HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20161206
AGENDA
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
REGULAR MEETING
December 06, 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
V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 501 W Hallam St - Variation - Residential Design Standards
B. 230 E Hopkins Ave (Mountain Forge) - Remand Hearing, Resolution No 5, Series
of 2016
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
VIII. BOARD REPORTS
IX. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 10, 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
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Ben Anderson, Planner
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
MEETING DATE: December 6, 2016
(Continued from November 1, 2016 and September 6, 2016)
RE: 501 W. Hallam Street – Residential Design Standard Variation
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Scott Hoffman
REPRESENTATIVE:
Chris Bendon,
BendonAdams, LLC
LOCATION:
Street Address:
501 W. Hallam St.
Legal Description: Lots H & I,
Block 29, City and Townsite of
Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of
Colorado.
Parcel Identification Number:
2735-124-32-004
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Located in the Medium Density
Residential (R-6) zone district
containing a duplex. The property is
located at the corner of W. Hallam and
N. 4th Street, within the Aspen Infill
Area.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant is proposing to
demolish an existing duplex and
redevelop the site with a single family
residence. As part of the new
development, the Applicant is
requesting a variation to a Residential
Design Standard.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny
the application for a variation to Residential Design Standards.
SUMMARY:
This is a continuation of a public hearing from September 6, 2016
and again on November 1, 2016. The Applicant is proposing
demolition of an existing duplex and the construction of a single
family residence. Previously, the applicant received administrative
approval for alternative compliance with two other Residential
Design Standards. This application is requesting variation from a
standard that is non-flexible. A variation for a non-flexible standard
cannot be granted through an administrative approval but instead
requires review by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Specifically, this application requests variation to the standard:
Articulation of Building Mass; 26.410.030.B.1.
Figure 1. Location of project and footprint of existing duplex.
P1
VI.A.
LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The applicant is requesting the following land use approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission to
construct a new, single family residence.
A Variation to Residential Design Standards as pursuant to Section 26.410.020[C]. of the Land
Use Code. A variation to a Residential Design Standard shall be considered at a public hearing
before the Planning and Zoning Commission who may approve, approve with conditions or deny
the proposal based on the following review standards:
1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated
in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statement in Section
26.410.010.A.1-3; or
2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints.
Please see Exhibit A for staff findings on review standards.
PREVIOUS DESIGN SUBMITTALS:
The design that the Planning and Zoning Commission evaluated at the September 6th hearing was seeking
a variation from Articulation of Building Mass; Option 1, Maximum Sidewall Depth. The proposed house
was nearly 80 feet in length (30 feet longer than allowed in Option 1). Staff recommended denial and the
Commission, after discussion, voted to continue the item to allow for a reconfiguration of the design. Please
refer to Exhibit B, Staff Memo from the September 6th public hearing for a full description of the Residential
Design Standards and the original design proposal.
In response to Staff and Commission comments, the applicant submitted a revised design for review at the
November 1st public hearing. The modified design pursued a variation to Option 3, Increased Side Setbacks
at Rear and Step Down as provided by the standard. Staff again recommended denial as the modified design
did not meet the dimensional standards required by Option 3. The design provide a second level that was
nearly 60 feet in length (15 feet longer than allowed). In the discussion at the hearing, the Commission
agreed that the modified design did not meet the letter or intent of the standard and voted in support of a
continuation to give further opportunity for design revision. Commission comments gave direction to work
on the roofline in an effort to further articulate the mass of the second level.
NEW DESIGN PROPOSAL:
In response to Commission comments, the applicant has proposed a third design for review. The design
continues to pursue a variation that is most closely aligned with Option 3. The building steps down from
two levels to one and provides increased side setbacks at the rear of the building. Consistent with the design
presented at the November 1st meeting, the building meets the dimensional standards for the increased
setbacks, but is not compliant with the requirements for the maximum length (45 feet) of the second level
before it steps down. The second level remains approximately 15 feet longer than allowed by the standard.
The significant change from the previous design is an amended roofline. Please refer to Exhibit G for a
narrative and drawings of the new design.
Figure 1, Option 3
P2
VI.A.
Figure 2. November 1st design, East elevation from 4th Street.
Figure 3. December 6th (current) design, East elevation from 4th Street. Amended roofline.
Figure 4. 4th Street, three-dimensional rendering (current design). The second level remains
just under 60 feet in length – nearly 15 feet more than allowed by Option 3.
P3
VI.A.
Figure 6. November 1st design, West elevation.
Figure 7. December 6th (current) design, West elevation. Amended roofline.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff agrees that the new roof design is an improvement over previous iterations and acknowledges the
applicant’s efforts to continue to move the design closer to meeting the standard. Additionally, staff
acknowledges the applicant’s desire to build a home that allows the primary living space to occupy the
second level – and the constraints that the Residential Design Standards (RDS) place on this outcome by
limiting the mass of the principle building form.
While the RDS were crafted to provide flexibility to designers in meeting the intent of each of the standards,
staff is committed to the dimensional requirements that define the provided design options. The three
options offered for the Articulation of Building Mass standard were not created arbitrarily. They give
definition not to an architectural style, but to a form that is consistent with historically established patterns
and the community’s desired qualities of residential massing in the Aspen Infill Area. This standard and its
intent is particularly important in this case, as the project is located on a corner lot with two, street-facing
facades.
In spite of the changes to the roof line, staff finds that the current design continues to present a massing of
the second level that goes beyond the intent of the standard.
P4
VI.A.
RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission deny the variation from Residential Design Standards for 501 W. Hallam St.
PROPOSED MOTION: The Draft Resolution is written in approval of the variation request. If the
Commission agrees with the staff recommendation of denial, the following motion is proposed:
“I move to deny Resolution No. ____, Series of 2016.”
This action would deny the request for variation from Residential Design Standards for Articulation of
Building Mass.
ATTACHMENTS:
Included Previously:
Exhibit A – Original Application
Exhibit B – Staff Findings, Review Standards; 9/6/16
Exhibit C – Staff Memo; 9/6/16
Exhibit D – Revised Design and Narrative; 11/1/16
Exhibit E – Staff Findings, Review Standards; 11/1/16
Exhibit F – Staff Memo; 11/1/16
Included in this Packet:
Exhibit G – Revised Design and Narrative; 12/6/16
Exhibit H – Staff Findings, Review Standards; 12/6/16
P5
VI.A.
RESOLUTION NO. XX
(SERIES OF 2016)
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN APPROVING ONE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIATION
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOTS H & I, BLOCK 29, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO AND
COMMONLY KNOWN AS 501 WEST HALLAM STREET.
Parcel Identification Number: 2735-124-032-004
WHEREAS, Mr. Scott Hoffman, as owner of 501 W. Hallam St., submitted a request for
a Variation to Residential Design Standards for consideration by the Planning and Zoning
Commission; and,
WHEREAS, the property is located in the R-6 Medium-Density Residential zone district
and the Aspen Infill Area; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the request and has
provided a recommendation to deny the variation request; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the
development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein,
has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and
has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on September 6, 2016,
that was continued to November 1, 2016; and continued a second time to December, 6, 2016 and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal
meets the applicable review criteria and that the approval of the one request is consistent with the
goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is
necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution XX, Series of
2016, by a X to X (X - X) vote, granting a Variation to a Residential Design Standard as
identified herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Residential Design Standards Variation
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the variation request from the following
Residential Design Standard that is underlined below, as represented in the application presented
before the Commission:
26.410.030.B.1.a-d. Location and Massing; Articulation of Building Mass
P6
VI.A.
B.1.c: Standard. A principal building shall articulate building mass to reduce
bulk and mass and create building forms that are similar in scale to those seen in
historic Aspen residential buildings.
This variation request specifically relates to Option 3, provided in the same standard:
(3) Increased Side Setbacks at Rear and Step Down. A principal building shall
provide increased side setbacks at the rear of the building. If the principal
building is two stories, it shall step down to one story in the rear. The
increased side setbacks and one story step down shall occur at a maximum of
forty-five (45) feet, as measured from the front-most wall toward the rear
wall. The increased side setbacks shall be at least five (5) feet greater than the
side setbacks at the front of the building.
This approval allows the construction of a single family house that has a two-story principal mass
that is greater than allowed by Option 3 in the standard before stepping down to one story – per
the dimensions presented in Exhibit A. This approval allows a maximum length (front most wall
to rear most wall) for the second level of 60 feet and requires increased side setbacks of at least 5
feet at the rear of the building2.
Section 2: Building Permit Application
Other than any variation granted, the building permit application shall be compliant with all other
standards and requirements of the City of Aspen Municipal Code and all other adopted
regulations.
Section 3:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation
presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by an authorized entity.
Section 4:
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 5:
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.
P7
VI.A.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 6th day of
December, 2016.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: Planning and Zoning Commission
_______________________________ ______________________________
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Keith Goode, Chair
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
Exhibit A: Floor Plans and Elevations
P8
VI.A.
300 SO SPRING ST ■ 202 ■ ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 ■ BENDONADAMS.COM
November 18, 2016
Mr. Ben Anderson
Community Development Department
City of Aspen
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: 501 West Hallam Street
Mr. Anderson:
Thank you for your continued tolerance through our design iterations for the project. Please
accept this re-re-re-revised variation application for Residential Design Standards, Articulation of
Building Mass standard, for 501 West Hallam.
We benefitted from the discussion with the Planning and
Zoning Commission November 1st. The P&Z affirmed staff’s
position that the proposed design did not fully address the
standards. The Commission did, however, provide feedback
on the continuous ridgeline that visually created a singular
mass. They provided direction to re-study a roof step-down.
This “December” design creates a stronger visual break
between the two building masses. The building’s footprint
steps in and the height steps down. While architecturally
different, this massing reflects a recently completed west end
project at 2nd and Hallam that we feel works very well.
We believe this design is responsive to the Commission’s
direction and achieves the visual break they were looking for.
The December design continues to provide a second-floor
connection between the front half and rear half of the home.
This affords superior livability and functionality and reflects a
modern living layout.
The December design continues to provide “neighbor
accommodation.” Our neighbor to the west is non-conforming
with regard to side yard setbacks (building at lot line with roof
encroachment). Our design respects this condition with
additional setback, maximizing space between the two
properties.
September Design
November Design
P9
VI.A.
Page 2 of 2
501 W. Hallam RDS
We blended a few design features from the
original September 6th application and from
the November 6th application. The home still
steps-down to one-story in the rear, and
generates a
sidewall calculation of 59’-11¾” as
measured from the front-most wall of the
front façade at the second story to the rear
wall at the second story. This is a significant
reduction from the 80 feet from the
September design and slightly increased (by
8 inches) from the November design.
We also continue to have increased side
setbacks towards the rear. The garage is
significantly narrower than the main house,
setback more than 12 feet from the 4th
Street property line, about 6’-8” back from
the house façade.
