Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20160719 AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING July 19, 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 Meeting Minutes - July 5, 2016 V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Gorsuch Haus (S. Aspen Street) - Planned Development B. 230 E. Hopkins_Mountain Forge_Conceptual Commercial Design, GMQS, Special Review and Variance Requests VII. OTHER BUSINESS VIII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 5, 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 July 5, 2016 1 Mr. Keith Goode, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Jasmine Tygre, Ryan Walterscheid, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Jason Elliott, Jesse Morris, Spencer McKnight and Keith Goode. Brian McNellis was not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn and Jennifer Phelan. Ms. Debbie Quinn noted for voting purposes, all the members can participate but Mr. McKnight will not be able to vote if all the other members vote on a motion. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES There were no minutes to review. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. PUBLIC HEARINGS Gorsuch Haus (S Aspen St/Lift 1A) – Planned Development Mr. Goode opened the hearing. He then explained a sheet will be distributed for meeting attendees to sign-up to comment during the public comment portion of the hearing because of the large number of people who want to comment at this hearing. Mr. Goode asked if notice had been appropriately provided. Ms. Quinn stated she had reviewed the notice finding the affidavit and notification to be appropriate. She added it appeared the posting, mailing, mineral rights and neighborhood outreach had all been provided and appropriately documented. The notice will be entered as Exhibit K. Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to Staff. Ms. Jen Phelan, Deputy Planning Director, noted the hearing tonight was for the Gorsuch Haus and provided a general overview of the application review process, noting it will be a three step process. P1 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 2 1) P&Z may have one or more meetings to review the mass, scale, and applicant’s proposals. P&Z will then make a recommendation to City Council. Public comment will be heard at this hearing. 2) City Council will then have a hearing and will also take public comment. 3) If and when City Council approves the project, P&Z will then conduct a final review for the skin and materials of the project. Ms. Phelan then described how a public hearing is conducted. Ms. Phelan noted additional public comment received by Staff since the agenda packet was published was compiled as Exhibit I and distributed to P&Z via email and as printed copies at tonight’s hearing. She reviewed who sent the public comments and their stance on the project. Ms. Phelan stated she would review the land use request, the reviews associated with the request, Staff’s key issues and a Staff’s recommendation. She then described Gorsuch Haus as a lodge development proposed on land owned by the Aspen Skiing Company (SkiCo). The applicant was proposed by Norway Island LLC with consent given by SkiCo. The proposal contains four parcels of land primarily within the City’s boundary with over 278,000 sf or over 6 acres of land. The property is located at the southerly end of S Aspen St, aka Lift 1A. It was an original portal to the mountain. Currently, the site has the lift, some SkiCo operations in a building and the remainder is skiable terrain zoned Conservation (C ). The proposal to redevelop the site is a new lodge including: • 81 lodge keys which is a mix of traditional hotel rooms and condominiumized lodge rooms. • Accessory uses including back of house for hotel • Amenities including lobby, fitness space, spa • Over 9,000 sf commercial space uses including a public restaurant, grab-n-go, SkiCo operations, AVSC offices • 6 free market residential units • 1 two-bedroom affordable housing unit • 58 below grade parking spaces • Ski Lift to be replaced and relocated up the hill and to the east • Various site improvements The land use reviews include: • Rezone from Conservation (C ) to Ski Area Base (SKI) which does allow all the permitted uses proposed and has no underlying dimensions regarding minimum lot size, maximum height, maximum floor area, or setbacks. The SKI zone district is a site specific approval and must be obtained via planned development approval. • Reviews for development in environmentally sensitive areas: o The Wheeler Opera House Mountain View Plane which intersects the property o The 8040 Greenline review • Major subdivision approval because it is proposed to change the configuration of the four parcels as they currently exist. The proposed changes also require vacations to three rights-of- way (ROWs) including half of Hill St, all of Summit St and half of S Aspen St. • Conceptual Commercial Design review • Growth Management Reviews to ensure the amount of development is permitted along with the appropriate amount of affordable housing is provided. P2 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 3 • Request for the vested property rights to be increased to ten years. Current State law provides for a minimum of three years of vested property rights for approved development. Ms. Phelan then stated she would discuss the key issues instead of each review. The key issues include: 1) Site Plan Currently there are four parcels which she identified on a picture of the site plan. The applicant has requested and demonstrated where the property extends beyond the City’s boundary. She noted all the development is proposed to be in within the City boundaries. She also pointed out where the ROWs exist the applicant has requested to be vacated. The site also has multiple easements for drainage, utilities and fire access. The proposal with the four new lots will put most of the building on lot one, which she outlined on a map. Some balconies, decks and subgrade improvements will go beyond lot one. The proposal has some improvements associated with different lots. The new lift will be located further east and up the hill from its current location. The terminus for S Aspen St is proposed as a cul-de-sac and will include a guest pull off area, transit stop and pedestrian access to the lift. The lift access involves walking around the toe of the building and up to the lift. There are a number of retaining walls proposed because it is a steep site. A skier return is proposed on the east side of the building which allows for skiers to return down through the corridor of the Lift 1 Lodge down to Dean St. The summer access road on the mountain that currently goes up on the west side of the property is proposed to be accessed from the east side of the property. Staff has the following concerns with the site plan: a) The footprint of the building closes off the lift from the street and prevents direct access to the lift. Staff also has concerns regarding the accessibility for anyone with a disability. As currently proposed, you would need to go through the hotel, take an elevator and go thought the build to access the skier plaza. b) Proposed retainage throughout the site both in scale and the impacts to skier return down to Dean St. c) Neighboring properties, specifically Lift 1 Lodge, was designed to incorporate a platter lift for future access from Dean St up to Lift 1A. It is unclear how the proposed lift will work with a platter lift. d) The request to vacate over 13,000 sf of ROWs will further close off access to the mountain from S Aspen St. e) The Engineering Department does not support vacating Hill St witch has utilities located beneath it. f) The new configuration of the lots is irregular in shape and improvements are dispersed on the lots. g) Engineering has concerns regarding the design and size of the cul-de-sac. It is unknown how much capacity the pull offs can handle. h) The Fire department has concerns with the ability to access the building all the way up the slope. P3 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 4 2) Dimensions The property is currently in zone district C which is pretty limited and allows for single family homes, parks, temporary special events and ski lift facilities under a conditional use. The zoning would have to change for the project to happen. The applicant has requested it to be changed to a SKI zone district which allows the proposed uses but does not have any underlying dimensional standards. All dimensional requirements would be set through site specific approvals. The neighboring zone districts include a C zone district around the Shadow Mountain Townhomes, Lodge (L) zone districts, residential and affordable housing zone districts. In the staff memo on p 8 of the agenda packet she included a comparison of the dimensional standards for the C, L and SKI zone districts. She reviewed the heights for the C, L and SKI zone districts and noted the floor area for the L zone district is based on the density of the project. For this project, based on the size of the lot, it has one lodge unit per 550 sf of lot area. She noted there is an incentive in the L zone district which would allow the height to go above 28 ft. Staff’s position is if you are asking for a project in a SKI zone district, you only get what is allowed for the district. The applicant is requesting just under 68,000 sf of floor area. The C zone district would permit between 4,300 – 5,700 sf of floor area for a single family home on a similar size lot. This is based on the steep slopes present on the property. The L zone permits between 27,000 – 36,000 sf based on the density and existing steep slopes. Within the requested sf, the following is included: • 60 traditional lodge units, 7 lock out condo units that could be locked off into individual rental units for a total of 21 units. The total units available for rent on any night is 81 keys. The six free market units proposed in size from 1,400 sf to just under 2,000 sf. There is also one 2-bedroom affordable housing unit proposed onsite. 58 parking spaces are included and the commercial space. • Two additional reviews for this project are the 8040 Greenline review and the Wheeler Opera House View Plane review. The applicant feels the view plane will be minimally infringed upon because of the existing buildings and trees between the Wheeler and subject property. • Overall, Staff is concerned with size and height of the building. They would like additional information on the view plane to analyze the impact. They also would like a better understanding of the grading on the site to allow for the skier return on the east side of the property. 3) Design and Architecture The proposal generally identifies flat roof buildings, broken into modules going up the hillside. From the bottom to the top is a length of 330 ft for about a 90 ft grade change. Different heights are proposed, but Staff feels it is predominantly a four story building. Staff recommends breaking up the mass in a more substantial and meaningful way. They also recommend changing the roof lines. The neighborhood has a lot of chalet style roof lines. P4 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 5 4) Mitigation For every type of use being proposed with a new development, the City only allows a certain amount within a calendar year. The applicant will need allotments for the free market units, lodge bedrooms, and commercial space. Staff’s calculation for the affordable housing generation is 56.69 full time employees (FTEs). The proposal is for one onsite unit and the remaining mitigation to be credits or offsite housing. Staff recommends additional onsite housing if possible and a clarification on how many credits and offsite units are proposed. The Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) would like to see a mix of physical units and credits. Staff’s recommendations are as follows: 1) Restudy the site plan to locate the ski lift lower on the site and consider the platter lift’ design needs. 2) Restudy the footprint of the building to open access to the lift from the street providing a more traditional view corridor. Staff does not want the lift closed off from Aspen St. 3) Review the cul-de-sac design. 4) Reconsider the skier return dimensions and retaining walls on the northern, lower portion of the site. 5) Provide a better understanding of the proposed grading changes to the site. 6) Provide further documentation on the visual impacts of the building with regard to the Wheeler View Plane. 7) Restudy of the mass, scale and height of the building. 8) In regards to the lots, Staff would prefer to see them in a more typical configuration. 9) More information on whether it is practical to vacate some of the existing easements. Mr. Goode then asked the commissioners for any questions for staff. Ms. Kelly McNicholas Kury asked if the vacations would be considered part of the subdivision review. Ms. Phelan confirmed it would be part that review and noted all of the requests would be recommendations by P&Z to City Council for a final decision. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked should any rezoning occur; would it be subject to Referendum 1. Ms. Phelan stated Referendum 1 was subject to properties located in specific zone districts as of January 1, 2015. This particular request is not in a zone district identified in the referendum. However, the rezoning action itself is referable so it could be petitioned to be on a ballot. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked about Staff’s involvement regarding the creative process for the development of this area of town. She felt P&Z provided some direction to the former Community Development Director and is curious if that information was captured. The direction provided by P&Z was that Staff would work with all interested parties in that area of town to produce positive development. Ms. Phelan doesn’t feel that has really occurred. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the cross over into county have any implications. Ms. Phelan stated it does more so on a technical level at this point. The County was referred and as long as they keep the proposal in the existing parcel and do not separate the parcels, the County is fine with it. Ms. Phelan stated some P5 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 6 notes would be added to the plat. The County feels if the development is within the City, then the applicant extinguishes their development rights on the portion of the property in the County. Mr. Ryan Walterscheid asked about the level of interaction between Staff and the applicant as work began on the planned development (PD). Ms. Phelan replied the first she heard about the application was through the public outreach during the meetings at the Limelight. The applicant did come in for the pre-application conference where all the reviews are outlined. Staff’s typical involvement starts after the application had been submitted. Mr. Mesirow asked how decisions made by P&Z would be impacted based on the projects predication to a successful zoning change. Ms. Phelan noted an ordinance would be necessary to change the zoning of the property and conditions could be included with P&Z’s recommendation on the final review. Ms. Quinn added P&Z could make a recommendation as well regarding the zoning. Mr. Goode asked Ms. Phelan to point out were the 8040 line exists on the property. She displayed a site plan as shown on p 44 of the agenda packet and noted it was the green line. Mr. Walterscheid asked what other properties are zoned SKI. Ms. Phelan replied Aspen Highlands is zoned SKI. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if any portion of the Lift One Lodge zoned as C. Ms. Phelan did not believed so, but was not certain. She will confirm. Ms. Jasmine Tygre asked if the land associated with the requested vacations will become part of the floor area ratio (FAR) calculations. Ms. Phelan noted there are inclusions and exclusions in regards to a lot’s gross size, so you end up with a net lot size used to calculate floor area. Typically, pubic ROWs are deducted from a properties gross lot size which the applicant has done in their application. Steep slopes are the other big deduction for properties like this one. At most, you can have 25% of the floor area deducted from the allowable. The applicant is asking for approximately 67,000 sf of floor area. As a PD, a certain amount of area can or cannot be locked into the PD. The easiest way would be to state lot one has 67,000 of floor area and not deal with deductions. Mr. Ryan Walterscheid asked if the dimensional numbers provided earlier were based on the size of lot one and Ms. Phelan the numbers were based on lot one which is roughly 4,400 – 4,500 sf or just over an acre. Mr. Walterscheid asked for the dimensional numbers if they weren’t subdividing the property into four lots. Ms. Phelan replied she only focused on the lot with the proposed lodge on it. She added the bigger the lot, the smaller the floor area allowed. Mr. McKnight asked in regards to the site plan, has there been any interaction between the applicant and the Lift One Lodge developers or is there any required interaction to review the pedestrian access. Ms. Phelan replied there is no requirement and she will let the applicant discuss any interactions. Mr. Jesse Morris asked if it is a recommendation regarding the platter lift and Ms. Phelan replied Staff is recommending the applicant look at how a platter lift would work with the neighboring properties. Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Jim DeFrancia, Norway Island LLC Principal, introduced the following representatives for the applicant and asked Mr. Gorsuch to speak about the genesis of the project. • Mr. Richard Shaw, Design Workshop P6 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 7 • Mr. Jeff Gorsuch, Roch North American LLC Partner • Mr. Bryan Peterson, Roch North American LLC Partner Mr. Gorsuch calls Aspen home and his family history goes back approximately 76 years. His grandfather, parents, aunts, uncles and cousins have raced on the Lift 1A venue. He and Mr. Peterson began discussing acquiring the property in 2008. At that time, they studied the values and what the community was looking for in this area. They wanted to connect the mountain and the community back to the historical portal. In the 1940’s and 1950’s, this site had the world’s longest ski lift. With that notion, they wanted to take the spirit from the earlier pioneers in Aspen and carry if forward. The goal for him personally is to provide access to the mountain to enjoy the tradition and legacy of skiing. They also wanted to have hot beds and provide transportation to town to connect this area back to town. They put together a group of developers and feels it is time to reinvest in this side of town with bold, courageous ideas of the early ski pioneers. He feels there have been a few miscommunications regarding the project. He feels it is absolutely a public project and vital for Aspen. Mr. DeFrancia noted Lowe Enterprises has developed locally for 42 years. His family also has a long history in the area. He wanted to respond to Ms. McNicholas Kury’s question regarding collaborative efforts and stated there have been communications with the Brown partnership predating their acquisition of the Lift One property. He added there were detailed communications starting last fall up through November when they were presenting their designs for their review and commentary. Changes were made based on input from them. Mr. DeFrancia then remarked to Mr. Walterscheid’s earlier question regarding interaction with Staff. He stated there had been a lot of interaction including several meetings with Chris Bendon and Jessica Garrow. Mr. DeFrancia also responded to Mr. McKnight’s earlier question regarding interaction between the applicant and the Lift One Lodge development. Mr. DeFrancia stated in addition to the Lift One Lodge development, they also met with S Aspen St Townhouses to coordinate on issues regarding the utilities. Mr. Richard Shaw then discussed the characteristics of the project, the neighborhood in which it sits and the portal it represents to Aspen Mountain on the west side. As it relates to the history of the mountain and the City, the development of the Silver Queen Gondola and the Little Nell Hotel took place on land including public ROWs which now forms the public edge to the main portal to Aspen Mountain. The Gondola always has been and will always be the main portal because it has the services and capacity for skiers as well as the transportation relationships and the public door offered by the Little Nell. The Lift 1A site has many of these characteristics if it can be planned in a way in which the public entrance is provided. Today, lift 1A can move about three to five percent of the total skiers on Aspen Mountain. With the redevelopment occurring the vicinity, that will increase in modest amount. Mr. Shaw provided pictures of the site and stated they visualize the neighborhood to include Gorsuch Haus at the top of S Aspen St. There are a number of projects that have existed for a long time in the lodging and residential categories. Some under construction and some in the approved, not constructed phase. The applicant is thinking of the project in the context of all the projects in this area as completed. He feels this area of the mountain is quite dated. The slower lift has been in place since 1976 and does not provide the mechanical reliability to serve the skiers. The buildings in the area have also been there for quite some time. Some were erected as temporary, but still remain. In the summer, it looks more like P7 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 8 a construction site. Staff has indicated this is parcel on three acres. It is made up of unusual properties, both in their shape and origination. Some of the lots are irregular in shape because they come from government lots and mining claim acquisitions. He provided examples of the Mountain Queen Condominiums and Shadow Mountain are on irregular shaped lots. He noted the existing grading of the site was to make the fall line come to the low part of the site and described the location and types of existing trees on the site. Originally, there were multiple parcels contemplated here as the town expanded. That is the way in which the ROWs occurred. There are three of them including Hill St, Summit St and S Aspen St. The Lift 1 project below this property has vacated the streets as part of their project including the southern half of Hill St, and half of S Aspen St is also part of the project. They are requesting the remaining half of Hill St to be vacated as would S Aspen St. Summit St was originally contemplated as an alley because it was impractical to develop. The project also includes a turnaround at the top of Aspen St with the abandonment of the ROWs and combining private parcels. Mr. Shaw provided slides of the skiing experience and stated it works like a river and falls with the topography. He then described position of new lift as remarkably close to its current location and it takes advantage of the skiing going down for loading on the eastern side. The return skiing will be wider and more gentle than as it currently exists. New technology will impact the lift’s position. Above the lift is a ski run which connects to an area for slowing down. He then described the mazing area for loading from the rear of the canopy into a detachable chair lift. The milling zone is used for arrival and ski storage. Behind the milling zone is the skier’s plaza which provides skiing and public services including restrooms. The front door of the hotel will also front the skier’s plaza. On the east side, skiers may return to the lift or continue down existing ski corridors to the Lift One Lodge. Arrival to the area will be by public transit using a public corridor. They visualize a 30 ft wide pedestrian amenity area on the southern end of the property which continues directly into the milling area. The mazing area defined will accommodate the maximum number of skiers on this side of the mountain. The return for the Norway run above the lift occurs at about 8,065 ft and at a point where the lift climbs out. He then pointed out the existing ski lift loads at about 8,018 ft at the front of the canopy. When compared with the new lift, the distance is about 70 ft different. The new lift tracks closely to the existing alignment and veering slightly to the west. He then described where the public would arrive by public transit and then go up to the stairway with four inch risers. The transit route being contemplated would be from Rubey Park Transit Center to the turnaround using Aspen St, Dean St, and portions of Durant to make it possible. He then noted there has never been an easy way to climb up to the area where competitive skiing finishes. He showed a route which would allow spectators to arrive to the finish area without crossing the lift lines. The Lift One Park is about 39.5 ft wide and has a return ski down to Willoughby Park which completes the downhill portion of the system. Gorsuch Haus will be part of a simple transit to move people from Rubey Park to Gorsuch Haus. On an average peak day, about 350 people in total would use the transit. Broken down by hour, it would be about 30 people per hour. Based on these numbers, a 4-wheel drive vehicle seating 10 people would make the trip eight times per hour. P8 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 9 Mr. Shaw then noted Mr. Gorsuch’s vision to achieve the intrinsic value of lodging and hotels and provide a front door to Aspen Mountain. It is not a residential project. It is not a project blocking off public amenities or a lodging project that has been converted to other uses. This will be a true hotel where members of the community may go for dinner or enjoy during and after skiing. This will be a hotel with a broad diversity of room types from a standard room sized at 415 sf and provides the capability of linking rooms for different party sizes. The average size of the rooms is 580 sf in total. He then provided a slide identifying the following: • 81 lodging keys • 6 free market units • 1 affordable housing unit • Lobby amenity • Restaurant / Bar / Après ski deck • Ski Operations and Ticketing • Aspen Valley Ski Club (AVSC) Room • Public Lift Plaza He then displayed a slide depicting a building which steps up the slope with varied heights and rooflines. He discussed locating the parking and mechanical underground beneath the Skier Plaza. The hotel is made up of two, three and four story sections of the building. As you climb up the slope, the lowest portion of the building is at the highest location. Many projects in the community have done the exact opposite turning the best of the site private and selling it off. The four story or highest density sections are located in the middle. The three story section buildings support the skiing and are located further down the site. The roof forms consist of gable, flat, green and pitched roof lines. He then provided a slide of example high quality exterior materials depicting local alpine character. He then discussed activating the public space with a restaurant. It is connected to view recreation, accommodate culture and community activities. Amenities will be located along both sides of the hotel. He then provided a slide showing the existing and proposed zoning and noted the this is not like a conservation easement area with preservation application. It is a district of uses. He then stated the SKI zone district recognizes the complexity and special needs of combining the ski lift, skiing and access with the services and land uses which occur at the base of skiing. The SKI zone district allows for specific dimensional characteristics to be identified. A simple way of looking at it is to think of it as a PD with skiing. Aspen Highlands is an example of the specific dimensional characteristics and applied uses exist. When the Little Nell was built in 1987, there was a conservation land use in the development and the redevelopment of the base. He then displayed a slide of dimensional standings: • Lot area excluding the ROWs: 36,000 sf exclude row • 550 sf gross area per lodge unit • Range of building height of 24-49 ft • Floor area: 67,781 (FAR 2.5:1) – They want to align with a FAR consistent with the neighborhood as well as the site’s capability and desirability. • The commercial and skier services represent about 13% of the total project. He then provided a slide comparing this project with other projects about town. • Shadow Mountain is at an elevation 8,079 ft P9 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 10 • Top of mill is at an elevation of 8,096 ft • Single family homes above the Aspen Alps is at an elevation of 8,110 ft From the Wheeler Opera House, they examined two Main St and the Wheeler Opera House square site line. It is pretty clear Main St is not applicable because it is not visible. The Wheeler view plane has many buildings and vegetation which actually form the edge of the view. He then provided a slide of the view plane depicting two spots where there is visibility of site. He also provided two photos of the visibility s from the highest elevation of proposed building back to town. He then provided a slide of project benefits: • Replacement of Lift 1A • Improved public access to skiing, the lift and services • Enhanced access to competitive skiing events • Advances many Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) goals • Provides lodging in relation to recreation • Completes transit network for all seasons and provide flexibility based on demand. • Complementary with the redeveloped neighborhood. There are very few sites on Aspen Mountain where decisions have not already been made. The remaining opportunity is down to one site. • Revitalizes the western portal of Aspen Mountain which is scaled to be the right kind of portal representing an investment into the future of aspen. Mr. DeFrancia provided a quick summary. The present condition is unsatisfactory and not easily accessible. Their objective is to revitalize the area by adding a modest amount of lodging, improve the lift and lift access while being respectful of the public elements. They are not asking the City for parking waivers or housing and only asking for a minimal intrusion into the Wheeler view plane. Mr. Goode stated based on the sign-up sheet, there is about an hour of comments from the public. He stated there will be at least three meetings for the project and also recommended emailing their comments. He stated they may not be able to have everyone speak tonight that had signed up for public comment. Mr. Goode asked if the commissioners had any questions for the applicant. Ms. Tygre asked the distance in ft from the drop off on S Aspen St to the lift. Mr. Shaw responded 225 ft. Ms. Tygre asked if the applicant will be providing a vehicle to take people up and down S Aspen St. Mr. Shaw responded the project’s commitment is to implement a public transit link and would hope to do it with other beneficiaries of the transit link. The City Transportation Department suggested a combination of a private hotel and public use would be very compatible. Ms. Tygre wanted clarification the project was not proposing a separate dedicated tram or car to move folks. Mr. DeFrancia stated they contemplated having transit run strictly up and down from Dean St to the hotel during peak hours. They are trying to coordinate with the City and looking at the broader transit from Rubey Park and the solution may be a combination of the two. Mr. DeFrancia stated they are planning to have a vehicle at this time. Mr. Walterscheid asked for the source of the estimated 350 skiers per hour and the lift’s capacity per hour. Mr. Shaw stated they took the top five days in which skiers initiate their day and use the lift to access Aspen Mountain. The lift capacity up the slope is SkiCo’s decision and they typically would range 1,500 to 2,500 per hour. P10 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 11 Mr. Walterscheid asked why they are providing only one affordable housing unit onsite. Mr. DeFrancia stated from their experience in lodging, employees do not really want to live at the location and are typically restricted from using some of the common areas. He also noted it is not a family environment for children and there is an absence of neighborhood. Mr. Walterscheid asked them to speak to the rationale behind the lot subdivision configuration as proposed. Mr. Shaw stated the properties are combined through various combinations of irregular shapes. The town site does not extend into this neighborhood in the lots and blocks found elsewhere. Secondly, they looked at how the ownership including a Home Owners Association (HOA) and the operations works at the Little Nell and the arrival to the mountain. Public access is retained on lots two and three. The ROWs are picked up in the documents which will perpetually control those lots. The hotel, dining and access at the Little Nell is exactly the same as in the current proposal. Mr. Walterscheid stated he would anticipate further condominization of the hotel to allow for commercial uses instead of hotel uses. He is trying to understand the rationale behind the subdivision and the further assumed condominization. Mr. Shaw responded further subdivision will occur. For example, the few residential units will be wholly owned. The layering taking place on the slope including the skier plaza and the lift area are actually on the same lot as the hotel. It would be difficult for all the skiing based activities to be on one lot. He reiterated it is identical to the Little Nell. Mr. Mesirow asked why they chose to articulate the building to be open to the lift side and closed on the street side. Mr. DeFrancia stated a key element was the placement of the proposed lift and the alignment to allow it to go further down the mountain should the circumstance arise. He reiterated they do not control the properties down mountain. This constrained the placement of the building. They angled the hotel on its down mountain side in a response to commentary from the Lift One Lodge owners and wanting to create a more open sense of arrival to get to the lift. He noted in response to Ms. Tygre’s earlier question the distance from the turn around to the open plaza is about 30 paces. He also stated the shortest distance between the buildings at the Silver Queen Plaza is 45 ft and 65-70 ft on the project. It is a very open and public area. Mr. Mesirow asked if there is another example of this zoning other than Aspen Highlands. Mr. Shaw stated no, because it is a relative new district in the code. It came about with the annexation of the Aspen Highlands ski area. Mr. Mesirow asked them to speak to why they decided to designate part of the project as free market instead of fractional. Mr. DeFrancia stated an element of free market is driven by economics. He stated the City has completed studies with outside parties demonstrating that simply doing lodging is not viable and added economic viability is not a concern of the municipality. They strived to keep it at an absolute minimum. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked to see comparative slides of the current and proposed lot configurations. Mr. Shaw stated it is in the application, but they do not have a slide. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if they are committing to an escrow fund to pay for the shuttle so it can be included with the approvals. Mr. DeFrancia stated they anticipate a multi-party agreement with other neighboring properties as a condition of approval. Ms. McNicholas Kury was looking for technical response to the vacations of the ROWs, noting Staff’s stating the criteria was not applicable or they were not all met. Mr. Shaw stated ½ of the S Aspen Street from the northern edge of the property all the way down to Dean St has been abandoned. The same ROW extends up past the Shadow Mountain Condominiums where it ends abruptly on a government P11 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 12 lot. He pointed out the location on a slide. He stated there are some utilities in this location, but not an active roadway because it is too steep. There are some issues of storm water management in the use of the ROW today. Hill St is quite different and ½ of it has been vacated and the City has major utilities including water service. A 16 in water line is being proposed in the redevelopment. There are also electrical services located as well. Hill St never had a roadway either. Summit never had any of these things. It was originally thought of as an alley between the parcels and has no ROWs. They visualize a better site plan if the ROWs can be changed to specific easements to guarantee the permanent use of how ROWs have traditionally served. Equivalent access would be replaced with no loss to public access, utilities, and the water line. Ms. McNicholas Kury believes the applicant is envisioning the City vacations will be transform into easements to be given back to the City or appropriate entity and both Mr. DeFrancia and Mr. Shaw agreed. Ms. Jesse Young, Design Workshop, provided a slide showing the existing lots. Ms. Phelan then described the existing lots. Mr. Walterscheid also noted it was included in Staff’s memo. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked who engaged in the development of the vision for the project. Mr. Shaw stated Staff’s consultation and input goes back over 24 months. They discussed the focus of the project including arrival, transportation, and appropriate changes for skier access. They have also had collaborative meetings with surrounding property owners. The City Community Development Director brought everyone together for four meetings to discuss the common interests of the project. Mr. Morris stated he did not see how the articulation of the building enhances public access. He asked what other alternatives were considered for the placement of building. Mr. DeFrancia noted it started out more of a rectangular which shortened the distance to walk from the traffic circle until you could see the lift. Mr. Shaw noted they considered an L shape building. They discussed public access to ski lift and noted at Highlands you do not see the lift when you arrive. A pedestrian corridor to the lift then provides access to the services. He also noted prior to the development of the Silver Queen, the arrival was a series of ramps and a vehicle maintenance building. The gondola is different because of the terrain. At Aspen Highlands and Snowmass, the arrival is much lower so you do not have the visual connection to skiing. Mr. McKnight asked what other iterations exist for the building’s height, mass and scale and how did they come to the design presented and not something smaller that would conform more with the other local zoning. He is concerned about the pedestrian access to the lift. Mr. Shaw stated the successful operation of a hotel needs enough bed base and amenities to work on a seasonal basis in which size is a critical factor. He feels this is a moderately sized hotel and is not as big as many hotels in town. In looking at the heights, the neighborhood has three and four story structures. If you look at the nature of the forms, you will find heights that are 53 ft above the grade. The highest point on the St. Regis Hotel is 72 ft. He feels the 49 ft maximum height is very compatible and lower than other neighboring buildings. This is a sloped site and the upper portion should not be the highest part. Mr. DeFrancia reiterated the public benefits are located in the highest point of the project including the restaurant, après ski activities, venues for post-race activities, and adjoining patios. He noted the highest point is 49 ft and the lowest is 24 ft. It was purposefully stepped to avoid a large block. The Lift One Lodge is 56 ft at its highest point. Obviously as you move closer to town, the buildings are higher. Mr. Mesirow asked what they consider a normal guest at their hotel. Mr. DeFrancia noted the four hotels which Aspen recently lost. Mr. DeFrancia then stated they looked at the normal hotel guest in Aspen and looked at providing a quality hotel based on the location, but not egregiously luxurious. They expect it to be a four-star hotel and also expect a lot of interaction with the community. Mr. Mesirow agreed with Mr. DeFrancia’s comments regarding losing hotels and wondered if any discussion was given to travelling families and felt this product may be out or reach for that demographic. Mr. P12 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 13 DeFrancia replied it will be difficult to develop the site which translates back into what can be offered for cost to build. They were not able to get it down to what he would consider affordable lodging. They also did not want a five-star hotel. Mr. Goode then opened for public comment and noted in the next hearing they will open to public comment if they are unable to have time for everyone who signed up at tonight’s hearing. Ms. Ruth Krueger stated she served on P&Z for six years as well as both COOPS proposed for this neighborhood. They spent many hours for over 2 years to coming together with the neighborhood’s approval for a really delightful neighborhood project. She feels this is an extremely important neighborhood and it must be a ski lodge and not another condominium / townhome project. She also lived on site for year or two. Many hours were spent discussing the delivery systems including a platter lift. She is in support of project, but needs to see how to get platter lift up to the lift and urged revisiting the platter lift access. She also feels it is shameful that after all the hours and money spent to make Dean St a pedestrian street, it will be redeveloped. She also feels it is shameful that everyone at the COOP approved it and Council turned it down and feels it was one of the most embarrassing moments in Aspen. Mr. Dick Butera feels he is having a déjà vu moment. Approximately 27 years ago, a presentation to build the Little Nell was made by SkiCo with a promise from the Crown family to build a gondola if the hotel was built. He feels the Council and Planning department saw the project in more historical terms and trusted the Crown family, rather than every little nitty, gritty. The Crown family came through as they always do and the time to get to the top of the mountain went from 45 minutes to 15 minutes. Aspen was reborn. This is project is almost the same. There are a lot of people with negative things to say, but it is a historical moment for P&Z and Council to open this side of the mountain. There has to be an economic justification for this project and you can’t keep squeezing and think it will happen. Again, the Crown family has promised to build a new lift if the hotel is built. Mr. John Bucksbaum supports the project. He has been a part time resident and skier in Aspen for over 50 years. He was raised to be passionate about skiing, Aspen Mountain and the community. His first ride up Aspen Mountain was the old single chair lift and has loved this side of the mountain since then. He described activities with friends and family on this side of the mountain in the past. He had concerns of the project and recently walked the entire area with Bryan Peterson to understand the proposed changes and impacts to the existing Norway run which he found will be somewhat altered. He accepts these changes with a new hotel and lift. He also wanted to acknowledge the local project team that is 100% committed to this town. This group is trying to do the right thing, have been completely open, solicited repeatedly from the community for input, changed their plans numerous times to try to find a solution benefitting everyone. He feels skiers have far more to be concerned with than losing a few turns at the bottom of the mountain and climate change will impact their skiing far more than the Gorsuch Haus so he supports the project. Ms. Marcia Goshorn supports the project and was impressed by the amount of public outreach. She has seen the input from the meetings in their final plans. Having the shuttle come from Rubey Park makes a lot of sense. She feels this is one of the most appropriate places in town to put a lodge and much better than a gas station across from Carl’s Pharmacy. This is a place for ski in/out lodging. She encouraged anyone with a question to reach out to the applicant team and feel they have been open from day one. Mr. Ward Hauenstein feels there is one chance at getting this right and feels of all the places that can handle some height, this is a place. In a perfect world at lift 1A, he would like to see a visual corridor from the cul-de-sac. He would also like to see the City, the Browns and the applicant work on creating a P13 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 14 skittle from Willoughby Park to lift 1A. He also feels the development and lift updates will relieve some of the pressures at the gondola side. Mr. Cliff Weiss noted he was the P&Z commissioner assigned to the two COOPs for two years and attended 99% of the meetings. He stated the COOPS wanted two major things to come out of the development that was supposed to occur at the lift 1A area. One was vitality defined as where locals and guests can mix. The did not want a private enclave. The second thing was a connection to the gondola, downtown and Rubey Park. He feels community has been screwed because this was a master planning process and has now has become a divide and conquer. He does feel this development might be the only opportunity to have the two things identified by the COOP. Ms. Karen Hartman supports Staff’s recommendations for the project. She would also like a discussion about all the employees coming up and down the hill. There will be public parking at the Lift One Lodge which will leave people eventually walking up the hill. She feels the cul-de-sac is too small to handle the volume of traffic. Mr. Karl Hartman is against the project and feels the mass is too great given the requested zoning change. He also feels the requested 10 years vesting is too great and the project could sit empty like base village in Snowmass. Ms. McNicholas Kury motioned to extend the meeting to 7:15 pm and was seconded by Ms. Tygre. All approved, motion passed. Mr. Clark Smyth stated he has lived and worked in Aspen for 20 years in real estate development and during this time he was on the County P&Z and Board of Adjustment. He feels the Planning Staff has done a great job indicating which areas need improvement. He has also observed the way the project is configured, about 1/3 of the Norway run will be lost unless you come all the way to the bottom and walk back up. He also questions with a 10 year vesting timeframe, will SkiCo start on the lift with an approval of this project or will the lift not get built. He feels getting transportation up from Dean St is critical. Mr. Bart Johnson is at the meeting on behalf of the Lift One Lodge. He noted he had also sent in a letter which is in the packet. He wanted to make a few points. First, if you look at the SKI zone district, it only exists at Aspen Highlands and was created because the City was annexing in a development that had already been approved by the County and they needed to accommodate something that did not fit into the City’s zoning. He stated the applicant does not have to ask for variances because the SKI zone district has no dimensional requirements to vary from. He feels if you look at the neighboring zone districts, the L zone district is a much more appropriate district. He noted the application refers to the L zone district quite a bit because he feels they realize they need something as a base for measuring. The L zone district provides a good base. If you take their density numbers and apply them to their lots which are configured to maximize their density and floor area claims, you get parameters in the range of 28 ft, 1:1 FAR, and higher affordable housing than they are requesting. He urged P&Z to look at this aspect of the application as well as the lot configuration. He added it is true the lots are configured based on their uses, but it is not exact. Obviously the applicant has explained they are going to make up for the fact the lots are strangely configured by cross easements that account for deferred uses which they could do for any lot configuration including everything in one lot. But then they would not be able to make their density claims under their L district analogy. Finally, he encouraged P&Z to look at the 8040 Greenline standards. To approve this project as planned, he feels you would have to throw the 8040 Greenline standards out the window. Mr. Michael Brown, part of the ownership group for the Lift One Lodge, and has lived here for seven years. Nowhere in the land use code does it say to be a good community citizen and you will be P14 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 15 rewarded with outsized land use entitlements. If an outside person was making this same development application, it would be rejected. Applications to boards should be agnostic as to who is making the proposal. At the end of the day, the only thing assured is the project will remain in perpetuity. He asked P&Z to look at the project itself and the substance of Staff’s memo and make a good land use decision. During the site visit today, he was surprised at the size of the footprint of the building based on the location of the stakes place by the applicant team. The lift is clearly moving further from town up the slope, cutting off skier access and the cutting of the Norway run such that if you fall, you will fall into a brick wall. In regards to the applicant’s outreach, he stated they did meet with the Lift One Lodge team at City Hall as well as subsequent meetings at Design Workshop. He stated they never reflected any of our concerns in their application and no material or substantial changes were made. He asked P&Z to look at the proposed site plan and heights to determine if they considered their neighbors and added they met with the Lift One Lodge group to check a box. Some of the core issues are outlined perfectly in Staff’s memo. The Lift One Lodge project contemplates a platter lift including the easements. The only thing missing is a landing for the platter lift. In addition, the Lift One Lodge project is contributing $600,000 towards the construction of the platter lift. If the project were to come with L zoning, the request you would see would be littered with variances. Variances of this magnitude are the reason this community has Referendum One. The development is totally out of scale with the neighborhood. It is 250% of what would be allowed in the L zone district if the lots were adequately configured based on the City’s standards. A 1000% of the C zoning is the FAR increase they are requesting. He asked P&Z to take a 50-year view of the project and heed the wisdom in Staff’s memo. He asked each member to think about the project they would like to have back and this may be that project so let’s do it the right way because we only have one chance to make this area right. Mr. Goode noted the next person would be the last public commenter for tonight. The remainder will be heard on July 19th. Mr. Jerome Simecek is speaking on behalf of Mountain Queen Condominiums Home Owners Association. While the association has not yet take a formal position on the project, they do have some concerns. Many are identified by Staff in their memo including the traffic, fire, and light pollution in particular with the restaurant at the highest location of the property. They hope the applicant goes above and beyond in mitigation as to what is required by code for the light pollution. The excavation and grading also raises similar concerns as those with the Little Nell for the monitoring of movement. They also want to ensure the view planes are not negatively impacted. The developer has so far been very cooperative in providing renderings of view planes which they appreciate. They also want to make sure the drainage is also monitored. They are also concerned about long term construction noise impacts as well. Mr. Walterscheid motioned to continue the hearing to July 19th at 4:30 pm. Ms. Phelan stated they have asked for additional perspectives to view building from multiple viewpoints. Mr. Goode stated he would like to see a shot of the building at night. Ms. Phelan reiterated how members of the public could communicate comments to Staff. Ms. McNicholas Kury then seconded the motion. All in favor, motion passed. Mr. Goode then closed the hearing. OTHER BUSINESS None. P15 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 16 ADJOURN Mr. Goode then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager P16 IV.A. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: Gorsuch Haus (S. Aspen Street) – Planned Development and Associated Reviews - Resolution No. , Series 2016 – Public Hearing MEETING DATE: July 19, 2016 No new information is being provided with this memo other than additional public comment (Exhibit L). Staff recommends that the public hearing be opened and begin with public comment, followed by the typical proceedings for a public hearing. Ideally, the Commission will be able to provide some direction on the proposal to the applicant. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit L: Public Comment, post 7/5/16 P17 VI.A. P18 VI.A. P19 VI.A. P20 VI.A. P21 VI.A. P22 VI.A. P23 VI.A. P24 VI.A. P25 VI.A. Page 1 of 24 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge July 19, 2016 P&Z Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planner THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director RE: Resolution __, 2016. Conceptual Commercial Design and Growth Management Quota System Reviews. Public Hearing continued from 6/7/2016 and 6/21/2016. MEETING DATE: July 19, 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, Growth Management Reviews, Special Review and a Dimensional Variance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission continue the matter and direct the applicant to increase the ground floor net livable floor area of the affordable housing unit. Staff recommends the Commission deny the applicant’s request for a dimensional variance for the window well along Monarch St. and Special Review related to the affordable housing unit. Figure A: Image of subject site as seen from Monarch St. SPECIAL NOTE: The public hearing for this project has been continued from two previous dates, June 7 and June 21, 2016. The design proposed at each hearing and subsequent changes are indicated following each relevant date, below. 1) June 7, 2016. The applicant proposed a remodel of the existing building that included: • Reduction in height from 34’8” at the building’s tallest point (south/southeastern roof form) to 34’ 5 ½”; • Allowing the completion of a gabled roof form to reach 32’ while the rest of the building is maintained at or under a height of 28’; P26 VI.B. Page 2 of 24 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge July 19, 2016 P&Z Meeting • Change in roof forms from pitched shed roofs to gabled and flat; • Addition of pedestrian entrances along Monarch St.; • The in-filling of a large, non-conforming window well along Monarch St.; • Removal of the two-bedroom affordable housing unit from the site; • The mitigation of the removal of the affordable housing unit through either the purchase of an off-site unit to be deed-restriction or the purchase of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit; • The addition of two free-market residential units at the second floor level, measuring 1,845 sq. ft. and 500 sq. ft., respectively; • The mitigation of these free-market units through the purchase of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit; • Reduction of the commercial net leasable floor area from 5,029 sq. ft. to 3,671 sq. ft., therefore requiring no mitigation; • On-site public amenity in the form of landscaped areas along Monarch St. measuring 450 sq. ft. (7.5%), and off-site public amenity in the form of public improvements and landscaping to the public right-of-way along Hopkins Ave measuring 510 sq. ft. (8.5%), for a total proposed public amenity of 960 sq. ft. (16%); • Two on-site garage parking spaces for use by the free-market units with a fee-in- lieu payment for the additional parking spaces required (3.67); and • No changes to the existing 75 sq. ft. trash/recycling area. The Planning & Zoning Commission favored the exterior changes that included the height request, roof forms, pedestrian entrances, infilling the window well and public amenity, but chose to continue the application with direction to the applicant to maintain the two-bedroom affordable housing unit on the site. 2) June 21, 2016. The applicant returned with a design that proposed changes to the following components of the building and site: • The maintenance of a two-bedroom affordable housing unit on-site measuring 720 sq. ft. of net livable floor area. The proposed unit measured 360 sq. ft. at grade and 360 sq. ft. below grade. APCHA requires a minimum 900 sq. ft. unit unless the unit is found to meet criteria related to storage, natural light, layout, amenities, location and density. (Staff found none of the criteria to be met.); • The addition of two free-market residential units at the second floor level, measuring 1,845 sq. ft. and 414 sq. ft., respectively; • The mitigation of these free-market units through the purchase of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit; • The reduction of the window well along Monarch St. to measure 3’ x 6’, with an increased depth of 11” to meeting egress requirements of Building Code; • An increase in commercial net leasable floor area as compared with the previous proposal of 3,671 sq. ft. to 4,321 sq. ft., less than the existing commercial net leasable floor area of 5,029, therefore requiring no mitigation; P27 VI.B. Page 3 of 24 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge July 19, 2016 P&Z Meeting • On-site public amenity in the form of landscaped areas along Monarch St and the alleyways, and paved walkways along Monarch St. and Hopkins Ave. measuring 680 sq. ft. (11.3%), and off-site public amenity in the form of public improvements and landscaping