the assumption that demolition will not be triggered. 4. Non-conforming structures: Provide documentation that the existing structure was legally established. For example, a Certificate of Occupancy and accompanying plans. See chapter 26.312 Nonconformities. The chapter covers uses and structures. Below, a partial cut and paste. For example, if the building is in a setback, the proposed addition may not increase the amount of structure located in a setback. This applies to height as well. 26.312.030. Non-conforming structures. A. Authority to continue. A nonconforming structure devoted to a use permitted in the zone district in which it is located may be continued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. B. Normal maintenance. Normal maintenance to nonconforming structures may be performed without affecting the authorization to continue as a nonconforming structure. C. Extensions. A nonconforming structure shall not be extended by an enlargement or expansion that increases the nonconformity. A nonconforming structure may be extended or altered in a manner that does not change or that decreases the nonconformity. 5. Existing net leasable and proposed: The existing net leasable has a space number 4 under the stairs listed as net leasable. The space may be considered non-unit. Please amend the existing and proposed net leasable sheets. 6. Please provide a complete mechanical schedule for non-unit mechanical areas in the basement; pursuant section 26.575.020(I) Measurement of Net Leasable Area and Net P49 VI. 2 Livable Area, example 7, a shared mechanical room that is larger than the minimum space required to reasonably accommodate the mechanical equipment counts toward the measurement of net livable area or net leasable area as applicable. The area of the mechanical room that is the minimum size required for the mechanical equipment does not count in net livable area or net leasable area. 7. Floor area: please provide existing and proposed Floor Area calculations which include the allocation of non-unit space. See sections, 26.575.020(D)(15) Gross Floor Area Calculation. Please follow the steps, show the math and take the exemptions in the same order as the Code. 8. Existing subgrade calculations are not accurate, the planter next to the subgrade wall, count the wall as exposed. See section 26.575.020(D)(8) Subgrade areas, and section 26.1104.100 Definitions, see ‘Grade, Finished’. 9. Roof plan: please provide a roof plan complete with permitted roof top amenities; include outdoor lighting. See section 26.575.150 Outdoor Lighting, and section 26.575.020(F)(4)Allowed Exceptions to Height Limitations. Items to be included: amenities, mechanical, elevator overruns, and anything else proposed for the roof. B) Environmental Health Department Space Allotment for Trash and Recycling Storage If the proposal does NOT include an increase of at least 250 sq. ft. of commercial net leasable space or the addition of two (or more) residential units, then: • Mixed use commercial buildings that are adding less than 250 sq. ft. of net leasable space and less than two residential units are not subject to the space requirements listed in the Solid Waste portion of the Municipal Code (Chapter 12.10). C) Parks Department 1. Tree permit required for tree removal for sidewalk. 2. Utilities must be routed outside driplines of trees. 3. See original tree permit 2015.041 for instructions on watering remaining trees and tree protection fencing. D) Building Department The building will comply as a single exit structure and they will propose an accessible route to the trash area from within the property line. P50 VI. Exhibit B.2 Housing Referral Comments MEMORANDUM TO: Sara Nadolny, Community Development Dept. Planning Technician FROM: APCHA Board of Directors THRU: Mike Kosdrosky, Executive Director Cindy Christensen, Deputy Director DATE: May 5, 2016 RE: Conceptual Commercial Design Review for 230 E. Hopkins (Mountain Forge Building) ISSUE: The applicant is requesting approval to remodel an existing building; relocate existing commercial space within the remodeled structure; create two free-market residential units; remove an existing, non-compliant, on-site two-bedroom affordable housing unit; and provide all employee mitigation off-site or through the use of the Affordable Housing Certificate Program. BACKGROUND: The existing building contains 792 square feet of net livable area and 5,699 square feet of net leasable area. The building also contains an existing two-bedroom employee housing unit designated as “moderate”. The applicant is proposing to remodel the existing building, provide two new free-market residential units, and reorganize the commercial space. The proposal is requesting the removal of the on-site employee unit by either purchasing Affordable Housing Credits, or a buy-down of an existing unit. The proposed development is to expand the existing building’s basement and ground floors for commercial purposes only, and the second floor for commercial and free-market residential. There is no third floor being proposed. The applicant is also requesting to eliminate the on-site affordable housing unit with any and all employee mitigation to be done via the use of the Affordable Housing Credit Certificates. DISCUSSION: APCHA will be addressing the employee mitigation for this major development. According to the calculations provided to APCHA by one of the applicant’s representatives, Rowland + Broughton, there is no additional square footage for the commercial space. The two free-market residential units would create a mitigation requirement of 1.87 FTE’s. See below for the breakdown: P51 VI. Existing Commercial Space Basement 1,477 