We hope you appreciate the design
changes we’ve made. We continue to feel
this is an attractive home and will fit with the
neighborhood. Please know that we
continue to advance design details and
materials and other minor changes may
occur. We understand that an approval will
“lock-in” the building’s massing.
We look forward to your review and to our
continued Planning and Zoning Commission
hearing on December 6th. Please let us know
if we can provide additional information or if
we can respond to your feedback.
Sincerely,
Chris Bendon, AICP
Principal
BendonAdams LLC
Exhibit 1 – Revised design drawings dated 11.15.16
December Design
December Design showing Materials
P10
VI.A.
P11
VI.A.
P12
VI.A.
P13VI.A.
790579047907790679069.79.86.811.238.584.824.344.9733.80'150"W60.00'S75°09'11"E60.00'N75°09'11"W100.00'S14°50'49"WD8"DL9'D9"DL7'D9"DL6'P14"DL10'P22"DL14'P20"DL12'P15"DL13'P14"DL9'P15"DL10'P11"DL10'EWSOCTEMGMXLOT G10.1'5.0'P.O.B.ASPHALTDRIVEWAY6000 SQ.FT.±LOT ILOT HREBAR AND RPCLS# 9018BENCHMARK=7904.33'REBAR AND RPCLS# 9018ALLEYBLOCK 294TH STREET75.66' R.O.W.HALLAM STREET74.38 R.O.W.O.H.O.H.CONC. PADCURBCURBBRICKPATIODRIVEWAYASPHALTBRICK WALKPADCONC.SHEDPATIOBRICKxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxUP5166
52212737475767SBmax14' - 9 1/2"20+%See Main Level Plan &Elevations for further setbackinformationSee Main Level Plan &Elevations for further setbackinformation137 main street, suite G004box 5055edwards, colorado 81632970.926.2622snow@rkdarch.comjob # 12080Hoffman Residence11/15/2016Site - Cover1501 West Hallam St. Aspen COP&Z-3Revisions 1/8" = 1'-0"1Site24th St View3Hallem Entry44th& Hallem5Hallem ViewP14
VI.A.
273767MechSB14' - 0"5 1/2"13' - 2 3/4"5 1/2"8' - 3 3/4"5 1/2"4' - 10"5 1/2"4' - 7 1/2"3 1/2"11 1/2"4' - 8"5 1/2"5' - 8"5 1/2"11' - 3 1/2"10' - 11 1/2"5 1/2"5' - 0"5 1/2"2' - 0"5 1/2"11' - 7"19' - 5 1/2"2' - 2 3/4"5 1/2"4' - 10"5 1/2"4' - 10"8"8"6' - 3"8"BathClosetBed 4RecBunkBPow34' - 6"5 1/2"6' - 0"1,565 SF193' LF of wall x 10.3' verticalyields 1,988 sf total wall surfaceExposed area = (7.5'x6.25')2= 93.752 window wells yields93.75/1988=.047 x 1,565=74 SF Total this level2' - 8"max17CLCL38' - 6 1/2"8"6' - 3"8"Finish this arearemainder- drywall withfire tape onlyUP6' - 9"52' - 3 1/4"6' - 0"StorEl EqElev2' - 10 1/2"52' - 3 1/4"3' - 2"38' - 6 1/2"1' - 4 1/4"5 1/2"3' - 11 1/2"137 main street, suite G004box 5055edwards, colorado 81632970.926.2622snow@rkdarch.comjob # 12080Hoffman Residence11/15/2016Basement2501 West Hallam St. Aspen COP&Z-3Revisions 1/4" = 1'-0"1BasementP15
VI.A.
UP516652214th STmin sb10' max sb,if 5' on eastis usedALLEY27371167BR 2Bath2CLEntryCLPow 1BR 3FamilyLaundryGear/Mud2 CarOutside YardCLBath 35 1/2"4' - 2 1/2"5 1/2"11' - 5 1/2"5 1/2"5' - 0"5 1/2"2' - 0"5 1/2"12' - 1"5 1/2"19' - 6"5 1/2"1' - 7 1/2"5 1/2"5' - 3"5 1/2"5' - 6"6' - 4"5 1/2"1' - 8"3 1/2"5' - 0"5 1/2"7' - 4 1/4"5 1/2"SB7906' - 4"5 1/2"24' - 6"5 1/2"8' - 0"5"10' - 11"5 1/2"7906' - 4"5 1/2"12' - 2"5 1/2"5' - 0"3 1/2"1' - 8"5 1/2"3' - 6"5 1/2"610 SF1373 SFSquare Footage1,373 general610 garage102 stairs 84 & el 182,085 (this level inc garages)- 375 garage credit1,710 total this Level 74 Basement1,455 Upper3,239 TOTAL SF3,240 TOTAL SF allowed19' - 0"3' - 6"7' - 7 1/2"2,614 TOTAL SITE COVERAGE 44%3,000 TOTAL SITE COVERAGE ALLOWED 50%4' - 11"5 1/2"5' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"7' - 4"5 1/2"13' - 0"5 1/2"15' - 0"5 1/2"10' - 3 1/2"5 1/2"5' - 0"5' - 0"5 1/2"6' - 0"1122max176' - 0 3/4"5' - 0"60' - 0"100' - 0"5' - 2 1/4"window wellline of foundationbelow gradewindow well5 1/2"24' - 0"5 1/2"6' - 8"1' - 2"2' - 0 3/4"7' - 6"3 1/2"8 1/2"3' - 0"18' - 0"3' - 0"73' - 4 1/2"5' - 0"3' - 8 1/4"5' - 4"5 1/2"5' - 1 1/2"5' - 6"2 1/2"1' - 0"3' - 6"1' - 6"3' - 6"1' - 0"2 1/2"4th Street5' - 4 3/4"5' - 0"137 main street, suite G004box 5055edwards, colorado 81632970.926.2622snow@rkdarch.comjob # 12080Hoffman Residence11/15/2016Main Level3501 West Hallam St. Aspen COP&Z-3Revisions 1/4" = 1'-0"1Level 1P16
VI.A.
UP51273767MasterM BathM ClosKitchenDiningHearthLiving RoomDeckBBQ15' - 5 1/2"3 1/2"9' - 7 1/2"5 1/2"10' - 11"5 1/2"SB3' - 7 1/4"4' - 2 3/4"2' - 0"5 1/2"Office5 1/2"13' - 5 1/2"5 1/2"1' - 0"2' - 8"5 1/2"8' - 4 1/2"5 1/2"3' - 6"3 1/2"9' - 3 1/2"3' - 1 3/4"9' - 0"4' - 0"2' - 0"5 1/2"8' - 3 1/2"2' - 0"3' - 6"2' - 0"2' - 0"2' - 6"1' - 10 1/2"1' - 5 1/4"1,455 this level5' - 9 3/4"8' - 0"5 1/2"6' - 0 1/4"5 1/2"7' - 3"5 1/2"6' - 0"toiletpow2laundrypantshwrtub3' - 6"5 1/2"5' - 8"5' - 0"7916' - 4"max1710' - 11"1' - 8"4' - 0"12' - 6"8' - 0"2' - 0"1' - 2 1/2"3' - 6"1' - 6"3' - 6"1' - 2 1/2"10' - 3"59' - 11 3/4"raised planterraisedplanterelev137 main street, suite G004box 5055edwards, colorado 81632970.926.2622snow@rkdarch.comjob # 12080Hoffman Residence11/15/2016Upper Level4501 West Hallam St. Aspen COP&Z-3Revisions 1/4" = 1'-0"1Level 2P17
VI.A.
Level 17906' - 4"Level 27916' - 4"2767Roof7926' - 4"METAL PANELstonemetal panelSTONESTONEsloped window wallmetal panelLevel 67931' - 4"Level 17906' - 4"Level 27916' - 4"37SB7906' - 4"maxRoof7926' - 4"17METAL PANELSSTONESTONEMETALPANELSWOODSIDINGSTONEexisting fenceon property lineexisting roofencroachment 1.3'5' - 0"Property LineProperty LineMinimumSetback10' - 0"SetbackR 86 ' - 0 "METAL PANELS11 1/4"Level 67931' - 4"25' - 0"1' - 8"3"137 main street, suite G004box 5055edwards, colorado 81632970.926.2622snow@rkdarch.comjob # 12080Hoffman Residence11/15/2016Elevations5501 West Hallam St. Aspen COP&Z-3Revisions 1/4" = 1'-0"1East 1/4" = 1'-0"2NorthP18
VI.A.
Level 17906' - 4"Level 27916' - 4"37SBmaxRoof7926' - 4"17STONELIFT & SLIDEDOOR SYSTEMPATIO DOORDOORGARAGE DOORMATCH WOODSTONELevel 67931' - 4"Level 17906' - 4"Level 27916' - 4"2767Roof7926' - 4"METAL PANELSSTONEBIPARTING DOORWOOD SIDINGMETAL PANELSMETALPANELSSTONESTONEWOODSIDINGLevel 67931' - 4"137 main street, suite G004box 5055edwards, colorado 81632970.926.2622snow@rkdarch.comjob # 12080Hoffman Residence11/15/2016Elevations6501 West Hallam St. Aspen COP&Z-3Revisions 1/4" = 1'-0"1South 1/4" = 1'-0"2WestP19
VI.A.
Exhibit A – Staff Findings
VARIATION – RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
The Aspen Land Use Code 26.410.020; provides the Procedures for Review of Residential Design
Standards. If a variation to a non-flexible standard is pursued by an applicant, a public hearing before the
Planning and Zoning Commission determines whether an application meets the review standards. These
standards are described in 26.410.020.D.1-2:
Variation Review Standards. An application requesting variation from the Residential Design
Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variation, if granted would:
1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as
indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statement in
Section 26.410.010.A.1-3; or
Staff Finding
The application acknowledges that the design proposal does not comply with the dimensional requirements
of Articulation of Building Mass standard; Option. 3. While the design does step down from two stories to
one story at the rear of the building and provides increased side setbacks at the rear of the building, the
principle 2nd story mass is more than 15 feet longer than allowed by Option 3. The applicant believes that
the design, while not consistent with Option 3 – meets the intent of the standard and of the Residential
Design Standards in general. Staff agrees that part of the intent statement is met by the design – the building
is well articulated – and the new design with the amended roofline improves this condition. However, the
larger purpose of the standard – to promote massing and architectural forms that are consistent with
Aspen’s historic character and appropriate to the small lots that define this area – is not met by this design.
The three options that allow compliance with this standard provide a clear path toward residential design
that meets the described intent. Staff finds this criterion is not met.
2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints.
Staff Finding
The application states that because the property to the west contains a building that was built at the lot line
(and a portion of the roof structure actually encroaches on to this property) – design choices that elongated
this proposed house were necessary. While the adjacent house is non-conforming with regard to side yard
setbacks, Community Development has been consistent in its determination of “unusual site specific
constraints.” Conditions on neighboring properties have generally not been considered when reviewing
variances (or variations) to development rights. In this case, staff determines that there are no unusual
constraints on this property. Staff finds this criterion is not met.