to the public right-of-way along Hopkins Ave. measuring 510 sq. ft. (8.5%), for a total proposed public amenity of 1,190 sq. ft. (19.8%); • Two on-site garage parking spaces for use by the free-market units with a fee-in- lieu payment for the additional parking spaces required (5.32); and • Recognition that the application required changes to the trash/recycling area on- site, but deferred until a recommendation could be garnered by Environmental Health staff. The Planning and Zoning Commission once again voted to continue the hearing, instructing the applicant to provide an affordable housing unit with greater livability. If the reduction in floor area was the be granted, the applicant would need to provide an exceptional unit. The Commission directed the applicant to provide storage for the unit and greater access to natural light, as well as explore larger bedroom sizes. CURRENT PROPOSAL: The applicant has responded to Staff and Planning and Zoning Commission’s direction and have returned with a design that enlarges the affordable housing unit on the site. The proposed design has impacted other aspects of the project, and has required the applicant to request a Dimensional Variance related to a window well within a side yard setback. The variance request required proper noticing in accordance with Chapter 26.304 of the Land Use Code. All proposed changes are discussed below by topic. Specific Staff comments and recommendations related to the update are provided in italics below. The body of the June 21st memo is included at the end of the update for reference. DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a dimensional variance for a window well along the building’s Monarch St. façade. There is an existing window well in this location that measures approximately 5’ x 31’, and extends past the property’s five-foot side yard setback. The applicant is proposing to reduce the size of this window well and increase its depth by approximately 11” to serve as egress for the proposed subgrade bedrooms of the affordable housing unit. As the non-conforming window well is altered it is permitted to be maintained within the side yard setback at the minimum size of 3’x3’ per window well, as allowed by the Code, or the two required egress window wells may be combined at a minimum size of 3’x6’. The Figure B: Existing window well along Monarch St. P28 VI.B. Page 4 of 24 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge July 19, 2016 P&Z Meeting applicant is proposing a combined window well that measures 3’ ½” x 8’ which exceeds the minimum size for required for egress. The applicant states this is to allow for greater light into the subgrade bedrooms, and to enhance the livability of the affordable housing unit. Staff has reviewed the proposed variance request against the review criteria for a Variance, which may be found in Exhibit K1 to this memo. The criteria ask whether the granting of the variance is generally consistent with the purposes, goals and objectives of the Code; if it is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and if by not granting the variance the applicant would be caused unnecessary hardship as opposed to a mere inconvenience. According to the Code, a nonconformity may be maintained or reduced, but is not permitted to be increased. A retaining wall not exceeding 30” in depth is permitted in a setback or a 3’x 3’ window well (two adjacent window wells may be combined to form one 3’x6’ window well); however, the applicant has requested to exceed the allowed window well dimension both in size and in depth to meet the required egress. The applicant is proposing a window well that measures approximately 3 ½’ x 8’ which is greater than the minimum size permitted. The Code regulates the size and location of window wells, and therefore the request is inconsistent with this document. The increased depth of the window well is necessary for egress; however, failure to grant a window well that exceeds the minimum size of 3’x 3’ (or 3’x 6’) does not prohibit the applicant’s ability to make reasonable use of the building or this portion of the structure for the same purpose. The applicant is permitted to construct a window well at this location for the two subgrade bedroom spaces that meets the minimum code requirement for egress (3’x3’ or 3’x6’ for a combined window well) which would still exceed the side yard setback, but which would not require a variance approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission that does not truly meet the review criteria. Staff understands the enlarged window well design is a result of the Commission’s instruction to provide a more livable affordable housing unit space with greater access to natural light. Unfortunately, the variance review criteria do not speak to a unit’s livability. Staff appreciates the applicant’s response to P&Z’s request, but believe the unit may be served by the 3’x6’ window well with increased depth that was proposed at the June 21st public hearing. SPECIAL REVIEW: The Code requires an affordable housing unit to have a minimum 50% of its net livable floor area at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. The applicant is proposing an affordable housing unit with 366 sq. ft. (40%) at finished grade, and 542 sq. ft. (60%) below grade. To vary the requirement, the project must receive Special Review approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Special Review approval also requires a recommendation from the Housing Board. Staff has reviewed the applicant’s request against the review criteria for Special Review of affordable housing unit standards, as found in Exhibit K2 to this memo. The criteria for Special P29 VI.B. Page 5 of 24 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge July 19, 2016 P&Z Meeting Review – affordable housing unit standards look to the compatibility of the affordable housing unit with the character of the neighborhood, unique site constraints, and design aspect - such as the inclusion of significant storage space, above average natural light, unit size, and access to amenities. The subject unit is proposed as part a mixed-use project containing residential and commercial uses. The surrounding neighborhood is comprised of both residential and commercial uses. The design of the unit is such that a separate entryway has been provided from Monarch St. Staff finds the use and design to be compatible with the character of the neighborhood. The site, however, is a flat, typical 6,000 sq. ft. Aspen townsite lot with no unique site constraints that would cause the unit to require more net livable floor area below grade. The unit has been design with floor to ceiling windows that will provide greater natural light. As discussed above, the applicant is also seeking a variance to provide a larger window well along the Monarch St. façade to provide additional natural light to the subgrade bedrooms. The ground level windows and the potentially expanded window well will provide significant natural light to the unit. The proposed unit measures 908 sq. ft., slightly larger than the 900 sq. ft. required to meet the requirement of providing for 2.25 FTEs. The unit has been designed with one closet for each bedroom, measuring approximately 14 sq. ft., and additional storage space, measuring 52 sq. ft. below grade, and 11 sq. ft. above grade, for a total closet/storage space of 91 sq. ft. The Code requires 10% of an affordable housing unit’s net livable floor area to be either closet or storage area. The criterion asks whether significant storage is being provided for the unit. At 91 sq. ft. the storage space is just over the minimum requirement of 90.8 sq. ft. and therefore does not qualify as significant. Furthermore, the unit does not have access to any specified outdoor space, private patio, or other on-site amenity. Although Staff is supportive of the size of the proposed unit with the larger bedrooms and additional of living space, storage, and a washer/dryer as compared with what was previously proposed, Staff would still prefer the applicant meet the Code requirement of providing at least 50% of the unit’s net livable floor area at or above grade. The proposed unit is very similar to that which has already been reviewed by the APCHA Board, with the addition of storage and a washer/dryer unit. The current proposal has been reviewed by APCHA staff who have indicated that the Board voted favorably when this unit was presented previously, and support this design given the addition of on-site storage. GROWTH MANAGEMENT: Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family affordable housing. The existing development contains a two-bedroom 792 sq. ft. affordable housing unit. Based on direction provided by the Commission, the applicant is proposing to maintain the two-bedroom affordable housing unit on site. Upon redevelopment the applicant must provide a unit that replaces 2.25 FTEs on-site, which according to APCHA is a minimum of 900 sq. ft. The applicant is proposing a two-bedroom unit that measures 908 sq. ft. P30 VI.B. Page 6 of 24 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge July 19, 2016 P&Z Meeting The unit will be maintained as a rental unit in accordance with APCHA requirements. The unit is proposed to be located between the ground and basement levels along Monarch St. with 366 sq. ft. of net livable floor area on the ground floor and 542 sq. ft. of net livable floor area at the basement level, as discussed in Special Review, above. The existing two-bedroom unit measures 792 sq. ft. of net livable floor area. The applicant is required to replace 2.25 FTE’s on-site. APCHA has indicated this requirement would be fulfilled by a two-bedroom unit measuring 900 sq. ft. of net livable floor area. APCHA is supportive of the affordable housing unit that is being proposed with this application. The approval of the redevelopment of the multi-family affordable housing unit coincides with P&Z’s review of Special Review, above. Residential Development. The applicant continues to propose two free-market residential units on the second floor of the building. The larger unit has decreased in size from the past two applications, now measuring 1,835 sq. ft. of net livable floor area. The second, smaller unit remains the same as the previous submittal at 414 sq. ft. of net livable floor area. The applicant requests the ability to provide Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation for the addition of net livable floor area. The two free-market units are proposed to measure 1,835 sq. ft. and 414 sq. ft. of net livable floor area, respectively, with a cumulative net livable floor area of 2,249 sq. ft. requiring mitigation. The mitigation requirement generated by this addition has been re-calculated at a rate of 30% of the free-market floor area. The calculation for this floor area is as follows: Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) Generated by Residential Net Livable Floor Area • 1,835 sq. ft. (Unit 1) + 414 sq. ft. (Unit 2) = 2,249 sq. ft. / 30% = 674.70 sq. ft. • Conversion to FTEs = 674.70 sq. ft. / 400 = 1.68675 = 1.69 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 APCHA Board has reviewed the proposal and has recommended the applicant mitigate for the 1.69 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 choices as code-compliant mitigation options. COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW: Height, scale and mass. The Commission previously reviewed a building design that included a complete in-fill of the large window well along Monarch St. With the inclusion of the affordable housing unit on-site, the applicant has revised the design to include one combined window well along the Monarch St. façade as necessary egress for the subgrade basements. This has been discussed in the previous section, Dimensional Variance Request. P31 VI.B. Page 7 of 24 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge July 19, 2016 P&Z Meeting The existing window well extends to the property’s lot line, and is over six feet in depth. The code permits a window well that extends past the property’s set back only if it meets the minimum size that is permitted by the Building code. As stated previously, Staff can support this request if the proposed window well is reduced to the minimum size required for compliance with the Building Code (3’x3’ for an individual window, 3’x6’ for two combined window wells). Height is not measured from a window well/areaway that measures under 100 sq. ft. in size, so the proposed window well does not impact the height of the building in this area. Likewise, the window well does not impact the proposed scale and mass. At the July 21st public hearing the Commission suggested the applicant consider moving the building to the setback line along the northern alleyway façade to provide additional floor area to the affordable housing unit. Staff supports this suggestion as a means of creating a larger ground floor living space that would enhance the livability of the unit, and suggests the Commission direct the applicant to consider this design. Public Amenity. The applicant is allowed to maintain an existing public amenity deficit on- site, so long as no less than 10% of the total lot area is dedicated to public amenity. The site currently has 490 sq. ft. of public amenity (8.2%), and therefore is required to provide a minimum of 10% upon redevelopment. With the resizing of the window well along Monarch St. (per P&Z direction) the applicant has recalculated the public amenity proposed for the site. The applicant is proposing 581 sq. ft. (9.7%) of on-site public amenity that includes a landscaped buffer between the building and sidewalk along Monarch St., the paved walkway to the Monarch St. entrance and AHU, the walkway to the entryway on Hopkins Ave, and a landscaped greenway wrapping around the north alleyway side to terminate at the end of the floor-to-ceiling windows of the AHU. The applicant is also proposing 505 sq. ft. (8.4%) of off-site public amenity in the form of landscaped improvements to the right-of-way between the street and sidewalk on Hopkins Ave and at the corner between the pedestrian crossing. The applicant is required to provide 10% of the total lot area as public amenity space. With the changes proposed to the public amenity space the applicant is proposing a total public amenity of 1,086 sq. ft. or 18.10%. Per the Central Mixed-Use Character Area of the Commercial Design Guidelines, guidelines for public amenity include that is should be adjacent to the street edge, abut the public sidewalk, and be directly accessible to the public. The applicant has responded to Staff comments and pulled the public amenity space back from the garage and trash/recycling area that was proposed in the past design. The proposed on-site public amenity provides relief from development along Monarch St. and useful walkways on the site. Any proposed improvements to off-site public amenity, such as benches or art work, that is proposed within the right-of-way must receive approval from the City’s Engineering and Parks Departments. P32 VI.B. Page 8 of 24 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge July 19, 2016 P&Z Meeting Parking. Staff has determined through multiple site visits and a reviews of site plans and survey documents that there are seven existing parking spaces on the site. 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. The existing building has one on-site residential unit and a net leasable floor area of 5,029 sq. ft. One parking space is required for the residential unit and five spaces for the commercial net leasable floor area, for a total of 6 required parking spaces. With seven existing on-site spaces, there is no current deficit that may be maintained upon redevelopment. The applicant is currently proposing three residential units on the site requiring three parking spaces (one space per unit). The applicant is also proposing 4,822 sq. ft. of commercial net leasable floor area, requiring 4.82 parking spaces (five physical spaces). The total parking requirement for the current proposal is 7.82 parking spaces, or eight physical spaces. The applicant is proposing two on-site parking spaces for use by the free-market residential units. These spaces will be located in the garage the is accessed from the alleyway at the rear of the property. The applicant is proposing to provide a fee-in-lieu payment for the remaining 5.82 parking spaces required. The Code requires the provision of one parking space for each residential unit within a multi- family mixed-use building, two of which are being provided for on-site. The Code allows multi-family residential parking requirements within the Aspen Infill Area to be met through a payment of fee-in-lieu. Staff accepts this form of mitigation to satisfy the parking requirement for the remaining requirement associated with the affordable housing unit. The applicant is also required to provide one parking space for every 1,000 sq. ft. of commercial net leasable floor area, resulting in five physical parking spaces, or mitigation for 4.82 spaces. Again, the Code allows parking required for commercial uses within the Aspen Infill Area to be provided through a payment of fee-in-lieu. The applicant has previously indicated intent to provide mitigation for all parking associated with the commercial net leasable floor area through a fee-in-lieu payment. Staff accepts this form of mitigation to satisfy the parking requirement associated with the commercial floor area. In summary, the total parking requirement for the project is 7.82 parking spaces. Two physical spaces are proposed to be provided for on-site, with the remaining 5.82 to be provided through a fee-in-lieu payment. Staff accepts this combination of mitigation to satisfy the parking requirements associated with the proposed development. Trash service provision. The applicant is proposing the addition of two residential units to a site that already contains one residential unit. The addition of the two residential units triggers the review of this area by the Environmental Health Department for compliance with their code. Environmental Health Dept. staff have reviewed the proposed plans for the site and have determined the mix and density of uses on the site will require a trash/recycling area that measures 200 sq. ft. in size. The existing trash/recycling area is currently substandard in size for the proposed mix of uses and will require an increase in facilities size. P33 VI.B. Page 9 of 24 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge July 19, 2016 P&Z Meeting The applicant has requested a Special Review approval from the Environmental Health Dept. to allow a reduction in the required size of the trash/recycling area on the site. This is an administrative review by the Environmental Health staff, with a referral to the Planning Dept. (Exhibit J to this memo). The Environmental Health Dept. has approved a Special Review request to allow a reduction in the size of the trash/recycling requirement on the site, such that no less than 150 sq. ft. must be maintained on site, in the configuration approved in the attached amended site plan (Exhibit H2). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission continue the request for further examination of the following building elements: • Increase the size of the affordable housing unit’s ground floor space by pulling the building to the rear yard setback; Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the applicant’s request for a dimensional variance for the proposed window well along Monarch St., as well as the Special Review request to vary the amount of required net livable floor area on the ground floor associated with the affordable housing unit. PROPOSED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): “I move to approve the requests for Conceptual Commercial Design, Growth Management, Special Review, and Dimensional Variance reviews at 230 E. Hopkins Ave.” ALTERNATIVE MOTION “I move to continue the request for Conceptual Commercial Design, Growth Management, Speical Review, and Dimensional Variance requests at 230 E. Hopkins Ave to a date to be determined.” 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 D. Public Notice (June 7, 2016 P&Z hearing) E1. Amended Architectural Drawing & Elevations E.2 Amended Site Plan E3. Amended Proposed Public Amenity F. Housing Board Recommendation (June 15, 2016 meeting) G. Applicant’s Presentation from June 21st, 2016 P&Z Hearing H. Meeting Minutes from June 6, 2016 P&Z hearing P34 VI.B. Page 10 of 24 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge July 19, 2016 P&Z Meeting I1. Second Amended Architectural Drawings and Elevations I2. Second Amended Site Plan I3. Second Amended Public Amenity I4. Applicant’s Response to Variance Criteria J. Environmental Health Recommendation K1. Staff Findings – Variance K2. Staff Findings – Special Review STAFF MEMO FROM JUNE 21, 2016 SPECIAL NOTE: At the June 7th public hearing the Planning and Zoning Commission chose to continue the hearing and directed the applicant to revisit the proposed design in order to retain the affordable housing unit on the site. The applicant has responded with a design that maintains the 2-bedroom affordable housing unit on the site. The re-design has impacted other aspects of the project. Changes are discussed below by topic. Specific Staff comments and recommendations related to the update are provided in italics below. The body of the June 7th memo is included at the end of the update for reference. GROWTH MANAGEMENT: Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family affordable housing. Based on direction provided by the Commission, the applicant is proposing to maintain a two-bedroom affordable housing unit on-site that measures 720 sq. ft. The unit is located between the ground and basement levels along Monarch St. with 360 sq. ft. of net livable floor area on the ground floor and 360 sq. ft. of net livable floor area at the basement level. The applicant is proposing this as a deed-restricted rental unit, in accordance with Staff’s recommendation. The existing two-bedroom unit measures 792 sq. ft. of net livable floor area. Per subsection 26.470.070.5(2) of the code, the applicant 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 unit. The applicant is required to replace 2.25 FTE’s on-site to meet the APCHA guideline. APCHA has indicated this unit would need to measure 900 sq. ft. of net livable floor area. The applicant may request a 20% reduction in the net livable floor area associated with a unit, so long as no bedrooms are lost, and the Housing Board determines the following criteria are met. • Significant storage space is located outside the unit; • Above average natural light, i.e.: more windows than are required by code; • Efficient, flexible layout with limited hall and staircase space; P35 VI.B. Page 11 of 24 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge July 19, 2016 P&Z Meeting • Availability of site amenities, such as pool or proximity to park or open space; • Unit location within the development, i.e., above ground location versus ground level or below ground; and/or • Possibility that project can achieve higher density of deed-restricted units with a reduction variance. The Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Board reviewed the proposed redesign of the affordable housing unit at the June 15th Housing Board meeting and has recommended approval of the affordable housing unit as proposed. The APCA memo (Exhibit F) indicates the applicant verbally offered to provide an additional 117 sq. ft. of storage area for the unit at the basement floor level. This information has not been presented for review by Staff, and would change the calculations associated with floor area. Staff also does not support the proposed affordable housing unit, and finds the unit should meet the required 900 sq. ft. size required by the code. The proposed unit lacks the enhanced livability features associated with the criteria for a reduction in the net livable floor area, as listed above. The Building Dept. has reviewed the plans and finds no above average natural light to be a factor in allowing the 20% reduction in required floor area for the affordable housing unit. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission require an affordable housing unit that either meets the code requirement of 900 sq. ft., or that provides a propensity of the criteria for a permitted decrease in the floor area of the unit. Residential Development. The applicant continues to propose two free-market residential units, but has changed the size of Unit 1 from 500 sq. ft. of net livable floor area to 414 sq. ft. of net livable floor area. The applicant requests the ability to provide Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation for the addition of net livable floor area. The two free-market units are proposed to measure 414 sq. ft. and 1,845 sq. ft. of net livable floor area, respectively, with a cumulative net livable floor area of 2,259 sq. ft. requiring mitigation. The mitigation requirement generated by this addition has been re-calculated at a rate of 30% of the free-market floor area. The calculation for this floor area is as follows: Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) Generated by Residential Net Livable Floor Area • 414 sq. ft. (Unit 1) + 1,845 sq. ft. (Unit 2) = 2,259 sq. ft. / 30% = 677.70 sq. ft. • Conversion to FTEs = 677.70 sq. ft. / 400 = 1.69 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 APCHA 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 choices as code-compliant mitigation options. P36 VI.B. Page 12 of 24 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge July 19, 2016 P&Z Meeting COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW: Height, scale and mass. The Commission previously reviewed a building design that included a complete in-fill of the large window well along Monarch St. With the inclusion of the affordable housing unit on-site, the applicant has revised the design to maintain two window wells along the Monarch St. façade as necessary egress for the subgrade basements. The existing window well extends to the property’s lot line, and is over six feet in depth. The code permits a window well that extends past the property’s set back only if it meets the minimum size that is permitted by the Building code. The proposed window well is actually two combined, minimum sized window wells, measuring 3’x6’, and will not extend past the property’s side yard setback. Staff is supportive of this design change. Public Amenity. The applicant is required to provide 10% of the total lot area as public amenity, and previously proposed a combined public amenity space of 16%; 450 sq. ft. (7.5%) was proposed on-site as a landscaped buffer along Monarch St., between the sidewalk and the building, and 510 sq. ft. (8.5%) was proposed off-site, adjacent to the parcel, as a landscaped and improved right-of-way along E. Hopkins Ave, between the street and the sidewalk. The applicant is no longer proposing a complete fill of the light well along the Monarch St. façade; a combined egress window well for two adjacent windows are being proposed to meet the minimum egress requirements for subgrade bedrooms interior to this location (see Exhibit E3). The applicant has calculated changes to the proposed on-site public amenity, and has captured additional space in front of the entry doors along Monarch St. and along the rear portion of alleyway. The total proposed on-site public amenity space is 680 sq. ft., or 11.3% of the site. The total proposed off-site public amenity space has not changed from what was previously proposed at 510 sq. ft., or 8.5% of the site. The applicant is required to provide 10% of the total lot area as public amenity space. With changes to the on-site public amenity space the applicant is proposing a total public amenity of 1,190 sq. ft., or 19.8%. Per the Central Mixed-Use Character Area of the Commercial Design Guidelines, guidelines for public amenity include that is should be adjacent to the street edge, abut the public sidewalk, and be directly accessible to the public. Public amenity should be meaningful and enhance a property in some way. A portion of what the applicant is counting as public amenity includes paved space directly in front of the garage and the trash/recycling area towards the rear of the property along the alley. Staff does not find those areas to meet the intent of public amenity space, and recommends the applicant restudy and recalculate the proposed public amenity for the site. P37 VI.B. Page 13 of 24 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge July 19, 2016 P&Z Meeting Parking. The applicant is proposing two on-site parking spaces for use by the free-market residences. The applicant is proposing an additional residence on the site in the form of an affordable housing unit which will require one additional parking space. The applicant is proposing to provide a fee-in-lieu payment for the additional parking space required. The applicant has also amended the application to increase the amount of commercial net leasable floor area on the site from that which was proposed at the June 7th hearing. The existing commercial net leasable floor area on the site is 5,029 sq. ft. At the June 7th hearing the applicant had proposed a decrease to 3,671 sq. ft. The applicant has revised the plans and is now proposing a commercial net leasable floor area of 4,321 sq. ft. The increase in commercial net leasable floor area from that which was previously proposed requires additional mitigation for parking. The applicant is requesting to provide a fee-in-lieu payment as mitigation for the parking requirement associated with all commercial net leasable floor area. The code requires the provision of one parking space for each residential unit within a multi- family mixed-use building and allows multi-family residential parking requirements within the Aspen Infill Area to be met through a payment of fee-in-lieu. Staff accepts this form of mitigation to satisfy the parking requirement of one space associated with the affordable housing unit. The applicant is also required to provide one parking space for every 1,000 sq. ft. of commercial net leasable floor area. Therefore the applicant is required to provide five physical parking spaces, or mitigate for 4.32 spaces. Again, the code allows parking required for commercial uses within the Aspen Infill Area to be provided through payment of fee-in- lieu. The applicant has previously indicated intent to provide mitigation for all parking associated with the commercial net leasable floor area through a fee-in-lieu payment. Staff accepts this form of mitigation to satisfy the parking requirement associated with the commercial floor area. The total parking requirement for the project has been amended from six parking spaces to 7.32 parking spaces. Two physical spaces are proposed to be provided for on-site, with the remaining 5.32 to be provided through a fee-in-lieu payment. Staff accepts this combination of mitigation to satisfy the parking requirements associated with the proposed development. Trash service provision. The applicant is proposing the addition of one residential unit. Per the Environmental Health Department, the addition of two or more residential units requires an examination of the current trash/recycling area. The area is currently substandard in size for a mixed-use building, and will require an increase in facilities size. Environmental Health Dept. staff members are currently unavailable to provide an answer as to the required size increase. At this time this issue has not been resolved and can be a condition of final review. A covered trash/recycling area, if required, must be maintained on the site within the property’s setbacks. The existing trash/recycling area extends past the side P38 VI.B. Page 14 of 24 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge July 19, 2016 P&Z Meeting yard setback. Any redevelopment of this area will require the facilities to be located on the site, within the required setbacks. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission continue the matter and direct the applicant to restudy the affordable housing such that it meets the requirements of the code. Staff further recommends the applicant clarify the public amenity space proposed for the site. All parts of the application should be finalized rather than continuing to change throughout and after the review process. 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 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 a date to be determined.”\ 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 D. Public Notice (June 7, 2016 P&Z hearing) E1. Amended Architectural Drawing & Elevations E.2 Amended Site Plan E3. Amended Proposed Public Amenity F. Housing Board Recommendation (June 15, 2016 meeting) STAFF MEMO FROM JUNE 7, 2016 LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: P39 VI.B. Page 15 of 24 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge July 19, 2016 P&Z Meeting 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. • 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. Figure B: Location of subject site P40 VI.B. Page 16 of 24 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge July 19, 2016 P&Z Meeting 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. 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. 1 parking space per residential unit, 1 space per 7 spaces currently on-site. No deficit to current parking. 2 garage spaces, 1 for each residential unit proposed; fee- P41 VI.B. Page 17 of 24 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge July 19, 2016 P&Z Meeting Parking 1,000 net leasable sq. ft. – 100% may be provided through fee-in-lieu. 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, 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 Figure C: Image of sunken areaway viewed from sidewalk on Hopkins St. P42 VI.B. Page 18 of 24 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge July 19, 2016 P&Z Meeting 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, 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 Figure E: Roof forms and proposed height as measured from finished grade at new gable roof. 32’ 34’ 5 ½” P43 VI.B. Page 19 of 24 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge July 19, 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. Figure G: View of existing structure from Monarch St. Figure F: Proposed roof form on western-most part of building along Hopkins St. P44 VI.B. Page 20 of 24 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge July 19, 2016 P&Z Meeting Stepping the building up at the southeastern end also provides articulation and interest in the building form. 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. Figure H: View of proposed structure from Monarch St. P45 VI.B. Page 21 of 24 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge July 19, 2016 P&Z Meeting 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 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 the 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 P46 VI.B. Page 22 of 24 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge July 19, 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 P47 VI.B. Page 23 of 24 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge July 19, 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. P48 VI.B. Page 24 of 24 230 E. Hopkins Ave/Mountain Forge July 19, 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 the 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 P49 VI.B. 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, AND A DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE 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 Chapter 26.314, a dimensional variance related to the size of the window well in the side yard setback may be combined with other reviews and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission 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 the denial of the request for a dimensional variance; 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 Planning and Zoning Commission voted five to zero (5-0) to continue the hearing to June 21, 2016 with direction to the applicant to maintain the affordable housing unit on-site; and, WHEREAS, during a public hearing on June 21, 2016 the Planning and Zoning Commission voted five to zero (5-0) to continue the hearing to July 19, 2016 with direction to the applicant to provide plans for the on-site affordable housing unit that provides better livability for the resident; and, P50 VI.B. 2 WHEREAS, during a public hearing on July 19, 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, Growth Management, and Dimensional Variance reviews for the replacement of an affordable housing unit, 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, 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: Dimensional Variance. The applicant has received approval for a light well measuring 3 ½’ in width, 8’ in length and approximately 7’ 8” in depth to be maintained along the Monarch St. façade. The light well will serve as necessary egress for the two subgrade bedrooms of the affordable housing unit. The light well will extend approximately 1.5’ beyond the site’s side yard setback. P51 VI.B. 3 Section 3: Special Review. The applicant has received approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission to vary the affordable housing unit standard that requires 50% of the unit to be at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. The Commission has approved a 908 sq. ft. unit that will maintain 366 sq. ft. of net livable floor area at the ground level, and 542 sq. ft. of net livable floor area at the subgrade level. Section 4: 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 490 sq. ft. (8.2%) of pubic amenity on-site in the form of landscaped open space along the building’s Monarch St. façade and wrapping around to the alleyway, and as a paved walkway to the entrances along both E. Hopkins Ave and S. Monarch St. The applicant is further approved to provide 505 sq. ft. (8.4%) 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 1,086 sq. ft. (18.1%). Section 5: Trash/Recycling Service. The addition of two residential units requires an upgrade to the existing trash/recycling area on the site. The applicant is required to provide a total of 200 sq. ft. of trash/recycling amenities on the site, within the setbacks, to be accessed from the alleyway. Section 6: Replacement of Affordable Housing. The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the replacement of an on-site, two- bedroom affordable housing unit. The unit is required to house no fewer than 2.25 Full Time Equivalents and will measure no less than 900 sq. ft. The applicant will provide this unit as a 366 sq. ft. of net livable floor area above grade and 542 sq. ft. of net livable floor area below grade for a total size of 908 sq. ft. of net livable floor area. A new deed-restriction designation at a Category 3 level shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder prior to receipt of certificate of occupancy. The unit shall be maintained as a rental property with APCHA and must be rented to a qualified working resident per APCHA requirements. The applicant will have the ability to place an APCHA-qualified tenant in the unit. If the unit is found to be out of compliance for a period of at least six months, APCHA will take full control of the tenant placement. Section 7: Growth Management Quota System. 