sq. ft. x 3.6 employees/1,000 sq. ft. x .75 = 3.987 Ground Floor 2,725 sq. ft. x 3.6 employees/1,000 sq. ft. = 9.81 2nd Floor 1,772 sq. ft. x 3.6 employees/1,000 sq. ft. x .75 = 4.784 TOTAL 18.581 Proposed Commercial Space Basement 2,598 sq. ft. x 3.6 employees/1,000 sq. ft. x .75 = 7.015 Ground Floor 2,656 sq. ft. x 3.6 employees/1,000 sq. ft. = 9.562 2nd Floor 573 sq. ft. x 3.6 employees/1,000 sq. ft. x .75 = 1.547 TOTAL 18.124 Based on the existing commercial and proposed commercial space, no additional mitigation would be required. The proposed new free-market residential net livable would require mitigation of 1.874 FTE’s (2,498 sq. ft. X .3 = 749 sq. ft. ÷ 400 = 1.874). Removal of the existing on-site two-bedroom unit would require mitigation at Category 3 of 2.25 FTE’s. Total mitigation requirement for the proposed remodel would be 1.874 + 2.25 = 4.124 FTE’s. Part III, Section 4, Affordable Housing Mitigation of Private Sector Property Development, of the Aspen/Pitkin Employee Housing Guidelines, has prioritized affordable housing mitigation options in the following order: 1. On-site deed-restricted housing units constructed or converted next to or attached to the proposed development. 2. Off-site deed-restricted housing units constructed or converted at a separate location within the Aspen core subject to approval by APCHA. A single off-site deed-restricted unit in an otherwise free-market housing complex shall not be approved. 3. Use of the Affordable Housing Credit Program. 4. APCHA approved buy-down units. 5. Payment-in-lieu to the city or payment of an Impact Fee to the county; or Land- in-lieu by conveyance of vacant property to the city or APCHA, permitted on a case-by-case basis. Based on the priorities stated above, APCHA would always prefer at least partial mitigation of the 4.124 FTE’s to be provided on-site as the applicant is providing free-market residential; however, due to the obstacles that an on-site unit can create as stated below, the use of a buy- down unit or the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit program is preferred. 1. Should the units be required as ownership units, there are no financing mechanisms for an owner to obtain a 30-year, fixed loan. P52 VI. 2. Maintaining affordability could become an issue for a homeowner in a mixed-used building. 3. Enforcement on rental units can be an issue due to the fact that owners change over time. Since an on-site mitigation unit is not preferred, the second priority would be in providing an off- site unit – new or as a buy-down. This unit would need to be approved by APCHA PRIOR to acceptance. If the applicant provides mitigation for anything but an on-site unit, mitigation should be satisfied at no higher than a Category 3, and not at Category 4. Any replacement or mitigation for the on-site unit should be required at the Category 3 level. RECOMMENDATION: The APCHA Board reviewed the application at their regular meeting held May 4, 2016. In retrospect of the issues that are created with on-site ownership and/or rental housing in a mixed-use building, the Board recommended that the required mitigation be satisfied by providing an APCHA-approved off-site, buy-down unit at Category 3, or the use of the Affordable Housing Credit Program certificates at Category 3 or lower. P53 VI. P54VI. P55VI. P56VI. 1 RESOLUTION NO. __ (SERIES OF 2016) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM REVIEWS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOTS R AND S, BLOCK 74, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 230 E. HOPKINS AVE., CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel ID: 273707328008 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from WEB Capital LLC (Applicant), represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission approve Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Growth Management Reviews at 230 E. Hopkins Ave; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 26.412.040 of the Land Use Code, Conceptual Commercial Design Review may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.070.6, Growth Management Allotments may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.050, mitigation for the increase in net livable floor area associated with this proposal may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.070.5, demolition of an affordable multi- family housing unit may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission with a recommendation from the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Director has recommended continuation of the application; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City Zoning Officer, Engineering, Parks, Building, Environmental Health Departments, and has taken and considered public comment; and, WHEREAS, during a public hearing on June 7, 2016, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. ___, Series of 2016 by a ____ to ____ ( __-__) vote, approving the applicants requests for Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Growth Management reviews for the demolition of an affordable housing unit, mitigation of this demolition through Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, two free-market growth management allotments, and mitigation for an increase in net livable floor area through Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards; and, P57 VI. 2 WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Conceptual Commercial Design Review. Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the request for Conceptual Commercial Design Review for the remodel subject site per the following conditions, and as indicated in Exhibit B – Elevations, attached.  