P20
VI.A.
230 E. Hopkins Ave
Remand Hearing
Page 1 of 5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planner
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Director
RE: Remand of the Planning & Zoning Commission’s approval of
Conceptual Commercial Design Review for 230 E. Hopkins Ave, aka
Mountain Forge Building.
P&Z Resolution No. 5, Series of 2016.
MEETING DATE: December 6, 2016
NOTE ON PROCESS: When Commercial Design Review is granted by a board, the City Council is
informed of the decision and has the ability
to call up the decision for review.
On September 26, 2016, City Council called
up the approval granted by the Planning and
Zoning Commission regarding the
redevelopment of the Mountain Forge
building at 230 E. Hopkins Ave. At the
meeting, City Council considered the
application and the record established by the
P&Z. City Council had three options to
consider at the meeting:
1. Accept the decision made by the P&Z; or
2. Remand the application to the P&Z with direction from City Council for rehearing and
reconsideration; or
3. Continue the meeting to request additional evidence, analysis or testimony as necessary to
conclude the call-up review.
Council selected Option #2 and has remanded the application back to the Commission with
direction to reconsider the following:
1) The asymmetrical roof form at the corner of S. Monarch St. and E. Hopkins Ave; and
P21
VI.B.
230 E. Hopkins Ave
Remand Hearing
Page 2 of 5
2) The massing of the building along S. Monarch St. - consider ways to make this more
pedestrian friendly.
The P&Z Conceptual approval was granted by a vote of 6-1. Staff recommended the case be
continued with the instruction for the applicant to increase the net livable ground floor area of the
affordable housing unit, but had no issues regarding the asymmetrical roof form or the massing
along the building’s Monarch St. façade.
The Commission reviewed several proposals during the course of three hearings. Through the
process the exterior of the building saw very little change from the first proposed iteration, while
Staff and the Commission focused primarily on issues related to the affordable housing unit.
Minutes from the Council discussion are attached, along with the documents reviewed by P&Z on
July 19th, and the minutes of all three P&Z hearings. For this meeting, the applicant has indicated
they are not interested in presenting any changes to the design that was approved by P&Z. The
applicant has considered the issues proposed by City Council, and has indicated that there are
solutions that may be explored at Final Commercial Design review related to materials,
fenestration, and landscaping, which may aid in creating a more pedestrian friendly building form.
P&Z is to consider Council’s input and decide whether to uphold the previous decision, make a
new decision, or continue the hearing for more information.
The rehearing and reconsideration of the application by P&Z
is final and concludes the call-up review. Substantial changes
to the application outside of the specific topics listed in the
remand to P&Z may require a new call-up notice to City
Council; however, the call up review would be limited only
to the new changes to the application. The rehearing is
conducted during a duly noticed public hearing.
Following the conclusion of
this process, the applicant
may apply for Final
Commercial Design Review
with a hearing before P&Z.
DISCUSSION:
1) Asymmetrical roof
forms. Council’s first issue
is regarding the
asymmetrical roof forms,
found at the corner of
Hopkins Ave. and Monarch
St., and Monarch St. and the
alley.
32’ 34’ 5 ½”
Figure B – Proposed roof form
P22
VI.B.
230 E. Hopkins Ave
Remand Hearing
Page 3 of 5
The asymmetrical roof forms are driven by an existing non-conforming height condition at the
building’s southeastern corner. The roof at the Hopkins/Monarch location has been designed with
two different pitches to prevent the expansion of a non-conformity.
At the first Conceptual hearing it was explained that the Mixed Use zone district allows buildings
at a height of 28’ by right, and up to 32’ if granted by the Commission through Commercial Design
Review. The Code allows non-conformities to be maintained or decreased, but not to be increased.
At the Hopkins Ave/Monarch St. location the applicant has proposed to remove the current pitched
roof and replace it with a gabled roof form. The existing roof is non-conforming with the allowed
height of the zone district as it measures 34’ 8”. The change created by the proposed gable design
lessens the non-conformity slightly by dropping the height to 34’ 5 ½” on the northeastern side of
the building. To complete the gable and maintain the allowed height for the zone district the
applicant proposed a pitch that is measured at 32’ in height, as seen in Figure B above. The P&Z
previously approved this roof form and additional height above 28’ (to 32’) during Conceptual
Commercial Design review.
The roof form on the northeastern side of the structure (Monarch St. and the alley) has been
designed to echo the asymmetrical form found at the opposite end of the building, and measures
below the 28’ height allowed by right in the MU zone district.
2) Massing along S. Monarch St. The second item Council would like to see addressed
involves the massing of the proposed building along Monarch St. Council’s concern is that the
building has too much mass on this facade which detracts from a comfortable pedestrian
environment.
Council has requested the applicant look at breaking up the massing, particularly along the center
module, to minimize the size of the building along the Monarch St. façade, and to create a more
pedestrian-scaled structure.
Figure C – Monarch St. façade of proposed building.
P23
VI.B.
230 E. Hopkins Ave
Remand Hearing
Page 4 of 5
RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed Council’s requests and recommends the following.
1) Asymmetrical Roof Forms. Staff is recommending no changes to this feature. Altering
the proposed asymmetrical roof form at the building’s southeastern corner will result in an
increase to the non-conforming height of the building.
The northeastern corner mirrors the asymmetrical form and measures 27’ 3 ½”, which is
under the 28’ height limitation of the zone district. The roof form in this location could be
designed symmetrically; however, Staff feels the building’s design benefits from the
mirrored roof forms at both ends of the building.
2) Massing along Monarch Street façade. Staff previously supported the massing of the
design. However, in response to Council’s concerns Staff has explored ways to reduce the
appearance of mass on this façade of the building. These include:
Set back the top portion of the building’s middle module, such as that found with the
existing building. A second story setback area may provide ideal space for a upper
level patio, which would enhance the access to outdoor space.
Revisit the height of the ground floor versus the upper
floor. At the center module the building measures 27’
8 ½” to the top of the flat roof. The proposed stories
are divided visually from the exterior through a
change in materials and color. The first floor
measures approximately 11’ 10 ½”, while the second
story measures roughly 16’7”. Appearance of
massing may be reduced by changing the location of
the material/color break between floors, such that the
first floor level appears larger than the
second floor level.
Figure D – Images of current building with upper floor setback.
Figure E – Dashed line indicates
division of building levels.
P24
VI.B.
230 E. Hopkins Ave
Remand Hearing
Page 5 of 5
Council has suggested possibly adding a door midway through the building’s middle
module to enhance pedestrian connectivity. This is part of fenestration, which is a Final
Commercial Design Review issue.
During Final review, the massing may be further reduced by exploring different sized
windows on this façade, and enhancing the landscaping leading to the existing entryways.
DECISION: The Planning and Zoning Commission may
Uphold Resolution No. 20, Series of 2016 as written;
Request changes to the project; or
Request additional information.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. P&Z Resolution No 5 (Series of 2016)
B. P&Z Meeting Minutes
C. City Council Meeting Minutes from call up process
D. Application drawings
P25
VI.B.
P26
VI.B.
P27
VI.B.
P28
VI.B.
P29
VI.B.
P30
VI.B.
P31
VI.B.
P32
VI.B.
P33
VI.B.
P34
VI.B.
P35
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.
P36
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
P37
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
P38
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
P39
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
P40
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
P41
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
P42
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.
P43
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
P44
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
P45
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 21, 2016
1
Mr. Spencer McKnight was elected to serve as chair for the meeting since Mr. Goode and Mr. Mesirow
were not present. Mr. McKnight, Acting Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting
to order at 4:30 PM with members Ryan Walterscheid, Jason Elliott, Mr. Brian McNellis, Ms. Jasmine
Tygre and Mr. Spencer McKnight.
Mr. Skippy Mesirow, Ms. Kelly McNicholas Kury, Mr. Jesse Morris and Mr. Keith Goode were not present
for the meeting.
Also present from City staff; Ms. Debbie Quinn, Ms. Linda Manning, Ms. Jennifer Phelan, Ms. Sara
Nadolny and Ms. Hillary Seminick.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
There were no comments.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Ms. Phelan provide the following information:
The parking consultants are in town and they are doing a couple of meetings on June 22nd. She
wanted to remind everyone they are interested in meeting board members from 1-2:30 pm and
a general meeting from 3-4 pm.
A new website called www.aspencommunityvoice.com was launched the previous week with
information and feedback related to the moratorium. She will provide an email and link to the
board members.
More is coming the week of July 18th regarding the commercial design in relation to the
moratorium.
The City Council would like to meet with each of the boards. Ms. Phelan or Ms. Manning will be
sending out additional information.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
MINUTES
June 7, 2016 Minutes – Ms. Tygre moved to approve the minutes and was seconded by Mr.
Walterscheid. All in favor, motion passed.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. McKnight wanted to declare he does not have any conflict of interest for the hearing regarding 230
E Hopkins Ave. One of the tenants in the building works at his business, Aspen 82.
Mr. McKnight also wanted to note Mr. Hunt has purchased video work from his business, Aspen 82, in
the past but he does not see any conflict of interest.
Ms. Quinn stated Mr. McKnight had met with her to discuss these two items and he indicated he can be
fair and impartial at both hearings.
P46
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 21, 2016
2
PUBLIC HEARINGS
230 E Hopkins Ave – Mountain Forge Building – Conceptual Commercial
Design, Off-Street Parking and Growth Management Quota System
Reviews – Continued from June 7, 2016
Mr. McKnight opened the continued hearing and turned the floor over to Staff.
Ms. Sara Nadolny, Planner Tech, introduced the following individuals on the applicant team and stated
this is a continued hearing. The applicant is seeking approvals related to conceptual commercial design
review and various growth management reviews.
Mr. Stan Clauson, Stan Clauson & Associates
Ms. Dana Ellis, Roland and Broughton
She noted the building is located on the corner of S Monarch St and E Hopkins Ave. The proposed
remodel includes changes to many of the building’s roof forms, increases the onsite and offsite public
amenity space, decreases parking, decreases the commercial net leasable floor area, adds two free
market residential units on the second floor, and removes the onsite two-bedroom affordable housing
unit.
She then provided renderings from Hopkins Ave and down on Monarch St.
She noted at the June 7th hearing, the commission unanimously voted to continue the hearing directing
the applicant to restudy the design in order to maintain the affordable housing unit onsite. The applicant
has responded with a new proposal maintaining the unit onsite and alters some aspects of the earlier
request in regards to the design and growth management.