7.1 Growth Management Allotments. The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the following Growth Management Quota System reviews. a) Two free-market residential units have been approved for the site, measuring approximately 1,835 sq. ft. and 414 s q. ft., respectively. b) The applicant is approved for two free-market residential 2016 Growth Management Allotments. P52 VI.B. 4 7.2 Mitigation Requirements. a) The addition of the two free-market units requires the applicant to mitigate for 674.70 sq. ft. of new net livable space, or 1.69 Full Time Equivalents. i. Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) Generated by Residential Net Livable Floor Area • 414 sq. ft. (Unit 1) + 1,835 sq. ft. (Unit 2) = 2,249 sq. ft. / 30% = 674.70 sq. ft. • Conversion to FTEs = 677.70 sq. ft. / 400 = 1.69 FTEs generated b) The applicant may provide Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation for the required 1.69 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. c) Affordable housing mitigation is not required for the commercial net leasable floor area associated with the site. The proposed commercial net leasable floor area is decreasing from 5,029 sq. ft. to 4,321 sq. ft., thereby generating less Full Time Equivalents (FTEs), as calculated below. i. Existing FTEs • Basement: 1,317 sq. ft. /1,000 = 1.317 (3.52) = 4.64 FTEs generated • First Floor: 2,711 sq. ft. /1,000 = 2.711 (4.70) = 12.74 FTEs generated • Second Floor: 1,641 sq. ft. /1,000 = 1.641 (3.52) = 5.78 FTEs generated Total generated for existing commercial net leasable space = 23.16 FTEs ii. Proposed FTEs • Basement: 2,103 sq. ft. /1,000 = 2.103 (3.52) = 7.40 FTEs generated • First Floor: 2,046 sq. ft. /1,000 = 2.046 (4.70) = 9.62 FTEs generated • Second Floor: 673 sq. ft. /1,000 = .673 (3.52) = 2.37 FTEs generated Total generated for proposed commercial net leasable space = 19.39 FTEs iii. Amount of FTE’s requiring mitigations: Proposed FTEs – Existing FTEs (60%) 19.39 – 23.16 = -3.77 (.60) = -2.26 FTEs Less than 0 FTEs; requires no mitigation Section 8: Off-street Parking. Upon redevelopment the applicant is increasing net leasable floor area such that 4.82 parking spaces are required, and adding two free-market residential units, such that two additional parking spaces are required. An affordable housing unit is being maintained on-site that will require one parking space. The applicant is providing two on-site parking spaces for the free-market residential units in a garage that is accessed from the alleyway. P53 VI.B. 5 The applicant has received approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission to provide a fee- in-lieu payment for the 5.82 remaining parking spaces per subsection 26.515.030 of the Land Use Code. Payment for the 5.82 parking spaces shall be calculated and provided prior to building permit issuance. Section 9: 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 10: 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 11: 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. Section 12: Certificate of Occupancy The applicant may not receive a certificate of occupancy for the free-market portion of the project prior to the completion of the commercial units and the affordable housing unit. The affordable housing unit must be deed-restricted with APCHA at a Category 3 level. Section 13: 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 14: 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 15: 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. P54 VI.B. 6 APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 19th day of July, 2016. ______________________________ Keith Goode (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 P55 VI.B. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 7, 2016 1 Mr. Keith Goode, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Ryan Walterscheid, Jasmine Tygre, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Skippy Mesirow, and Keith Goode. Jason Elliott, Jesse Morris, Spencer McNight and Brian McNellis were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; James R True, Jennifer Phelan and Sara Nadolny. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan wanted to discuss a couple of items from the previous meeting and make an announcement: 1. In response to Ms. McNicholas Kury’s question regarding participating in upcoming planning committees, Ms. Jessica Garrow informed Ms. Phelan they are still working on the committees. The commissioners will be informed when the committees are available. 2. In regards to Ms. Tygre’s request for a status update on the properties to potentially used as affordable housing, she noted the following: a. Lumberyard – ProBuild has a lease until 2025 and they have a termination option. There are no current plans, but it is expected to be utilized for a long term, future development. b. Request for proposals (RFP) for three properties on W Main St, Park Circle and Castle Creek Rd have been issued. They are thinking within the next three years there will be something going on at these sites c. Another site on W Hyman Ave is currently on hold and is rented to local workers at this time. 3. She introduced Mr. Ben Anderson as the department’s recently hired Planner. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES May 3, 2016 Minutes - Ms. Tygre moved to approve the minutes and was seconded by Mr. Walterscheid. All in favor, motion passed. May 17, 2016 Minutes – Ms. Tygre moved to approved the minutes and was seconded by Ms. McNicholas Kury. All in favor, motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. P56 VI.B. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 7, 2016 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS 230 E Hopkins Ave – Mountain Forge Building – Conceptual Commercial Design, Off-Street Parking and Growth Management Quota System Reviews Mr. Goode asked if notice had been properly provided at which Mr. True noted he had the notices and upon review, found them acceptable. Mr. Goode opened the hearing and turned the floor over to Staff. Ms. Sara Nadolny, Planner Tech, introduced the following individuals on the applicant team and stated the applicant is seeking approvals related to conceptual commercial design review and various growth management reviews. Mr. Stan Clauson, Stan Clauson & Associates Mr. John Rowland, Roland and Broughton Ms. Dana Ellis, Roland and Broughton She noted the building is located on the corner of S Monarch St and E Hopkins Ave on a 6,000 sf lot and is located in the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district. The commercial design guidelines characterize it as a central mixed-use character area. The existing building is mixed-use with commercial and one affordable housing unit. The building was constructed with a number of nonconforming conditions and a portion of the structure is built to lot lines on almost all the facades except for the alley. The building extends past the property lines at Hopkins Ave, which is the front façade. There is a large area way on the southeast corner of the building and extends to the edge of the property. This will be discussed a great deal because the height is currently measured in the area way at 34 ft 8 in which exceeds the 28 ft to 32 ft permitted by the code. The large area way is also nonconforming because it extends to the property line. The existing nonconformities may be maintained and/or lessened upon redevelopment, but cannot be expanded upon. She also mentioned if the building reaches demolition as defined as 40% or more of the existing structure, then the applicant must bring everything into compliance. At this time, the demolition is calculated by the applicant at 39%. She then pointed out the location of the area way on a picture of the building. The applicant is proposing to remodel the building including changing a lot of the roof forms, removing the onsite affordable housing unit, adding two free market residential units, reducing the commercial net leasable floor area for the entire building and reducing the onsite parking. She then covered the commercial design review topics which focus on height, scale, mass, public amenity, a trash recycling area and parking. The purpose of commercial design review is to preserve and foster proper commercial district scale and character while maintaining a pleasant pedestrian environment. In regards to height, the highest point of the building as measured from the area way is 34 ft 8 in is a nonconformity. The MU zone district allows for 28 ft and up to 32 ft with commercial design review. The applicant is proposing to remove the large shed roof on the Hyman Ave side and replace it with a gabled roof form on the Monarch side. The applicant is also proposing to infill P57 VI.B. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 7, 2016 3 the area way to bring up the height about 27 in. When the roof form is changed from the shed roof to the gable roof, the height is measured differently. With the gabled roof height without the area way infilled would exceed the height limitation. The height measured will be 34 ft 5.5 in which lessens the nonconforming height. The gable on the north side is a slightly different pitch and would have a height of 32 ft which is the maximum the applicant can request through commercial design review. Ms. Nadolny stated it is up to P&Z if they want to grant the 32 ft. The applicant is looking to add a gabled roof form to the Hopkins side of the building to complement the other gabled roof form. This roof form will be under the 28 ft height limitation. The applicant is proposing to fill in a large light well along Monarch St which currently goes to the lot line. By filling it in, they are bringing the building within the 5 yd setback requirement which is a current nonconformity. They are also introducing a flat roof in this location which also helps to minimize the overall scale of the building. She then showed pictures of the existing and proposed roof lines along Monarch St. The height of the flat roof portion of the building is 23 ft. At the corner closest to the alley, the building rises to a gabled roof form with a height of just below 24 ft. Staff is supportive of the proposed mass and scale of the building. They find the roof forms calm the design and the gabled roof forms give a nod to the neighboring one and two story Victorians. However, Staff would prefer a design which infills the entire sunken area way, instead of the proposed partial infill. The area way creates issues with height and setbacks which will be ongoing and creates a three story building in this area comprised primarily of one and two story buildings. Infilling the entire area could improve the pedestrian experience by utilizing the public amenity space or provide closer interaction with the windows of the building which is a commercial design guideline. Ms. Nadolny then discussed the proposed public amenity. She noted the existing public amenity space is 490 sf or approximately 8.2% of the site. The goal is to have 25% of a site used as public amenity. Upon redevelopment, the code allows a deficit to be maintained as long as there is not less than 10% is provided. In this case, the site is 6,000 sf and 10% would be 60 sf of public amenity. The applicant is proposing address this in two ways. One is an onsite landscaped 450 sf 7.5%) area along Monarch and curves to the alley. This is partially achieved by filling in the light well. They are also offering 510 sf (8.5%) directly adjacent to the site as a landscaped area within the public right of way along Hopkins Ave. Total proposed is 960 sf or 16% of the site. The applicant has made suggestions for improvements including a piece of art or interpretative marker. Engineering, Parks and Planning Staff have looked at the site and discussed a bench or something similar. At this point, Staff is comfortable with what has been proposed. In regards to the utility and trash/recycle areas, Ms. Nadolny stated it does not need to be voted on at this time. The applicant is proposing to maintain the current trash/recycle area located off the alley. The Environmental Health department has reviewed the application and determined no upgrades are required to what is currently provided. The Utilities and Engineering departments have reviewed the application and determined it meets the minimum requirements. Ms. Nadolny then stated Staff has performed multiple site visits to review the current site plan and parking spaces and found seven onsite parking spaces. The spaces are striped and assigned to uses within the building. Currently there are no deficits in parking. The code requires one space per residential unit and one space per 1,000 sf of commercial net leasable floor area. The applicant is reducing the commercial net leasable floor area to 3,671 sf of commercial for the site. This would require four physical onsite parking spaces as well as two onsite parking spaces for two residential units. The applicant is proposing two onsite spaces, one for each residential unit and will be located in the garage accessed from the alley. A fee-in-lieu payment owed for P58 VI.B. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 7, 2016 4 the commercial space is being proposed. Staff has determined a fee would be due for 3.67 parking spaces that would not be provided onsite. Within the infill are, the code allows for cash- in-lieu payment as an option. The other area for discussion on this application is growth management. The applicant has requested a consolidated review for growth management with commercial design review. There are three separate growth management topics to be addressed. 1) Allotments – The creation of two free market units requires allotments from the 2016 growth management pool. The applicant is requesting two growth management allotments. Each resident requires the approval of one growth management allotment. Staff is not concerned regarding the availability of the allotments. 2) Mitigation for 2 free market units – The applicant is proposing one unit of 500 sf and a second unit of 1,845 sf. Both units are located on the second floor. For a total of 2,345 sf, required mitigation is calculated at 30% of the total free market floor area or 703.5 sf or 1.75 full time equivalents (FTEs). The applicant is proposing to mitigate through certificates of affordable housing credit or through the provision of an offsite buy down unit. The Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) recommends mitigation through certificates or through the purchase of a deed restricted APCHA approved off site unit. Either option is code compliant to be considered. 3) Demolition of the multifamily affordable housing unit currently onsite – The existing two- bedroom unit is 792 sf located on the second floor. Per APCHA, this unit represents 2.25 FTEs. Per code, the removal of the unit is recognized as demolition and must be mitigated. The code looks for the unit to be replaced on site unless one of two items can be demonstrated the replacement of the unit onsite would either be in conflict with the zoning (MU) or inappropriate due to physical constraints of the site. If either one of these criteria is found to be met, P&Z must decide the appropriate number of units that can be accommodated onsite and the number of units that should be replaced offsite. Staff does not find either criteria to be met. Affordable housing is not a use in conflict with the MU zone district. Staff has not identified any physical site specific constraints requiring the removal of the unit. At the meeting with APCHA, the applicant presented drawings indicating difficulty maintaining part of the unit onsite while keeping the commercial unit as well as two free market units. A subgrade one-bedroom unit was proposed instead of a two-bedroom unit. Subgrade units do not meet the affordable housing requirements. APCHA recommends mitigation of the 2.25 FTEs through certificates of affordable housing credit or through an approved off-site buy down unit that was deed restricted. Staff does not agree with APCHA’s recommendation and feels the unit is valuable based on its location near the commercial core district and recommends P&Z require the affordable housing unit to be maintained onsite. Ms. Nadolny then recapped the items for P&Z to consider at this hearing. Staff recommends continuing the hearing for all reviews for the applicant to further study and consider filling in the area way on the southeast corner of the building and to find a way to maintain the affordable housing unit onsite. Mr. Goode then asked if there were any questions from the commissioners. Mr. Walterscheid asked for specific reasons allowing an application to go to 32 ft in height. Ms. Phelan stated she would obtain the reasons and provide them later in the meeting. Ms. Tygre asked if P&Z has the ability to determine if the proposed mitigation options including cash-in- lieu, on-site or off-site was acceptable or not. Ms. Nadolny agreed and stated P&Z would make the final P59 VI.B. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 7, 2016 5 decision. Ms. Phelan stated with the demolition of the multifamily unit, the code is very specific that the replacement unit is preferred to be onsite unless one of the criteria mentioned previously has been met. Ms. Phelan added when a cash-in-lieu exceeds a set amount, then Council is the final approval. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if APCHA’s position is to not have affordable housing in the mixed use zone. Ms. Nadolny replied APCHA’s preference is to maintain offsite. APCHA does not look at the land use code because it is not their criteria, but noted difficulties with financing and compliance tracking challenge. Mr. Goode asked Staff to confirm if the affordable housing unit was proposed as subgrade. Ms. Nadolny replied the applicant had presented the difficulties of maintaining the entire program onsite including two free market unit and all the commercial space. The affordable housing was presented as subgrade and reduced from a two bedroom to a one bedroom. The affordable housing guidelines require a certain amount to be above grade. Mr. Mesirow asked if the maintenance of existing nonconformities is automatically allowed or with some form of review. Ms. Nadolny replied it is maintained under nonconformities section of the code. Ms. Phelan then answered Mr. Walterscheid’s earlier question regarding the reasons allowing an application to go to 32 ft in height. She stated the additional height may be added for one or more of the following reasons: 1. In order to achieve at least a two ft variation height with an adjacent building 2. The primary function of the building is civic 3. 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 and therefore relief in another area may be appropriate 4. To benefit the livability of affordable housing units 5. To make a demonstrable contribution to the overall energy efficiency for instance by providing improved day lighting. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if public amenity space may be incorporated into construction of a building such as flower boxes or artistic railings. Ms. Phelan replied the standard is within a certain amount of upgrade, at grade and open to the sky. A flower box on the second story would not be considered public amenity. Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Stan Clauson introduced the remainder of the team and then stated he wanted to respond to Mr. Walterscheid’s earlier question as well. He noted section 2.14 of the guidelines state a new building or addition should reflect the existing range of two to three stories. It notes additional height is permitted in a zone district for one or more of the following reasons. He noted the following key reasons. 1. Some portion of the property is affected by the height restrictions due to its proximity to a historic resource or location within a view plane 2. To make a demonstrable contribution to the building’s overall energy efficiency He continued stating the building is essentially a two story building as perceived from grade. The only issue with respect to the height limit are the existing light wells. He then summarized the building, its location, zone district and existing uses. He then described the proposed development. The proposed floor area is 6,132 sf and emphasized a total 12,000 of sf is P60 VI.B. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 7, 2016 6 permitted per the zone district. Demolition has not been triggered with 61% of the building remaining in place. He noted the building is in a transitional area between commercial and residential. He then reviewed the existing conditions and pointed out the historic forge portion of the building comes right up to the sidewalk and the rest of the building is set back. He also pointed out the location of the two light wells. He also provided a picture of the back of the building including the existing parking spaces and noted this is where the addition would be placed. He also noted the existing bollards. Mr. Clauson then discussed the history of the Mountain Forge portion of the building. He stated their intention is to memorialize the historic nature of the forge. An iron worker familiar with Mr. Francis Whitaker’s work has proposed a sculptural element to be incorporated into a memorial placed in the parkway adjacent to the forge portion of the building. The objectives of the project include remodeling the existing building by incorporating forms from neighboring structures, reorganize and improve the commercial space, maintain unique site features and enhance the pedestrian experience, meet the height limit, reduce the nonconformities including filling one of the area wells, provide two new free market units, relocate the affordable housing unit to a more appropriate location, and maintain the existing parking deficit. Mr. Clauson then reviewed the public outreach including a meeting on May 26th at the offices of Rowland and Broughton. They also notified 79 abutters and enhanced public information signs were placed in front of the building. Comments taken at the meeting included questions about the impacts and time of the construction and alley noise relating to residential units. The avoidance of demolition was appreciated in some comments as well as support for maintaining the unique character and historic nature of the building. There was not significant concern raised regarding the relocation of the affordable housing unit. He then displayed the proposed site plan and noted the site is constrained by existing development. The existing footprint would remain and the addition would occur adjacent to the alley. The Mountain Forge façade will remain and the area way off Monarch will be removed and made into public amenity space. The sidewalk improvements and off street amenities will be provided. The existing sidewalk has an unusual configuration and will be straightened and the curb ramps and cross walks will be realigned. The existing trees will remain and appropriate trees will be added. Mr. Clauson noted the existing public amenity was calculated by Staff at 8.2% of the site and 10% is required. They are proposing 16% of the site or 960 sf divided between space immediately onsite and offsite immediately adjacent to the property. In addition to the amenities already identified, they are proposing some paving at the cross walk and pedestrian seating in an area that looks onto Francis Whitaker Park across the street. Mr. Clauson then discussed parking. He displayed a survey showing the location of the existing bollards. He believes a situation with the Molly Gibson informs their calculations. In the alley at the Molly Gibson, there was some five parking spaces used by their guests. When Staff calculated the size of the spaces, they were found to not conform to the 8.5 ft x 18 ft dimensions as defined by code. In a similar fashion, they have counted four conforming parking spaces and the bollards protecting the stairway create a situation where two spaces are striped and utilized, but are nonconforming. The existing development requires six spaces including five for commercial and one for the affordable housing unit. They feel there are four compliant existing spaces and a two space deficit. The required parking includes 5.4 spaces for commercial, two spaces for residential, totaling 7.4 spaces. They are proposing two space in the garage P61 VI.B. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 7, 2016 7 on the site, retain the two space deficit and a cash-in-lieu payment for the 3.4 spaces. He noted Staff had calculated 3.7 spaces which he said was acceptable. He then noted the trash/recycle and utilities for the site had been reviewed and there no upgrades were requested or required. Mr. Clauson then discussed the affordable housing component of the proposal. He noted the commercial net leasing is decreasing so there is no additional mitigation required for it. The free market net livable is increasing and the mitigation would be provided through affordable housing credits for 1.76 FTEs or the final number. The physical constraints really make the existing affordable housing difficult. In order to achieve this program for redevelopment on the site is quite impossible to have a good affordable housing unit. An offsite solution would result in a higher quality option, more appropriately meeting APCHA’s standards. The APCHA board unanimously recommended an offsite location for the 2.25 FTE replacement. He then read from the code section and noted APCHA’s reasons for making the recommendation. In addition to the physical constraints of the site, the board identified financing issues related to for purchase unit and the challenges when a single unit exists in a building with other uses. Mr. John Rowland then covered the history of his firm residing in this location for the last ten plus years. They currently occupy an area in the subgrade space and the second floor. He noted the building does have assets but also shortcomings, which one is form. The roof form is a bit unorthodox and the character of the building looks like a gangster’s hat. It’s difficult to use the natural light on the second floor. Another shortcoming is the insensitivity of the materials. The forge is buried under wood siding and he feels it does not say anything about Whitaker’s legacy. He displayed a diagram of the existing building form along with the gabled forms highlighted of the neighboring structure. They want the proposed building to adopt gabled forms. He then showed several renderings of the building showing the location of the gabled forms and the proposed materials including barn wood siding in the gable volumes, metal siding on the forge portion of the building, new railings around the area well, and masonry on the two story flat volume. Ms. Dana Ellis then displayed and described a diagram showing their approach to minimize demolition while adding the gabled forms. She noted that triggering demolition would require the forge portion of the building to be removed. This included removing the shed forms and addressing the undesirable setbacks. The portion of the building that currently steps back with windows along Monarch will be brought forward. The alley side addition was also shown which will include circulation, garage spaces and a new free market residential unit. The footprint of the addition is only 744 sf. They are also planning to upgrade the façade with new siding, expanded windows and new materials around the windows. She then displayed some early concept drawings along with pictures of their current offices in the subgrade space. She thinks the intent of a lot of the land use code direction currently is about vitality of commercial spaces and the economics of having a local business in Aspen. This usually means using second floor or subgrade office spaces. She feels if the windows were not available to the subgrade space, it would be a very different experience. Architecturally, the building maintains a two story appearance while allowing this corner to achieve something unique. Mr. Clauson then summarized the benefits of the application: Sustainable development by utilizing the existing structure Maintaining a unique aspect of Aspen’s history with the forge P62 VI.B. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 7, 2016 8 Improving the pedestrian experience with amenities Replacing the affordable housing in a more suitable location Providing an architecture more compatible with the neighborhood. He added during the 1970’s, structures like this were encouraged. He noted the Creperie and Café Ink as similar locations. He thinks keeping the light well maintains a bit of Aspen’s planning history. Mr. Goode then asked the commissioners if they had any questions. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if P&Z will review the final design. Ms. Nadolny replied if/when the application is approved by P&Z, it will go to Council for call up. It will then come back to P&Z for the final design review, but mass and scale will be locked in. Mr. Mesirow asked the applicant to make a case from a broader community perspective for taking affordable housing outside of the core. Mr. Rowland was not sure. Ms. Ellis replied as family living in affordable housing, she values her neighborhood. She noted employees do interact with the tenant currently in the nonconforming affordable housing unit. There is a sign on the back door reminding everyone to close the door softly because it is right across from the tenant’s door. She feels the tenant is expecting a quieter experience and it is not. She does not feel an alley unit would be a quiet unit. In terms of use, designers love the idea of affordable housing downtown, but questions how to achieve a sensitive community. Mr. Rowland noted the current tenant has asked the design staff to quiet down after hours. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked where the two free market units are located and more details regarding the physical constraints identified by the applicant which would be specific to affordable housing, but not specific to free market. Ms. Ellis stated the gabled forms are the residential units in the design. The second unit is in the gabled form on the alley side of the building. The constraints actually have more to do with they can’t demolish the alley side façade. This means the additive pieces of circulation and parking create an access issue for an affordable housing unit. Currently the affordable housing unit is accessed off the alley. In order to meet APCHA’s standards, the unit would need to be accessed from a main road. And to provide a proper exit enclosure for the whole building and an elevator, which neither exist now, the circulation must be added somewhere. She feels the main limitation is demolition. When they explored with APCHA adding the unit on site, it moved circulation around in an unfavorable way in terms of the building function. Because the added piece is so small, it meant the majority of the unit was subgrade in order to meet the APCHA’s size requirements. Of the two free market units onsite, the smaller one would not meet the standards and the larger unit really is as big as it can be based on the wall constraints. They have looked at many options on how to achieve a unit onsite, she did not feel the option presented to APCHA was good. She feels affordable housing deserves the same access and value. They may have had more options if they could remove the back wall, but this would trigger demolition which they want to avoid. Mr. Mesirow followed up and felt they missed the core of the question which was to identify the difference between affordable housing space and free market space. Mr. Clauson responded there are Home Owners Association (HOA) issues that are quite different for affordable housing than those of free market and commercial spaces. The HOA issues often impose a burden on the affordable housing simply because the level of finishes desired. That is something APCHA is very mindful of and has been an issue. He also wanted to point out the financing a single room unit has been proven to be difficult for potential buyers. Mr. Mesirow asked for more granularity on the issues. Mr. Clauson responded he could not provide additional granularity on the exact reasons for the financing difficulties. Ms. Phelan responded it could also be a rental unit as an option instead of a for sale unit. P63 VI.B. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 7, 2016 9 Mr. Goode asked if it is currently a rental and both Ms. Phelan and Mr. Clauson responded it is a rental unit. Mr. Clauson stated the building would be reconfigured in a condominium format. Ms. Tygre felt in the renderings provided, the top levels appeared much taller than the street level. She asked if the ceiling heights are different between the first and second floors. Ms. Ellis stated they are about the same at the low points. The window in the stairway comes down to the floor and pointed out on a rendering. They do have plans for a planter box on the upper level to break it up a bit. The ceiling heights on the first floor go up to about 10 ft and it is similar in the upper level. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked staff if variances can be provided on demolition percentages at which Ms. Phelan responded no. Mr. Rowland feels their approach to demolition was a sustainability issue as well. Mr. Walterscheid asked if the applicant had considered to the Aspenmodern program. Ms. Ellis stated too much of the original building has been taken over the addition in the 1980’s. Mr. Mesirow thanked them for the informative graphic explaining their approach to the changes to the building. Mr. Goode then opened for public comment. Ms. Ruth carver, lives on same block and would like to see the open space remain. She does not like the idea of the bottom floor being totally subterranean. She feels all the houses on the block have a setback as well as the surrounding businesses. She does not want to see all the buildings redone in town to come directly to the lot line. Mr. Christian Storich works for Rowland & Broughton and appreciates the courtyard available to the lower level. He agrees the nonconformities add depth and quality. Mr. Nick Massmann works for Rowland & Broughton and he agrees with his colleagues in the viability of the subgrade space is increased with the daylight available. Mr. Goode then closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Goode then opened for commissioner discussion. Mr. Goode stated overall he likes the design of the building. His hang-up for the project is the affordable housing. He likes living downtown and likes the idea of having affordable housing available downtown to provide a mixed culture. Parking is another concern. He sees the applicant’s position on the nonconforming spaces but feels they would have to work it out as well. Ms. McNicholas Kury is totally fine with the proposed height. She does feel the area way celebrates density and does not agree with Staff. She would prefer the applicant come up with the additional 100 sf of public amenity on site to reach the code. She appreciates the celebration of the forge. She does not support APCHA’s recommendation and feels it goes against the code which she believes the codes priority is to maintain the mixed use. For these reasons, she cannot support the project at this moment. Mr. Mesirow agrees with the affordable housing comment. Mr. Walterscheid agrees with the others regarding affordable housing. He feels the community wants to keep affordable housing inside Castle Creek. He stated he lives in employee housing in a mixed use building and it was difficult to obtain financing. He feels a rental option is viable. While his homeowner’s fees are absurd, he can get value out of it as well. He realizes the free market component is key to the developer, but feels there are ways to maintain the affordable housing onsite. He does not have an issue P64 VI.B. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 7, 2016 10 with the existing area way and appreciates the applicant’s efforts to decrease the nonconformities. The parking is an interesting issue and does not feel there is a clear concise direction. Ms. Tygre agrees with her fellow commissioners regarding affordable housing onsite. She feels P&Z perhaps has a different attitude about what is and is not allowed based on different criteria. She feels the criteria regarding affordable housing is very clear in the code. She does not have a problem with the area way. With parking, she feels this is a busy section of town and feels it is contrary to the spirit of mixed use to only provide two spaces for the free market units. She would prefer to see commercial parking made available. Mr. Clauson states he is hearing from P&Z is they would like to see some, if not all the affordable housing onsite. He asked if P&Z would entertain this a condition of approval and allow the project to move forward. Ms. Phelan stated they have a continuation date set for June 21st. Staff would prefer an updated memo to see the proposed program to ensure to location of the affordable housing meets the criteria and any ratios of the use mix on the site set and parking could be looked at as well. Mr. Mesirow and Mr. Goode felt it would be best to continue the hearing. Ms. McNicholas Kury motioned to continue the hearing to June 21st and seconded by Ms. Tygre. Mr. Mesirow wanted to clarify he feels the project looks great and appreciates the applicant considering what the community currently wants from redevelopment projects. He does not feel the argument can be made against affordable housing and for free market based on the financial issues. Parking is not a big concern for him. He wants to see all the affordable housing back onsite. Mr. Goode asked for the commissioners to vote on the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Goode then closed the hearing. OTHER BUSINESS None. ADJOURN Mr. Goode then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager P65 VI.B. P66VI.B. P67VI.B. P68VI.B. P69VI.B. P70VI.B. P71VI.B. P72VI.B. P73 VI.B. MICROPILE CAPMICROPILE CAPDNA-DEMO-WALL-PRH T A-DEMO-WALL-RAILA-DEMO-WALL-FIREA-DEMO-WALL-FOO T A-DEMO-WALL-FNDNA-DEMO-WALL-PATTA-DEMO-FLOR-EQPMA-DEMO-FLOR-EQPM-NICA-DEMO-FLOR-MECHA-DEMO-FLOR-ELECA-DEMO-FLOR-LOWA-DEMO-FLOR-BELOA-DEMO-FLOR-MILLA-DEMO-FLOR-MILL-BELOA-DEMO-FLOR-MILL-OVHDA-DEMO-FLOR-PATT-9A-DEMO-FLOR-EDGEA-DEMO-GLAZ-SILLA-DEMO-GLAZ-OVHDA-DEMO-DOOR-OVHDA-DEMO-DOOR-JAMBA-DEMO-FURNP-DEMOP-FIXTS-DEMO-COLSS-DEMO-COLS-OVHD A-EXST-WALLA-EXST-WALL-PRHTA-EXST-WALL-RAILA-EXST-WALL-FIREA-EXST-WALL-FOOT A-EXST-WALL-FNDNA-EXST-WALL-PATTA-EXST-WALL-FRAMA-EXST-FLOR-EQPMA-EXST-FLOR-EQPM-NICA-EXST-FLOR-MECHA-EXST-FLOR-ELECA-EXST-FLOR-OVHDA-EXST-FLOR-LOWA-EXST-FLOR-BELOA-EXST-FLOR-MILLA-EXST-FLOR-MILL-BELOA-EXST-FLOR-MILL-OVHDA-EXST-FLOR-PATT-9A-EXST-FLOR-EDGEA-EXST-GLAZA-EXST-GLAZ-SILLA-EXST-GLAZ-OVHDA-EXST-DOORA-EXST-DOOR-OVHDA-EXST-DOOR-JAMBA-EXST-STRSA-EXST-STRS-RAILA-EXST-STRS-TEXTA-EXST-FURNP-EXST-FIXTS-EXST-COLSS-EXST-COLS-OVHD HLDNA-DEMO-WALL-PRH T A-DEMO-WALL-RAILA-DEMO-WALL-FIREA-DEMO-WALL-FOO T A-DEMO-WALL-FNDNA-DEMO-WALL-PATTA-DEMO-FLOR-EQPMA-DEMO-FLOR-EQPM-NICA-DEMO-FLOR-MECHA-DEMO-FLOR-ELECA-DEMO-FLOR-LOWA-DEMO-FLOR-BELOA-DEMO-FLOR-MILLA-DEMO-FLOR-MILL-BELOA-DEMO-FLOR-MILL-OVHDA-DEMO-FLOR-PATT-9A-DEMO-FLOR-EDGEA-DEMO-GLAZ-SILLA-DEMO-GLAZ-OVHDA-DEMO-DOOR-OVHDA-DEMO-DOOR-JAMBA-DEMO-FURNP-DEMOP-FIXTS-DEMO-COLSS-DEMO-COLS-OVHD A-EXST-WALLA-EXST-WALL-PRHTA-EXST-WALL-RAILA-EXST-WALL-FIREA-EXST-WALL-FOOT A-EXST-WALL-FNDNA-EXST-WALL-PATTA-EXST-WALL-FRAMA-EXST-FLOR-EQPMA-EXST-FLOR-EQPM-NICA-EXST-FLOR-MECHA-EXST-FLOR-ELECA-EXST-FLOR-OVHDA-EXST-FLOR-LOWA-EXST-FLOR-BELOA-EXST-FLOR-MILLA-EXST-FLOR-MILL-BELOA-EXST-FLOR-MILL-OVHDA-EXST-FLOR-PATT-9A-EXST-FLOR-EDGEA-EXST-GLAZA-EXST-GLAZ-SILLA-EXST-GLAZ-OVHDA-EXST-DOORA-EXST-DOOR-OVHDA-EXST-DOOR-JAMBA-EXST-STRSA-EXST-STRS-RAILA-EXST-STRS-TEXTA-EXST-FURNP-EXST-FIXTS-EXST-COLSS-EXST-COLS-OVHD WATER FEATUREELEVATORCHIMNEYLOCATE MECHANICALEQUIPMENTDNUPSPAPOOLUP6:1212:1212:126:1212:12 12:12 PUBLIC AMENITY SPACE 471 SF PUBLIC AMENITY SPACE 34 SFEast H o p k i n s A v e n u e Alley 5.0'5.0'10.0'5.0'South Monarch Street19" Spruce 19" Cttnwd 26" Cttnwd 12" Cttnwd 12" Cttnwd 12" Cttnwd PUBLIC AMENITY SPACE 98 SF PUBLIC AMENITY SPACE 483 SF SCALE: 0_SCA EDITED 1-JUL-16 21525_XPLN_SITE.dwg MTN FORGE RENOVATION AND ADDITION 230-234 E. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 436 8 March 2016 Conceptual Commercial Design Review Package 1830 blake st, ste 200 denver, co 80202 303.308.1373 o 303.308.1375 f 234 e hopkins ave aspen, co 81611 970.544.9006 o 970.544.3473 f r o w l a n d +b r o u g h t o n architecture / urban design / interior design 1 July 2016 L-1.4 Public Amenity Plan 0'5'10'20' SCALE: 1"= 10'-0"NORTH PUBLIC AMENITY AREAS EXISTING: 490 REQUIRED AT 10%: 600 OFFSITE AMENITY SPACE: 505 ONSITE AMENITY SPACE:581 TOTAL PUBLIC AMENITY SPACE: 1086P74 VI.B. Mountain Forge Building (PID# 273707328008) An application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Variance Review, Special Reviews, GMQS Reviews, and View Plan Review 1 July 2016 Exhibit I4 Applicant’s Response to Variance Criteria SUPPLEMENTAL LAND USE CODE RESPONSE The following is a supplemental code responses provided in connection with an application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Variance Review, Special Reviews, GMQS Reviews, and View Plan Review for the remodel of the Mountain Forge Building. The Applicant requests a window well to be located within the area of setback on Monarch Street and sized to be larger than the building code minimums for egress window wells. Building code minimum for an egress window well is 3 feet deep by 6 feet in width. The Applicant proposes a window well 3’-6” deep by 8’ in width to allow greater light into bedrooms located within an affordable housing unit. This slightly enlarged egress window well was supported by members of the Planning & Zoning Commission in the hearing process as an adjunct to the livability of the affordable housing unit. 26.314.040. Standards applicable to variances. A. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision-making body shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of this Title and the Municipal Code; and This standard is met. The granting of the variance to allow an enlarged window well within a street facing setback is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of this Title and the Municipal Code because it supports the livability and quality of an affordable housing unit. These purposes and goals explicitly support livability enhancements for affordable housing. Moreover, members of the Planning & Zoning Commission have expressed support for this improvement, based on their interest in the livability of affordable housing. The Applicant is going to great lengths to provide an exceptional affordable housing unit that takes advantage of a location within the central core of the City of Aspen. As such, various site constraints make providing a standard window well that provides for livability is very difficult. 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and This standard is met. The requested window well is actually a reduction of the existing nonconforming areaway currently located in the setback. As such, it imposes no additional impacts and is a diminution of existing impacts. Therefore this standard is met. The standard 3’ x 6’ window well would render the bedrooms very dark and the slight enlargement of the window well will allow for enhanced livability and comfort of the bedrooms. The proposed 3’6” x 8’ window well responds to the existing conditions found on the site and does not represent an unusually large window well nor an egregious variance request. P75 VI.B. Mountain Forge Building (PID# 273707328008) An application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Variance Review, Special Reviews, GMQS Reviews, and View Plan Review 1 July 2016 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the Board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a) There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or There are special conditions unique to this parcel and building, which are not applicable to other parcels in the same zone district. Specifically, this particular structure is located on or very close to the westerly property line, which prevents the installation of larger area wells in a location where they would normally be permitted. b) Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the terms of this Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or structures, in the same zone district. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicants any special privilege denied by the by the terms of this title as larger window wells would be permitted if it were not for the specific location of the building on the site. Moreover, the window well is replacing a much larger areaway that is a nonconforming element. Therefore, the larger window well could be considered a reduction of a pre-existing non-conformity. Therefore, a literal interpretation and enforcement of the building code minimum window well size would deprive the future occupants of the affordable housing unit of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship. B. In order to authorize a variance from the permitted uses of Title 26, the appropriate decision- making body shall make a finding that all of the following circumstances exist: 1. Notice by publication, mailing and posting of the proposed variance has been provided to surrounding property owners in accordance with Subparagraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a.—c. Public notice of the request variance was made by the mailing of a public notice to all property owners within 300’ of the subject property as well as posting of a public notice sign on the property on 30 June 2016 which is more than fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing that will consider this variance request. 2. A variance is the only reasonable method by which to afford the applicant relief, and to deny a variance would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship such that the property would be rendered practically undevelopable, as distinguished from mere inconvenience. A variance is the only reasonable method to provide the applicant relief with respect to the desire expressed by the Planning & Zoning Commission to provide the highest quality space for future affordable housing residents. A building code minimum P76 VI.B. Mountain Forge Building (PID# 273707328008) An application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Variance Review, Special Reviews, GMQS Reviews, and View Plan Review 1 July 2016 window well will place a hardship on future residents as the amount of light and air that can reach the bedrooms will be significantly impacted. 4. The temporary off-site storage or construction staging can be undertaken in such a manner so as to minimize disruption, if any, of normal neighborhood activities surrounding the subject parcel. The entire Mountain Forge Building is being remodeled and all disruptions to the neighborhood will be mitigated. The granting of this variance request will not increase the level of disturbance to the neighborhood. 5. If ownership of the off-site parcel subject to the proposed variance is not vested in the applicant, then verified written authorization of the parcel's owner must be provided. N/A 6. Adequate provision is made to restore the subject parcel to its original condition upon expiration of the variance, including the posting of such financial security as deemed appropriate and necessary by the appropriate decision-making body to ensure such restoration. The variance is requested to be permanent and permitted for as long as the building is occupied. P77 VI.B. 1 Exhibit I Environmental Health Recommendation 230 E. Hopkins (Mtn. Forge) – Space Allotment for Trash and Recycling Storage (Special Review comments) Liz O’Connell – Environmental Health and Sustainability 1- The dimensions required for a mixed use commercial building without food service is 200 square feet (20’l x 10’w with 10’ height clearance) for trash and recycling storage (Municipal Code 12.10.030 A a). Applicant has requested a reduction in this space requirement due to the constraints of the existing building which will remain intact during the remodel. 2- The current submission does not specify the exact dimensions of the area which will be for the exclusive storage of trash and recycling. Although the total square footage is listed, the dimensions are not. One of the final drawings needs to describe the exact dimensions which result in a total of 157 square feet. a. Since there is no screen or fence proposed (due to constraints of the setback), applicant needs to be sure the final area is marked to ensure the space is reserved for waste receptacles. This can be accomplished with painting the pavement or signage. 2- The addition of a second trash area provides easier access for one commercial tenant and the AHU occupant (who do not have interior access to the trash and recycling receptacles in the proposed configuration). 4- Given the current proposal of providing trash and recycling space of 157 square feet; presuming the drawing will be altered to show the dimensions of the space and the applicant agrees to designate the area visually upon completion of the project, this space will be approved through Special Review by the Environmental Health and Sustainability department P78 VI.B. 1 Exhibit J1 Staff Findings - Variance 26.314.040. Standards applicable to variances. A. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision-making body shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of this Title and the Municipal Code; and Staff Response: The applicant is requesting a window well along the Monarch St. façade of the property that extends past the five-foot side yard setback for the property. The window well is proposed to measure approximately 3 ½’ x 8’. A window well that is required for Building code egress, but is greater than the minimum size requirement requires a dimensional variance review. The applicant is requesting the window well in response to P&Z’s request for greater livability of the proposed affordable housing units. The enhanced window well size will allow for greater natural light to penetrate the unit’s two subgrade bedrooms. Although unit livability is important to Staff, it is not a review specific to this variance criterion. The granting of this variance is not consistent with the code, which specifies size and location requirements for a window well. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and Staff Response: The variance exceeds the minimum light well size that is required by Building Code for egress from a subgrade bedroom, which is 3’x3’ per window, or one combined window well for two adjacent bedrooms measuring 3’x6’. At the proposed 3 ½’ x 8’, Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the Board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a) There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or Staff Response: A large window well currently exists along the Monarch St. façade that measures 5’x31’. The applicant is proposing to reduce the size of the window well to 3 ½’ x 8’. This pre-existing window well condition is unique to this property and is not an action of the applicant. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P79 VI.B. 2 b) Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the terms of this Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or structures, in the same zone district. Staff Response: Staff does not know of another other parcels, buildings, or structures within the MU zone district that have been denied a similar variance request. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. In order to authorize a variance from the permitted uses of Title 26, the appropriate decision-making body shall make a finding that all of the following circumstances exist: 1. Notice by publication, mailing and posting of the proposed variance has been provided to surrounding property owners in accordance with Subparagraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a.—c. Staff Response: The request for variance has been properly noticed by Staff and the applicant, including in the newspaper, on-site in the form of a poster, and a mailing to all residents within a 300’ radius of the project. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. A variance is the only reasonable method by which to afford the applicant relief, and to deny a variance would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship such that the property would be rendered practically undevelopable, as distinguished from mere inconvenience. Staff Response: The variance request for a larger light well within the side yard setback will enhance the livability of the subgrade units, but its denial will not cause the property to be practically undevelopable. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 3. The temporary off-site storage or construction staging can be undertaken in such a manner so as to minimize disruption, if any, of normal neighborhood activities surrounding the subject parcel. Staff Response: The entire building is proposed to be redeveloped, not only the area involving the variance request. The applicant will be required to work with the Engineering Dept. on a construction management plan to minimize disruption to the neighborhood with the redevelopment of the site. Staff finds this criterion to be conditionally met. 4. If ownership of the off-site parcel subject to the proposed variance is not vested in the applicant, then verified written authorization of the parcel's owner must be provided. Staff Response: Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 5. Adequate provision is made to restore the subject parcel to its original condition upon expiration of the variance, including the posting of such financial security as deemed appropriate and necessary by the appropriate decision-making body to ensure such restoration. Staff Response: The applicant is requesting a permanent variance for the size of the window well on the site’s Monarch façade. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. P80 VI.B. 3 P81 VI.B. 1 Exhibit J2 Staff Findings – Special Review 26.430.030.I. Affordable housing unit standards. Whenever a Special Review is conducted to reduce the required percentage that the finished floor level of the unit’s net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, a recommendation from the Housing Board shall be obtained and all of the following criteria shall be met. The criteria below address only the affordable housing units that require a variation from the standard. 1. The proposed affordable housing units are designed in a manner that is compatible with the character of the neighborhood. Staff Response: The affordable housing unit is proposed as part of a mixed-use project, with in the MU zone district. The unit is proposed with its own entryway from Monarch St. Staff finds the design to be an appropriate use and compatible with the neighborhood character, which is a mix of residential and commercial. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed amount that the affordable housing units are below natural or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive, is an appropriate response to unique site constraints, such as topography. Staff Response: The subject site is flat and a typical 6,000 sq. ft. townsite lot. There are no known site constraints that would prohibit putting additional floor area for the affordable housing unit above grade. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 3. The proposed affordable housing units are designed in such a manner which exceeds the expectations of the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, and promotes the unit’s general livability by demonstrating compliance with as many of the following conditions as possible: a) Significant storage, such as additional storage outside a unit. Staff Response: The applicant has provided 63 sq. ft. of storage space, split between the upper and lower floors. Each subgrade bedroom also contains a closet, measuring approximately 14 sq. ft. APCHA is pleased with the addition of storage space which was lacking in previous iterations of the project. The Land Use Code requires 10% of an affordable housing unit’s net livable floor area to be either closet or storage area. A unit that measures 908 sq. ft. requires 90.8 sq. ft. of closet/storage space. The applicant is proposing a total of 91 sq. ft., which meets the minimum requirement rather than qualifying as “significant storage”. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. b) Above average natural light, such as adding more window area than the Building Code requires. Staff Response: The applicant is proposing to add floor to ceiling windows along the ground level walls of the Monarch St. and alleyway façade. The applicant is also proposing a larger window well along Monarch St. to provide additional natural light to the proposed subgrade bedrooms, which is the subject of a variance review that is part of this application. Staff finds this criterion to be conditionally met. c) Net livable unit sizes exceed minimum requirement. Staff Response: The minimum net livable unit size required to house 2.25 FTE’s is 900 sq. ft. The applicant is just exceeding this minimum requirement with a floor area of 908 sq. ft. Staff finds this requirement to be met. P82 VI.B. 2 d) Unit amenities, such as access to outdoor space or private patios. Staff Response: The unit does not have access to any specified outdoor space, private patio, or any other amenity. Staff finds this criterion to be not met. P83 VI.B.