The building may not exceed a height of 34’5 ½” at its highest point, as measured from the bottom of the improved areaway to the south side gable along the southeast corner of the building;  The building may not exceed a height of 32’ as measured from the bottom of the improved areaway to the north side of the gable along the southeast corner of the building;  All other areas of the building shall not exceed a maximum height of 28’;  Any roof top mechanical and amenities must meet the height allowed by the code at the time of the application submission. The proposed remodel will maintain the building in the same location on the site, such that the following non-conforming conditions are maintained, but not expanded:  The building extends to the property line on the southern, southeastern and western facades.  The building exceeds the height limitation of 28’ – 32’ for the Mixed Use Zone District at the southeastern corner of the site. As indicated above, the non-conforming condition is being reduced from 34’8” to 34’5 1/2” in this location. Section 2: Public Amenity. The applicant is required to provide no less than 10% of the lot size in public amenity, or 600 sq. ft. Planning and Zoning Commission has approved the request to provide 450 sq. ft. (7.5%) of pubic amenity on-site in the form of landscaped open space along Monarch St. and the alleyway. The applicant is further approved to provide 510 sq. ft. (8.5%) of public amenity off-site, directly adjacent to the site along the Hopkins Ave. façade, between the street and the sidewalk, in the form of landscape improvements. The on- and off-site public amenity combined equals 960 sq. ft. (16%). Section 3: Demolition of Affordable Housing. The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the removal of the on-site, two-bedroom 792 sq. ft. affordable housing unit. The applicant is required to replace this unit within the city boundaries with a unit approved by the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority. The replacement unit shall house no fewer than 2.25 Full-Time Equivalents. The applicant shall provide this unit through the purchase of an existing off-site unit or the construction of a new off-site unit, and shall receive Certificate of Occupancy prior to the receipt of Certificate of Occupancy for the subject site. P58 VI. 3 Section 4: Growth Management Quota System. The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the following Growth Management Quota System reviews.  Two free-market residential units have been approved for the site, measuring approximately 1,845 sq. ft. and 500 s q. ft., respectively.  The addition of the two free-market units requires the applicant to mitigate for 703.50 sq. ft. of new net livable space, or 1.76 Full Time Equivalents.  The applicant is approved for two free-market residential 2016 Growth Management Allotments.  The applicant may provide Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation for the required 1.76 Full-Time Equivalents. Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit shall be extinguished per Chapter 26.540 of the Land Use Code prior to receipt of Certificate of Occupancy for the subject site. Section 5: Off-street Parking. Upon redevelopment the applicant is removing net leasable floor area such that 3.67 parking spaces are required, and adding two free-market residential units, such that two additional parking spaces are required. The applicant is providing two on-site parking spaces for the residential units in a garage that is accessed from the alleyway. The applicant has received approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission to provide a fee- in-lieu payment for the 3.67 remaining parking spaces per subsection 26.515.030 of the Land Use Code. Payment for the three parking spaces shall be calculated and provided prior to building permit issuance. Section 6: Approval Documents. The applicant must apply for Final Commercial Design Review within one year from the date of this approval. An approved plan set for Conceptual Commercial Design approval is required within100 days of approval, pursuant to Section 26.490.040(D) Approved Plan Set. Section 7: Demolition. The applicant has provided initial demolition calculations which show approximately 39% of the building as being demolished. If during building permit review or the construction process it is determined demolition meets or exceeds 40% this approval becomes null and void, and the proposal will require a new land use review that includes Chapter 26.312, Nonconformities of the code. The applicant will be required to submit a new land use application which will require public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. The applicant will be required to notice for any required public hearing in accordance with Chapter 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures. Section 8: Floor Area Floor area numbers represented in the approval will be proofed by the City’s Zoning Officer for compliance with the code prior to the issuance of building permit. P59 VI. 4 Section 9: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 10: 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 11: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 7th day of June, 2016. ______________________________ Ryan Walterscheid (Chair) APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________ Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: _______________________________ Cindy Klob, Records Manager Resolution Exhibits:  A: Site Plan  B: Height Elevations  C: Approved Public Amenity P60 VI. Resolution Exhibit A Site Plan P61VI. Resolution Exhibit B Height Elevations P62VI. Resolution Exhibit C Approved Public Amenity P63VI.