In regards to growth management, she wanted to talk about the onsite affordable housing unit. The
current unit has two bedrooms and is located on the second floor of the building and houses 2.25 full
time equivalents (FTEs). They are proposing a two-bedroom unit to be maintained as a rental unit
onsite. The unit will be located along Monarch St and will be split between the ground and basement
floors. It will measure 360 sf of net livable floor area per level meeting the requirement that 50% of the
floor level be at or above grade. The total unit size is 720 sf. She noted is part of Exhibit E1 to the memo
today. The growth management requirement for 2.25 FTEs should be a 2 bedroom, 900 sf net livable
area unit. The Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) considers up to a 20% reduction in floor
area if the project demonstrates it is an exceptional unit and meets at least some of the following
criteria:
1) Significant storage space located outside the unit
2) Above average natural light into the unit
3) Efficient and flexible layout with limited hall and staircase space
4) Available onsite amenities such as a pool, play area or hot tub
5) Location of unit above ground instead of ground or basement level
6) Reduction in floor area allow higher density onsite of deed restricted units
Staff is pleased to see the applicant is maintaining the two-bedroom unit onsite. However, they did not
find the unit to meet any of the criteria to allow for a reduction in floor area. Staff is recommending the
applicant meet the required size for the 2.25 FTEs, which is 900 sf; or provide an exceptional unit
meeting some of the exemption criteria previously mentioned.
The other part of the growth management application deals with the residential development. Two
second story free market units were previously proposed measuring 1,845 sf with 500 sf net livable floor
P47
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 21, 2016
3
area. The latest application maintains the larger free market unit of 1,845 sf, but reduces the other unit
to 414 sf. The new proposal alters the previous mitigation rate and the FTEs generated from 1.76 FTEs to
1.69 FTEs. The applicant is continuing to propose utilizing certificates of affordable housing credits to
mitigate for the FTEs. The APCHA board will accept the certificates of housing credits or an offsite unit
within the City boundaries that would be deed restricted and approved by APCHA. Staff supports either
of the mitigation options.
The applicant is also continuing to request two growth management allotments for free market housing
for the construction of the two free market units. Ms. Nadolny reiterated this would need to be
acknowledged in the resolution.
In regards to the changes to the commercial design review in this application, there are some changes to
the building’s exterior on Monarch St. She provided a rendering of the changes and noted the previous
design completely filled in the large window well along Monarch St making it public amenity space. The
most recent proposal includes two bedrooms along Monarch St below grade and they will provide the
minimum sized window well for each of the sub grade bedrooms. Staff feels it has little impact on the
mass, scale and height of the building so they are supportive of the change as a mandatory egress
option.
Ms. Nadolny then referred to the public amenity areas identified on p 39 of the packet. She noted the
applicant is required to provide at least 10% of the total lot area as public amenity onsite. The guidelines
define public amenity as an area open to the sky, accessible, abuts a public walkway, along a street
edge, meaningful and enhances the property in some way. The applicant previously proposed 7.6%
onsite as a landscaped area between the building and sidewalk along Monarch St and another offsite,
directly adjacent 8.5 % space between Hopkins Ave and the sidewalk for a combined total of 16 % of the
total lot area. At the previous meeting, she noted P&Z did not see this as a big issue. Ms. McNicholas
Kury did request more onsite at the meeting. The current proposal accommodates the window well
along Monarch St. Additional public amenity space along Monarch St and the alleyway for a total onsite
of 680 sf or 11.3% of the site as well as maintaining the offsite space of 510 sf or 8.5 % of the site. The
current proposal includes a total of 1,190 sf or 19.8% which far exceeds the required amount. Staff does
not feel all areas should count as public amenity, particularly the areas along the alley as well as in front
of the garage space and trash areas. Staff feels the applicant should work on providing more meaningful
space as defined by the commercial guidelines.
Ms. Nadolny then discussed the parking for the project. She noted with the addition of the affordable
housing unit, one more space is required. The applicant is also proposing to increase the commercial net
floor area on the site from 3,6741 sf to 4,321 sf. This amount is still under what is currently onsite, but
more than what was previously proposed which triggered a recalculation of the mitigation. One parking
space is required for every 1,000 sf of commercial net leasable space and every residential unit requires
one space. The new required mitigation calculated for the parking is 7.32 parking spaces. The applicant
is still maintaining two onsite for the free market units leaving 5.32 remaining. Staff is acceptable of the
proposed payment-in-lieu for the remaining mitigation.
Ms. Nadolny stated they expect some changes to the existing trash and recycling area. With the last
application, there were no requirements to increase this area per the environmental health code. With
the addition of the affordable housing unit onsite, this will need to be re-examined. Environmental
Health staff was not available to review this in time for the hearing and feels this can be part of the final
review.
P48
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 21, 2016
4
Ms. Nadolny then summarized the issues. She noted she only touched on the issues tonight that were
impacted by the affordable housing. She reviewed the proposed height as part of the commercial design
review, changing roof forms, and growth management allotments.
Mr. McKnight then asked if there were any questions from the commissioners.
Mr. Walterscheid asked in regards to the public amenity area within the right-of-way (ROW), what
differentiates the side to the south from the side to the east and why not ask for all of it. Ms. Nadolny
stated the application has been looked at by both the parks and engineering departments and no one
has an issue with adjacent public amenity space. Staff would need concrete evidence of what they plan
to install in the area in regards to a sculpture and landscaping. It is in the public right-of-way, so it
cannot be just given away.
Mr. McNellis asked Staff to confirm they are still exceeding the public amenity requirements. Ms.
Nadolny stated they exceeded with the last application. Staff reviews the proposals to determine if a
deficit in public amenity space and if they are able to maintain the deficit in the future.
Mr. Walterscheid asked why they can’t count all of the area in the public ROW. Ms. Phelan stated the
improvement needs to be more than grass and trees. The intent includes benches or a sitting area such
as the Aspen Art Museum.
Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to the applicant.
Mr. Stan Clauson introduced the applicant’s team and noted there were two key issues identified at the
previous meeting.
1. An affordable housing unit should be provided onsite.
He stated it was challenging to insert an affordable housing unit into the structures and still
make it a viable project. He then reviewed the project:
Existing development:
2,333 sf of free market residential
792 sf of affordable housing net livable area
2-bedroom unit housing 2.25 FTEs – Code states replacement should be based on FTEs
5,600 sf of commercial net leasable area
Proposed development:
2,249 sf of free market residential
Second unit reduced from 500 sf to 414 sf to accommodate the
750 sf 2-bedroom onsite affordable housing unit fully meeting the FTE requirement and
approved by APCHA (memo in packet). He stated a two-bedroom unit can be required
to be as large as 900 sf. A 20% reduction is allowed for a well-designed, amenity laden
unit.
The commercial net leasable was reduced to accommodate the affordable housing.
Previously it was 5,376 sf and has been reduced by almost 1,000 sf.
The overall floor area is 6,202 sf and he pointed out the allowable floor area ratio is 2:1
or 12,000 sf permitted. The floor area proposed is almost half what is allowable.
He then provided a southeast elevation and north elevation of the existing conditions. They have
received comments from the neighbors stating the proposal is a vast improvement. He pointed out two
P49
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 21, 2016
5
bollards at the rear of the building and noted these parking spaces are not legal because they do not
extend 18 ft.
He then displayed and discussed the original project objectives and noted they are adding an onsite
affordable housing unit. He then reviewed the objectives.
Incorporate roofing forms from neighboring structures
Reorganize and improve the commercial space
Maintain the unique site features
Enhance the pedestrian experience
Meet the height limit
Reduce the existing nonconformities
Provide two new free market residential units
Maintain the parking deficit
Provide onsite affordable housing unit
He then displayed the revised site plan with the replacement affordable housing unit provided onsite
with the entry off Monarch St. He stated the site is constrained by existing development. It is right up
against the property lines in certain areas to the west. The existing footprint remains and the addition
would be on the alley side. The Mountain Forge building has historic quality and will be maintained and
enhanced including a sculptural element relating the Francis Whitaker’s work and a bench along with
some paving and trees.
He then responded to the question why the public ROW would be considered public amenity. In some
respect, it could all be looked at as public amenity. In fact, they have not counted the area as public
amenity. He stated there will be new trees and lawn area. The sidewalk does not currently align
properly. The new sidewalk will be realigned.
He noted the public amenity can also be counted where they are filling in the existing light well, some
areas in front, and some area on the other side of the affordable housing unit.
The area way off Hopkins is substantial and was part of the sunken areas built in the 1970s. He noted
other locations in town with similar sunken areas. They are looking to maintain the front area and it will
be modified somewhat to meet dimensional requirements. The one along Monarch St will be filled and
added to the amenity space.
Ms. Ellis then discussed the architectural changes. She noted they heard from the commissioners at the
previous hearing and looked into balancing the site constraints to meet the 40% demo rate rule. It is
important to maintain some of the nonconformities in order to keep the Mountain Forge building which
projects into the setbacks. The looked in to using the added piece on the alley to include an affordable
housing unit.
She displayed what had been proposed earlier and discussed the original entry to the building now
specified as the entry to the affordable housing unit. They wanted the affordable housing unit to have a
direct street access.
They were able to meet the requirements with reduce square footage in order to have a 50/50
breakdown of the unit between ground level and subgrade level.
She then displayed a floor plan. She noted the net livable area is not counted on the upper level where
the stair is located. She mentions this because the upper level is quite large sized approximately 16 ft
wide x 29 ft deep. The stairs reduce the sf amount. The ground floor would be a great room with a
P50
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 21, 2016
6
kitchen and living/dining area. She noted there is a dedicated front door, which they think is
exceptional. She noted they plan to add glazing around the stairway to allow light to come down to the
subgrade level. She stated Staff had directed them to maintain the minimum size window wells as to not
increase the nonconformity. She stated there is a full bath and two bedrooms located downstairs.
Ms. Ellis stated they struggled with the sf breakdown and worked with Staff to identify the best option.
In terms of criteria, they would like to propose storage downstairs, but it adds to the net livable and
busts the 50/50 rule. They feel storage is a good exception and she then pointed out possible locations
for storage to be located along the corridor adding approximately 100 sf to the subgrade space. It was
not a part of the application because it would tip the 50/50 scale with more sf in the basement.
She added they focused on adding as much light as possible to the first floor as possible. The applicant
feels strongly about creating an amenity onsite for possibly for one of the commercial tenants.
She noted they also feel this is exceptional in that the unit will be a new space entering the rental
market. APCHA was pleased with this option. The applicant feels it created a crunch on the FAR
numbers, causing a reduction in commercial as well as the free market.
Ms. Ellis stated the availability of the site amenities include an adjacent park, location within the
commercial core, direct access to a shuttle route. They feel this definitely meets the criteria.
Ms. Ellis stated they also feel the location of the unit within the development is exceptional. The
location and access provides a sense of identity. The current unit shares access with a commercial
tenant, which is not ideal.
Ms. Ellis stated it does meet the criteria for a reduction to the net livable space.
Mr. Clauson noted it is 360 sf on the main level and 360 sf subgrade. While it is 360 sf as net livable is
calculated, it really is over 400 sf of area in the first floor unit. He added APCHA found the criterial for
net reduction to be all met. The criteria pointed out by Staff were possible items, not additive.
He noted with respect to storage, they would be happy to accept a conditional approval allowing for the
additional storage.
In regards to public amenity, he stated Staff has calculated 18.2% onsite. They initially felt there was no
public amenity that was useful or interesting to the public. They accept the 18.2% which meets the 10%
requirement. As previously indicated, this is met by the improved sidewalks and crosswalks, and an art
sculptural piece. In general, the parkway along Hopkins would be significantly improved and could
include seating with a view of the park. The new public amenity space consists of 900 sf or 15% of the
site which is within the 10% requirement. They excluded areas in the back as requested by Staff.
He then pointed out when they added the affordable housing and the light well, it reduced the public
amenity space a bit. The light well meets the minimum requirement, but P&Z may determine to expand
it and they are not opposed to it. He added this could also be a condition of approval. Currently it meets
the building code.
Mr. Clauson then discussed parking. He noted the existing development requires six spaces including
five for commercial and one for the existing affordable housing unit. Four spaces are compliant leaving
an existing two space deficit. The four spaces are along the back of the building the two spaces with the
bollards are nonconforming. There was a similar situation with Molly Gibson Lodge where there was
parking behind the Lodge on Gibson that were deemed to be noncompliant because of the size, so none
were counted as existing. The proposed parking would require 4.3 spaces for the commercial and three
P51
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 21, 2016
7
spaces for the residential units totaling 7.3 spaces. Two spaces are provided for in the garage, two
spaces by maintained deficit and 3.3 spaces met through payment-in-lieu. He added this will be
calculated at the time of the permit by the zoning officer.
Mr. Clauson stated the trash/recycle, utilities and delivery services are provided off the alley. The
applicant will work with the Environmental Health Department to ensure adequate trash/recycle is
provided. The believe they will need the addition of one small dumpster unit.
Mr. Clauson then discussed the affordable housing mitigation. The commercial net leasable is
decreasing, so not additional mitigation is required. The free market net livable represents a mitigation
met through affordable housing credits for 1.69 FTEs. The existing two-bedroom unit at 2.25 FTEs is
being replaced onsite.
Mr. Clauson then reviewed the project benefits:
Sustain development utilizing the existing structure
Maintains unique aspect of Aspen history
Improves pedestrian experience
Affordable housing replacement onsite
Architecture is more compatible with neighborhood
He stated it is very difficult to keep continuing these hearings for the project and hopes P&Z recognizes
the work they have done to maintain the affordable housing unit onsite and allows the project to move
forward to final design with any conditions of approval they may want to attach.
Mr. McKnight then asked the commissioners if they had any questions.
Mr. McNellis stated he looked at APCHA’s referral and asked if they met APCHA’s option A. Ms. Nadolny
stated there were two options were presented to APCHA and they were supposed to review the option
identified as Option A. After the first hearing, another option was discussed with Staff which had more
than 50% below grade. Staff appreciated the larger unit size but were concerned the code would not be
met with this option. This option was scrapped in favor of option A in APCHA’s referral. Only option A is
in the packet. She spoke with Ms. Cindy Christensen of APCHA who stated the storage area was offered
on the fly to the housing board. The storage included in option A was never offered or reviewed by Staff.
APCHA’s recommendation includes the storage that has never been reviewed by Staff. Staff would like
the opportunity to look at it closer and discuss if it meets the criteria. She also noted Staff has not had
the opportunity to review the enhanced glazing included in the presentation which might provide
additional light into the affordable housing unit. What they have been able to review does not live up
the criteria as discussed earlier. Mr. McNellis stated the APCHA memo is dated June 15, 2016. Ms.
Nadolny responded the memo date is prior to due date for the packet. Ms. Phelan reiterated Staff has
not seen these changes that have been proposed on the fly. She added APCHA has their standards and
the City has its standards and Staff has not had the time with one product. Mr. Clauson responded the
option meets the AOCHA requirements and was endorsed by APCHA. APCHA noted the applicant had
offered additional storage but it was not a condition of the approval. Mr. Clauson stated they’ve shown
P&Z where the storage could go and it is not a complicated matter. It doesn’t require too much board
review to see that approximately 100 sf of additional storage could be provided. Mr. Clauson displayed a
floor plan showing where the storage would be located. Ms. Ellis noted the plan shows 200 sf of possible
storage and they are offering one or another of 100 sf. She noted the have the most opportunity to
configure the storage in the basement space and believe it would be beneficial to the unit. They
presented a version to Staff that met the code, but APCHA is dealing more with how tenants live and not
numbers.
P52
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 21, 2016
8
Mr. Walterscheid asked Staff in addition to the 50/50, are they not also required to provide 30% of any
above grade free market as above grade affordable housing. Ms. Phelan responded there are two
mitigation requirements. One for the free market component, which requires a certain percentage to be
above grade. They are proposing credits for that component. The requirement onsite is with regard to
the demolition of the affordable housing which requires the 50/50.
Mr. Walterscheid asked why the exterior wall on the main level does not stack with the foundation. It
appears to be a two-foot setback. He was curious as to why they don’t take advantage of the sf space.
Ms. Ellis stated the primary façade is along the alley. She noted the alley is where the delivery trucks
park. The largest piece of feedback they received was regarding the sensitivity to the alley and it is a
terrible spot for a residential unit. The space is not considered public amenity space because the
building extends over it. They also felt the relief from delivery trucks was important. Architecturally,
they like the corner glazing because it relates to other corner. They are sensitive that this is an alley and
not a park. In similar projects where a building was placed close to the alley, the building gets damaged.
Ms. Tygre asked for the dimensions of 2 bedrooms. Ms. Ellis responded one is 8 ft 2 in by 10 ft 9 in
including the closet area. The second is 10 ft 4 in by 9 ft 9 in.
Mr. McKnight asked Staff to clarify their concerns with storage in that they had no opportunity for
review. Ms. Phelan stated they were told the applicant was not attending the hearing, but they did. Staff
could have attended to provide clarification of the land use code if they had known. She feels there has
been a lot of discussion without clarity regarding land use rules and regulations. Mr. Clauson added that
APCHA is quite aware of the rules and regulations. Ms. Nadolny stated Staff has concerns regarding the
livability of the unit. She feels it is important to understand how light gets to the subgrade level and Staff
would like the opportunity to review the proposed unit to see if it meets the criteria. Staff would prefer
and encourage see more of the unit at grade, not that they are balking on the 50/50 ratio.
Mr. McNellis asked Staff if they disagree with the numbers APCHA came up with. Ms. Phelan stated they
are responsible for ensuring applications mitigation requirements are correct and in this case, APCHA
should only be reviewing it if they should grant the 20% reduction.
Mr. Elliott asked Mr. Clauson if they felt APCHA had stated they had met the criteria for the 20%
reduction. Mr. Clauson replied yes. Ms. Nadolny stated they have not been able to verify this because
the minutes of the meeting are not yet available.
Mr. McKnight then opened for public comment.
There was none, so Mr. McKnight then closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Mr. McKnight then opened for commissioner discussion.
Ms. Tygre stated at the previous meeting there was a lot of discussion about the difference in the
criteria applied by P&Z and the criteria applied by APCHA. The previous memo and application did not
have any affordable housing onsite which APCHA stated was okay. P&Z unanimously stated it was not
okay. Very often, there is disagreement between P&Z and APCHA just as P&Z and the Historical
Preservation Commission (HPC) may at times because each board works off different criteria. When
Staff discusses their responsibilities under the code, they are looking at it from a different perspective
and it is important to consider. Mr. McKnight stated it concerns him as well and it seems there has been
a breakdown in communication regarding meetings when Staff could have attended to address land use
P53
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 21, 2016
9
code items. Ms. Tygre believes Staff is stating they have not had an opportunity to perform the
necessary evaluation.
Mr. McNellis stated for him it really comes down to the affordable housing unit. From what he has heard
from the applicant, he was initially dismayed by the lower sf of the unit, but the applicant has made up
for it somewhat by offering the storage space. If this throws off the 50/50, he feels it is semantics. He
feels better with the offering of storage and believes it belongs subgrade in many cases. He also liked
that APCHA is recommending it as well. He feels there may be some things that still could be done to
expand the livability of the unit including expanding the light well to provide more natural light. He
realizes this comes at a cost of the pedestrian space. He would be in favor of expanding the light well
and possibly more pedestrian amenities along the streetscape along Monarch St.
Mr. Walterscheid is happy the applicant brought back the onsite affordable housing unit. He stated if
100 sf below grade is available, he would like to see it used in the bedroom than a storage unit. An 8 ft
by 10 ft bedroom is minimal at best. He sympathizes with Staff regarding their request to review the
plan. If space is being carved out, what keeps the applicant from carving it out above grade or below
grade. He feels they should try to at least make the unit as livable as possible. On the alley side of the
affordable housing unit, he feels the occupant would have the shades drawn most of the time so they
are not looking at the cars. He feels there are other opportunities that could have been worked through
to get there. He understands the application is way under the FAR, but he questions the livability. He
does feel they have to some extent accommodated the feedback from the P&Z from the previous
hearing. Mr. McNellis wanted to add, he thinks more livable space would be better.
Mr. Elliott asked Staff if APCHA reviews and approves it or does P&Z have its own criteria. Ms. Phelan
stated P&Z approves the housing unit and APCHA makes a recommendation to P&Z only. Mr. Elliott
doesn’t feel the park across the street is within the context of an amenity. He is not over the hump that
the 20% has been met. Mr. Clauson stated it is one of the criteria and quoted the code. Mr. Elliott
thanked Mr. Clauson.
Ms. Tygre knows the applicant would like to move the proposal forward, but the issues concerning the
affordable housing unit to a point P&Z can make recommendation, even with conditions.
Ms. Tygre motioned to continue the hearing.
Mr. McKnight likes the affordable housing back onsite as well as the street level entrance. He is hesitant
to approve it at this point even with conditions, because staff has not had time to vet it thoroughly. He is
a bit concerned the idea of the storage space was floated right when packet was due. He agrees with
Ms. Tygre.
Mr. Elliott also wanted to commend the applicant on the street level entrance. Ms. Tygre and Mr.
McNellis agreed.
Ms. Ellis requested clarification. She feels she is hearing something different than what Staff has been
advising. Is P&Z open to additional sf in the basement level to enhance the area, even if it breaks the
50/50.
Mr. Walterscheid stated if there is an opportunity to add sf to the affordable housing unit, he would like
to see it added to the livability of the unit. He noted Staff, P&Z, and an applicant don’t always agree. He
feels it is a decision the applicant must make. Personally, he would rather see larger bedrooms than
additional storage. He thinks storage could be accommodated elsewhere.
P54
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 21, 2016
10
Mr. McKnight agrees with Mr. Walterscheid. He is also thinking about the other 2 ft mentioned and is
confused about their reasoning for not extending out. He feels this is the easiest space they have rights
to use. If at capacity, he would prefer to see it added to livability and not storage. But he wants it in
application and wants Staff to have the time to evaluate it.
Mr. Clauson noted the applicant had presented a layout of a larger affordable housing unit, but not a 50
50 split. He stated P&Z has the ability to approve it if they feel it is a livable unit. If P&Z would provide
direction, they would be amenable to larger bedrooms and allowing more space subgrade. He asked
P&Z to also state they are willing to see larger egress carved out for existing light well.
Ms. Phelan stated the size of the light well would have to be checked for height requirements of the
code. The 50/50 requirement could be through special review and would need to be noticed. Ms.
Nadolny added the light well would be a re-notice as well.
Mr. McNellis seconded motion.
Ms. Phelan stated they could continue until July 19th.
Mr. Elliot stated he would be willing to look at an amendment to the mend 50/50, but not an 80/20
split.
Ms. Tygre amended her motion to include the date of July 19th and it was seconded by Mr. McNellis.
Mr. McKnight requested a roll call. Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Elliott,
yes, Mr. McKnight, yes for a total of five Yes, zero No (5-0). Motion passed.
Mr. McKnight then closed the hearing.
730 E Cooper Ave – Base – Planned Development – Detailed Review and
Final Commercial Design Review
Mr. McKnight opened the hearing. He reviewed his declaration of conflict of interest as previously
stated in the meeting.
He then asked if notice had been properly provided. Ms. Debbie Quinn reviewed both and it appears
notice was properly provided.
Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to Staff.
Ms. Hillary Seminick, Planner, noted the address of the application and introduced the application team.
Mr. Mark Hunt, Project Developer
Mr. Spiro Tsaparas, Modif Architects
Ms. Heather Henry, Connect One Design
She stated the application is for a detailed review and final commercial design review. The detailed
review is the third step in the plan development process. P&Z first saw this as a project review and
noted there have been quite a few changes since then. P&Z is the final review authority for both reviews
at this hearing. City Council may decide to call up the final commercial design approval.
She noted a correction in Table 1 on p 46 of the memo. For the Number of Lodge
Units/Bedrooms(keys)/Pillows located in the last row, third column; it should state there are 38 units/38
bedrooms/76 pillows. There was a reduction of two units and four pillows.
P55
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 21, 2016
11
She noted Ordinance 2, Series 2015 approved the Base Lodge in February, 2015 which included 44 lodge
bedrooms, accessory lodge use in the basement, commercial net leasable space on the ground floor and
a roof top deck. It also included a number of variations including one for the underlying zone
Commercial Lodge district with regards to height, off-street parking, employee generation as it pertains
to affordable housing. Staff had determined the approvals were void due to a submission deadline
missed in earlier 2016. The applicant as a condition of reinstatement of the approvals had agreed to
remove any variations granted in the original ordinance. Ordinance 6, Series 2016 was approved in
March, 2016. This amended the original Ordinance and was included in the agenda packet. Generally,
there were bathrooms proposed on the roof top deck which have been relocated to the third floor. Two
rooms have been removed to accommodate the bathrooms. Additionally, parking is now being provided
in a subgrade garage resulting in a change in the commercial net leasable space.
The applicant is seeking minor amendments to the dimensional approvals of the lodge. The changes are
allowed if they do not change the requirements of the underlying zone district. The changes include:
a. Modest increase of the average lodge unit size from 200 sf to 201 sf
b. Reduction of 112 sf from the public amenity space due to design refinements and site planning
including the bulb out at the corner of Cooper Ave and Original St. This reduction was per
engineering requirements. This reduced the available public amenity in the public right-of-way
ROW).
c. A subgrade garage was added and will provide 23 parking spaces.
d. One additional handicap parking space, providing one more space than required.
e. A loss of 118 sf of commercial net leasable area due to the addition of the garage.
f. Reduction of two lodge bedrooms or four lodge pillows to accommodate the placement of
bathrooms on third floor.
Generally, the design consistent with the project review approvals granted by Council. Staff finds the
design appropriate and reflective of Aspen’s mining history. The design palette includes aged wood,
steel, glass, wooden slats, steel and concrete. The use of timber, steel and green walls will break up the
overall façade of the structure. The wood columns are anchored by concrete bases. Wooden slat details
have been incorporated into the window design on the second and third floors to help reduce glazing
impacts and defuse light pollution. The slats also help de-emphasize the second and third levels focusing
the eye on the first floor. Green walls and roof technology have been incorporated in the proposed
design in addition to vegetation at base to soften the relationship of the building to the sidewalk. There
are operable windows and a walk up, take out window on the Cooper St façade. The most notable
difference from the original design is the exclusion of an entrance along Cooper Ave. The applicant
explored an entrance on this façade and found the only option would eliminate the operable and take-
out windows. These elements would allow the dining areas to spill out to the exterior and finds these
elements would better activate the area than an entry and display windows.
Staff recommends approving the project as proposed.
Mr. McKnight then asked if there were any questions from the commissioners.
There were none.
Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to the applicant.
Mr. Mark Hunt provided an overview of how the project started.
Mr. Hunt discussed how the project started and provided pictures that provided inspiration. He finds
this to be an interesting location because it is one of the entries into the city. A mine outside Leadville
provided the initial inspiration for the architecture. The lodge was designed for travelling sports teams
and other events held throughout the year. The design basis was to have small rooms with communal
P56
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 21, 2016
12
areas along with areas for eating and drinking. The roof deck and bowling lane also provide places to
gather.
Mr. Hunt noted the rooms are small, but well appointed. They are also looking to do things to invite the
locals in. One may be repositioning Sammy the barber in part of the retail area. There is also a walk-up
window, court yard and roof top deck.
He then provided an image of the Smuggler Mine provided by the Historical Society. He then provided a
rendering of the proposed building showing the play on the mining structure.
Mr. Hunt then discussed the location of the building. he noted the significant curb cuts on both Original
and Cooper. They are looking to clean up this.
He then provided the differing neighboring residential and commercial designs.
He showed the floor plans from the 2015 approval as well as the 2016 approved floor plans including
the garage. He showed each floor and discussed the changes from the 2015 approval. The bathrooms
and mechanical space have been moved from the roof to the third floor. He feels this was a lost
opportunity. The building size has not changed an inch. The whole point was to provide as many rooms
as possible. The code requires a public restroom to be available one floor above or below the public
amenity space on the roof top deck.
He then showed renderings and described the changes from the 2015 approval and to the 2016
approval. He noted City Council asked them to look into dropping the parapet, so they moved it back
and put up a glass parapet.
Mr. Hunt then showed the existing site plan and described the approved public amenity space.
Street level
o Build up the parkway with plantings and trees
o Adding in a bulb out to improve the pedestrian experience when crossing the street
o Increasing the parkway on Cooper Ave
o Adding a permanent We-Cycle station and may have snow bikes available in the
winter
Roof top deck
He noted the project has five times what is required.
They plan to add vegetation to the side of the building to soften the architecture and provided
examples.
He stated the tree on the edge of the property located directly in the middle of the sidewalk does not
allow for ADA accessibility. They plan to expand the sidewalk to go around the tree.
Mr. Tsaparas then covered the materials to be used. He provided background of the design process for
the building. The end result was a timber construction building with glass and some playful accents from
the mining era.
He also discussed methods they are considering to make the small rooms feel larger including mirrors
and windows. They feel the interior of the rooms will be sufficient
They plan to use Douglas fir for the timber. He provided an example of the rough sawed beams with
stain. He also showed an example of recessed bolts. He stated they are not using architectural grade
P57
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 21, 2016
13
because they are usually filled with epoxies. They want the materials to be organic both inside and out.
He believes using organic materials creates an environment that feels great and one in which people
want to be around.
In regards to glass, there are three different options. The glass is a ¼ inch, double pane glass with one in
air space. They are looking into the films and treatments of the glass as it affects reflectivity. They are
also adding louvers for privacy and provided an example of the color and noted they will be three in
wide.
All the lighting inside the rooms will come from a low perspective to minimize light leaking out. There
will be ambient light in the room, but it will not filter out into the street or impact the dark night.
The doors on the ground level will be bi-fold doors that will create a canopy which interact with the
street where they expect pedestrian traffic.
The piers holding structure will be precast to maintain a look of rust.
In the interior of the rooms will have sealed paneling on the ceiling. The floor above with polished
poured concrete.
He then showed an example of metal siding on west elevation and noted there is no glass.
They are still exploring green wall options. No one will guarantee the plants will survive and there are
only two or three species that will survive the heat from the sun in this environment. They are
investigating how to maintain it. They may look in to artificial greenery.
Mr. Hunt stated they really tried to capture the past and tie it to the present. He feels it comes down to
three things:
1. Materials
2. Glass
3. Landscaping
Mr. McKnight then asked the commissioners if they had any questions.
Mr. McKnight then opened for public comment.
Mr. Jim Farrey feels it will be an unbelievable gateway building.
Mr. McKnight then closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Ms. Phelan stated a standard vesting rights clause for three years should be added as a new section 6.
This is required by the state.
Mr. McKnight then opened for commissioner discussion.
Ms. Tygre feel changes made have improved the project and is pleased they have spent such time and
concern to address the light leakage. She thinks big windows are important for the hotel guests.
Mr. Walterscheid feels the applicant has done a great job.
Mr. McKnight asked if the blinds can go up. Mr. Hunt replied no which is one reason for the larger slats.
Mr. Tsaparas added it also keeps light from spilling out. Mr. McKnight feels it is a great project.
P58
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 21, 2016
14
Ms. Tygre motioned to approve Resolution 4, Series 2016 granting final commercial design review and
planned development detail review for 730 E Cooper Ave, Base Lodge, with the addition of section 6 to
for vested rights as well as renumbering the following sections to 7, 8 and 9. Mr. Elliott seconded.
Mr. McKnight requested a roll call. Mr. Walterscheid, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. McNellis, no; Mr. Elliott,
yes, Mr. McKnight, yes for a total of four Yes, one No (4-1). Motion passed.
Mr. McKnight then closed the hearing.
OTHER BUSINESS
None.
ADJOURN
Mr. McKnight then adjourned the meeting.
Cindy Klob
City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager
P59
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 19 2016
9
b) He feels the biggest issue is determining the zoning. The community sees it as a lodge and to
pretend those requirements don’t exist in this area is misleading. He noted the applicant’s
discussion of the other large projects in town and found it eye opening. He feels code has set
down what the community wants. He does not find it appropriate to find this project not abide
by a Lodge zoning.
c) In regards to history, he feels P&Z has a passion for it and it needs more definition.
d) He feels the commissioners have provided a lot of direction and feels Staff did a great job of
breaking down the project.
e) He thinks asking why the COOP wasn’t approved may be a good place to start with this project.
He believes it would be beneficial to address issues now, before going to Council.
Mr. Walterscheid motioned to continue the hearing to August 16, 2016 and was seconded by Ms.
McNicholas Kury. All in favor, motion passed.
Ms. Quinn asked Mr. DeFrancia for an electronic copy of presentation for tonight that was not part of
the packet. This was entered as exhibit N.
Mr. Goode then closed the hearing.
230 E Hopkins Ave (Mountain Forge Building) – Conceptual Commercial Design,
Off-Street Parking and Growth Management Quota System Reviews
Mr. Goode opened the continued hearing.
Ms. Quinn stated the applicant was required to re-notice the hearing because of a change in the
application. She reviewed the affidavits of notice and found it is appropriate to proceed on all aspects of
the application.
Ms. Sara Nadolny introduced Mr. Stan Clauson, Clauson and Associates and Ms. Dana Ellis, Broughton
and Broughton, as the applicant representatives.
She stated this hearing was a continuation from the June 7th and June 21st public hearings. Two new
topics, a special review and a variance request, are part of the application. The notice for the hearing
will be entered as Exhibit L.
The public hearing covers the conceptual design review, growth management, special review and
dimensional variance.
She then provided a recap of the prior hearings. P&Z previously provided a favorable opinion of the
proposed exterior changes to the building through the commercial design review. This included the roof
forms, a slight decrease of nonconforming height on the south, southeast end, the completion of a gable
to extend a to 32 ft, an addition of the garage along the alley way as well as pedestrian entrances along
Monarch St.
The applicant has continued to propose two free market residential units on the second floor level and
commercial on the basement, ground and second floor levels.
At the June 7th hearing, the direction to the applicant was to maintain the existing two-bedroom
affordable housing unit onsite. P&Z reviewed a version of the unit at the June 21st hearing and provided
direction to make the unit more livable. In particular, increase the floor area while not departing
P60
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 19 2016
10
significantly from the 50% above and 50% below grade requirement, include storage for the unit and
greater access to natural light. The applicant has responded with a plan for the unit. The Aspen | Pitkin
County Housing Authority (APCHA) requires a two-bedroom unit to be a minimum of 900 sf and the
applicant is proposing a 908 sf unit with 40% on the ground level and 60% below grade. The code
requires 50% of the net livable floor area to be located at or above grade so the proposed ratio requires
a special review by P&Z. She then reviewed the criteria for a special review. She stated the unit is
compatible with the residential and commercial uses in the surrounding neighborhood. Staff has not
identified any site specific constraints that would require placing more of the unit below grade. Any
hardship would be self-created in this aspect in regards to the use mix on the site. APCHA has reviewed
the proposed design and they have provided a favorable recommendation for the unit. Both Staff and
APCHA appreciate the increase in the net livable space as well as onsite storage and enhanced natural
light. However, the applicant is not providing a significant increase of storage space from the 10%
required per the code. The amount provided is 91 sf, which is just over the minimum. The unit also lacks
access to any privatized outdoor space, patio or other amenities on the site. Staff does not feel the
application adequately meets the criteria for allowing less than 50% of the floor area to be subgrade and
therefore recommending denial of the special review.
She then discussed the dimensional variance. The applicant is requesting a dimensional variance for the
window well along Monarch St façade. The current window well is nonconforming as it is within the
site’s five ft side yard setback. The applicant is proposing to reduce the size of the window well, but it
will still extend past the side yard setback, decreasing its nonconformity. They also need to deepen the
window well by approximately 11 in to meet the interior level necessary for the required egress from
the subgrade bedrooms per the building code. The deepening of the window well triggers the
dimensional variance review. She then reviewed the criteria. Upon review, Staff has determined the
applicant can avoid the review by reducing the size of the window well to the minimum required for an
egress which is three ft by three ft for an individual well. A lesser size window well will not reduce the
reasonable use of the structure. Staff understands the applicant is proposing the window well size in
response to P&Z’s direction from the previous hearing to allow more natural light into the subgrade
bedrooms and make it more it livable. Staff appreciates the enhance livability aspect provided by the
natural light, but the code does not speak to livability to be considered for a variance. Staff cannot
support the request for a dimensional variance at this time.
The proposed changes to the affordable housing unit does impact other site factors including the
amount of net leasable floor area. This is increasing by about 500 sf but is still less than what is currently
on the site so not mitigation is required. There are also changes to the free market residential units. Ten
sf has been removed from the larger of the two units. The larger unit is changed from 1,845 sf to 1,835
sf. The smaller unit remains at 414 sf. The applicant is responsible for providing 1.69 FTEs for mitigating
the free market units. They are proposing mitigation through the purchase of certificates of affordable
housing credit. This is supported by Staff as well as APCHA.
Staff has asked the applicant to restudy the public amenity maintained onsite. The applicant is required
to provide a minimum of 10% of the net lot area as public amenity and has responded with a plan
similar to what had been previously proposed. They are proposing 9.7% onsite as a landscaped offer
between the building and the sidewalk and wraps slightly around the affordable housing unit along the
alley as well as the paved walkways along both facades. The applicant is also proposing 8.4% public
amenity adjacent to the site along Hopkins Ave between the street and the walkway as improved
landscape possibly incorporating bench seating and public art. Any plans would have to be approved by
the parks and engineering departments prior to the final design. The total public amenity proposed is
1,086 sf or 18.10% and is supported by Staff.
P61
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 19 2016
11
Ms. Nadolny then discussed parking. The increase in commercial floor area triggers a new calculation of
parking requirements. There are three spaces required for the proposed residential units and one for
every 1,000 sf of net livable floor area for a calculated amount of 4.82 spaces. The total number of
spaces is 7.82 or 8 physical parking spaces. The applicant proposes to provide two spaces onsite in the
garage along the alley for a remainder of 5.82. There has been some disagreement between Staff and
the applicant regarding what is currently on site. To date, Staff has not received clear documentation to
ensure the calculations are accurate. Staff is basing their measurements and calculations on a survey
and how the property is currently being used. The applicant and Staff can further discuss this. The
applicant is proposing a fee-in-lieu of payment for the spaces not onsite which is allowed per the code
and acceptable to Staff.
She stated with addition of the residential unit, the environmental health department requires an
increase of trash/recycling provided for onsite. The department has approved a decrease in the size that
would normally be required through their own administrative special review. They are requiring an
increase of 75 sf instead of an additional 125 sf. The applicant has added unenclosed trash area along
the alley meeting the minimal requirements to be used by the affordable housing unit. This requirement
has been met per the environmental health department.
She then summarized the approvals being sought tonight.
1. Commercial Design Review.
2. Growth management including two allotments for two residential units.
3. Certificates of affordable housing for the free market units.
4. Dimensional variance for the window well along Monarch St.
5. Special review to vary the amount of net livable floor area at or above grade for the affordable
housing unit.
Staff is recommending continuation to study the affordable housing unit in order to provide at least 50%
of the unit’s net livable floor area at or above grade. Staff is recommending denial of the request for the
dimensional variance and would prefer the minimum size. Staff is supportive of the topics associated
with the commercial design review and growth management.
Mr. Goode asked for questions of Staff.
Mr. Elliott asked for the proposed percentages of the above and below grade for the affordable housing
unit. Ms. Nadolny replied they were at 366 sf above and 366 sf below with the previous hearing. Now
they are proposing 366 sf above and 542 sf below grade. Mr. McNellis asked if 91 sf was storage. Ms.
Nadolny noted there is storage both above and below grade. It also includes the closets in the
bedrooms.
Ms. Tygre asked if the bedrooms had changed size. Ms. Nadolny responded they have, but she did not
have the exact dimensions. She added they have both increased in size to accommodate a king size bed.
Mr. Goode asked for a visual example of the rear yard setback. Ms. Nadolny stated it was discussed at
the previous hearing and Staff was on board with P&Z. With the increase in trash, some of the area
ended up in the location.
Mr. McNellis asked what they propose for the public amenity along the alley. Ms. Nadolny stated the
last iteration was a landscaped area and it was assumed it remained the same.
Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant.
P62
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 19 2016
12
Mr. Clauson introduced the applicant team. He reviewed the direction they heard from P&Z at the
previous hearing.
Expand the subgrade windows
Expansion of affordable housing unit even if it was subgrade or busted the 50/50 ratio.
Mr. Clauson displayed and provided an overview of the existing development, proposed dev and
proposed floor area including the following:
2,249 sf of free market unchanged
720 sf affordable housing unit was a reduction, but allowed under the code. It has been
increased to 907 sf two bedroom onsite affordable housing unit per direction from P&Z. P&Z
also indicated the expansion would be acceptable in the subgrade area.
Proposed total floor area is 6,240 sf which is slightly more than the prior plan, but considerably
less than what is allowed on the site. He noted it is a constrained site and much of what they
have done is reflective of the constraints.
He then displayed and discussed the project objectives and noted two additions. One is providing a fully
compliant and exceptional onsite affordable housing unit. The other was to meet the environmental
health requirements for trash and recycling which he noted jumped considerably with the addition of
the affordable housing unit.
He then displayed and discussed the modified site plan.
907 sf replacement affordable housing unit
Monarch areaway partially filled for egress window with the request for a larger window to
enhance livability of the unit as indicated by P&Z at the last meeting.
Addition of the trash/recycling areas per environmental health.
He then displayed and Ms. Ellis discussed the revised architecture. She noted the window well is larger,
but proportional to the bedroom sizes. The front façade of the affordable housing unit is the same which
is a private entrance directly off of Monarch St. The windows at the entry are in front of the staircase
going to the subgrade space. The stairs lead to a small seating area that may serve as an office or media
room which will have access to the light from the windows.
Mr. Clauson then displayed and discussed the window well. He noted it is a reduction of the very large
well that currently exists. The dimensional variance request is rather minimal; 3 ft 6 in from the building
and 8 ft wide to cover both windows. The minimal standard window well that would not require a
variance would be 3 ft from the building and 6 ft wide. This would allow for a substantial filling of the
existing window well. They believe it is a reduction in the existing areaway with no significant impacts
except it enhances the livability of the subgrade portions of the unit.
He then discussed the applicable code and displayed the code for review standard for the affordable
housing unit identified as Section26.430.040(I)(3) and discussed the following conditions as a basis for a
variance of the 50/50 requirement. He feels the proposal exceeds these conditions.
Significant Storage – storage is proposed on both the subgrade and main levels
Above average natural light – there is generous glazing on the main floor and a small upsizing of
the subgrade windows.
Net livable size exceeds the minimum requirement – true of this proposal
Unit amenities – direct access to Francis Whitaker Park, transportation facilities and the
activities within the core.
P63
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 19 2016
13
He then displayed and discussed the floor plan of the affordable housing unit. He noted there is 542 sf
subgrade and 366 sf on the main level for about a 60/40 split. This varies from the 720 sf unit which was
approved by APCHA and split 50/50.
Ms. Ellis then displayed and discussed the subgrade portions of affordable housing unit. She noted one
bedroom was 11 ft 2 in X 10 ft 9 in. The second bedroom is 14 ft 6 in X 9 ft 9 in. They both have standard
sized closets, each over 6 ft in length. They were also able to fit in a washer / dryer location. Storage is
available under the stairs with a slight compressed ceiling to access the storage. The bathroom has a
double sink. A storage area was added next to the garage and it was decided it would be best to have
the access from the inside. At the very last minute, they adjusted the size of the storage unit because
the garage was changed slightly to accommodate the increased trash/recycling area required outside.
Ms. Ellis then provided an alley elevation demonstrating where the trash would be located. It will be a
shielded area because it is open to truck traffic. They have not determined if it will be closed off or if
glazing will be used. They had hoped to put it an enclosure but it not allowed per code because it is
within setback.
She then displayed a Monarch St elevation to demonstrate the glazing of affordable housing unit.
Mr. Clauson noted there is 8.2% onsite, 10% required and between the on and off sites, they are
proposing 18% along with special features including a monument to Francis Whitaker and a bench. The
sidewalk will be straightened, improvement to the crossings and filling a substantial portion of the
window well on Monarch St.
In regards to trash/recycling, he then noted that by adding one unit the requirement bumped from 75 sf
to 200 sf. Environmental health supports 75% of the requirement and they are providing 157 sf.
He then displayed and discussed parking. He stated they had provided Staff a stamped survey showing
the bollards protecting the egress stairway and making two of the spaces not compliant. He stated this is
a similar situation to the Molly Gibson where Staff accepted a noncompliant space. They believe there is
a two space deficit. They agree with Staff’s assignment of parking spaces of 7.8 or 8 spaces. They
propose two will be provided in the garage, two to be maintained by deficit and cash-in-lieu for four
spaces. Or as needed as it might be resolved.
He then discussed the affordable housing mitigation. They are proposing 2.25 onsite with a two-
bedroom unit and 1.69 through credits.
He provided an elevation from the corner of the project and asked if there were any questions.
Mr. Goode asked for any questions of the applicant.
Ms. McNicholas asked if the affordable housing unit was a for purchase or rental unit. Both Mr. Clauson
and Ms. Phelan stated it was a rental.
Mr. Goode then opened for public comment.
Ms. Ruth Carver lives on S Aspen St. She asked if he parking spaces located on the alley are closer to the
other house or the sidewalk. Ms. Phelan stated there are two spaces on the western side. Mr. Clauson
pointed out the two garage parking spaces on a site plan. Ms. Phelan stated they are paying a fee-in-lieu
for the other spaces as allowable per code. Ms. Carver asked if there was room for the dumpsters to be
moved in and out. Ms. Ellis stated five feet of clearance is required for the dumpsters. They are
P64
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 19 2016
14
providing an additional three feet for circulation and it will remain open. Ms. Carver is concerned
because a lot of trucks and cars park there for Grape and Grain.
Mr. Rick Head, APCHA board member, believes the board unanimously approved the first iteration and
feel it was a better unit. They are very much in favor of the project.
Ms. Carver feels it will be nice to have someone living there in an affordable housing unit.
Mr. Goode then closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Mr. McNellis stated he has no problem with the project and would like to approve it as presented.
Mrs. McNicholas stated she is happy to sign off on what was presented.
Mr. Walterscheid appreciated the effort to make the lower level more livable by offering up space. He is
fine with maintaining a slightly larger window well. He would have liked to see a larger storage area but
understands the space requirement for trash/recycling.
Ms. Tygre does not have any problems with the employee housing unit as proposed by the applicant. In
general, she likes the project. Parking is a real sticking point and she doesn’t feel this is an area in which
cash-in-lieu is appropriate. She passes this area a lot and there are always six or seven cars there.
Mr. Morris has nothing to add.
Mr. Goode asked for a motion. Ms. Quinn noted there is a resolution in the packet.
Mr. McNellis motioned to approve Resolution 5, Series 2016 as drafted by Staff and Mr. Elliott
seconded. Roll call to vote: Mr. Morris, yes; Ms. McNicholas Kury, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes; Mr.
McNellis, yes; Mr. Elliott, yes; Ms. Tygre, no; and Mr. Goode, yes for a total of six Yes and one No (6-1) in
favor of the motion.
Ms. McNicholas Kury noticed the amount of the sf for trash/recycling identified in Section 5:
Trash/Recycling Service was 200 sf and should be 157 sf.
Mr. McNellis amended his motion to reflect the changes noted by Ms. McNicholas Kury. His motion was
seconded by Mr. Elliott. Roll call to vote: Mr. Morris, yes; Ms. McNicholas Kury, yes; Mr. Walterscheid,
yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Ms. Tygre, no; Mr. Elliott, yes; and Mr. Goode, yes for a total of six Yes and one
No (6-1) in favor of the motion.
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.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 8, 2016
4
Mr. Ready said this was approved at the Joint meeting for $414,000 for the entrance to Aspen study and
cell phone data collection.
Mayor Skadron said all this money is dedicated to up valley transit money. Snowmass has said they will
chip in a certain amount of money. It is one pool of money with two names on it. Councilman Myrin
said he is comfortable with that. His opposition is the fixed guideway transit alternative. He will support
the whole thing.
Councilwoman Mullins said she will support this as it has been 10 years since the last study. We need to
look at all alternatives. She supports the study as it has been described.
Councilman Frisch said when you look at the big picture you hope it matches with the time allocated. It
is long overdue and much needed. There is a direction from the community that we have not done a lot
with.
Toni Kronberg passed out a handout. She said the study only includes light rail versus the busses. If both
get voted down you are left with nothing. EOTC may also direct other modes for screening. She is
asking for 50,000 dollars for the aerial study or 15,000 from each jurisdiction.
Resolution #113, Series of 2016 – A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Aspen
concerning the Aspen Country Inn project and approving and authorizing the execution of a
partnership agreement, a financing agreement, and a loan agreement and authorizing the purchase
by the city of the Colorado housing and finance authority’s multifamily housing revenue bond
Aspen Country Inn project)
Resolution #108, Series of 2016 – Revision to the EOTC 2016 ½ % Transit Sales and Use Tax
Budget
Resolution #107, Series of 2016 – Vibroscreen Topsoil Screening Machine
Resolution #102, Series of 2016 – Coordinate November 8, 2106 Election
Resolution #103, Series of 2016 – Ballot Question – Wheeler RETT Extension
Resolution #104, Series of 2016 – Ballot Question – School tax Extension
Resolution #105 – Series of 2016 – Ballot Question – Broadband Issue
Minutes – July 25, 2016
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor,
motion carried.
NOTICE OF CALL UP – 230 E Hopkins Ave. Mountain Forge Building
Jessica Garrow, community development, told the Council this was approved 6 to 1 by P&Z last month.
It is a remodel of the existing structure and includes a decrease of floor area, the addition of two free
market residential units and the demolition and replacement of a two bedroom affordable housing unit.
The remodel includes decreasing some existing legally non-conforming structures relating to the window
well and height of the structure. It was originally built in 1963 and had a significant remodel in the
1980s. Portion are built to the lot line, portions are in the right of way, and the height is currently at 34.8
feet and the maximum is 32. They are working to decrease it but they are able to maintain that non-
conformity. There is an increase to the onsite public amenity space. P&Z met three times to review the
project.
Councilwoman Mullins said they are replacing the affordable housing unit. Ms. Garrow replied yes. It
will be replaced on site and slightly larger.
P66
VI.B.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 8, 2016
5
Councilwoman Mullins asked to see the image of the site plan and public amenity space. Ms. Garrow
said the requirement for offsite public amenity is for a parks and engineering review that they are
consistent for access and egress.
Councilman Myrin said he did not see the minutes from the June 21 vote. Ms. Garrow said there was a
lot of discussion on the affordable housing unit. Councilman Myrin said the recycle area should be 200
square feet and is reduced to 150. Can it be called up for that? Ms. Garrow said it is under the purview of
environmental health and not a commercial design issue. Councilman Myrin said the window wells that
extend past the property line are not review for Council either. Ms. Garrow said they don’t extend any
longer. They are pulling anything that is in the right of way out so it is all within the property.
Councilman Myrin said the height is measured by filling something up. Ms. Garrow said the height is
measured from the bottom of the light well. Councilman Myrin asked is the height changing. Ms.
Garrow said it is decreasing by two inches. There are some changes to the roof form. Councilman Myrin
said he is not excited about this building. He is concerned about the mass from the sidewalk and the
Monarch side. The mass and scale feels enormous. The offsite public amenity space is nice to have but
he is not sure why it is calculated. The recycling area has shrunk. It has a massive feel to it.
Councilman Frisch asked which concerns are in our bucket of review. Ms. Garrow stated the recycle is
not, mass, scale, roof and public amenity space are. Councilman Frisch said from a top level standpoint,
Hopkins sits well. He appreciates where Bert is coming from on Monarch.
Councilwoman Mullins said she agrees with Adam that the Hopkins side is very successful. Monarch is
boxy and massive. It is a large mass between the two more articulated bookends. She is not sure that you
could come up with a better alternative. The three different masses help quite a bit. It is acceptable and
she would not ask it to be called up.
Councilman Frisch said there is nothing in the guidelines that says a sloped roof needs to honor that. Ms.
Garrow replied no.
Mayor Skadron said he is curious about the massing between the two end units. The building today has a
more welcoming nature. He was going to suggest we take a look at this.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to call up 230 E Hopkins Avenue; seconded by Councilman Myrin. All in
favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #22, SERIES OF 2016 – Code Amendment – Election Finance
Mr. True stated this is a code amendment to Section 9.04.030 b – campaign finance report filing. The
City has adopted the Colorado Fair Campaign Practices Act and has made various amendment to file
additional reports. One has made the requirement to file an additional report seven days prior to the
election. The city also amended the Act by stating that donations could not be accepted after seven days
prior to the election. There is a timeframe in the Act that would allow someone to make a donation Seven
days prior to the election but after that reporting period and not get picked up by the reporting period five
days in the Act that is then back dated another five days. We have proposed to fix that so there are three
reports prior to the election, 21 days, 10 days by this amendment and then five days prior to the election.
All of the reporting done pursuant to the act will be required to report as of the date of the report. This
will then allow that five days report to contain all donations to be made prior to the election.
P67
VI.B.
P68VI.B.
P69VI.B.
P70VI.B.
P71VI.B.
P72VI.B.
P73VI.B.
P74VI.B.
P75VI.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
PROPERTY LINE TYP.SETBACK LINE TYP.TRASH RECEPTACLES
EXISTING COTTONWOOD TO REMAIN TYP.
TIE INTO EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER
CROSSWALK TO BE REALIGNED AS
NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE
RAMP SHIFT
EXISTING SPRUCE TO REMAIN
PAY PARKING BOX
SOD TYP.
5' WIDTH CONCRETE SIDEWALK
SPECIALTY PAVING WITH SNOWMELT
STEEL SCULPTURE AND PLAQUE
IN GROUND PLANTER
SEATING BENCH
GARAGE ENTRANCE
CONCRETE PAVING
WITH SNOWMELT
590 SF
TYPE 11 BI-DIRECTIONAL CURB
RAMP PER CITY OF ASPEN
ENGINEERING DESIGN STANDARDS
LOWER LEVEL LIGHTWELL GARDEN
AREA
East
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
SHRUB AND
PERENNIAL GARDEN
BIKE RACK
SPECIALTY PAVING WITH SNOWMELT
179 SF
SPECIALTY PAVING WITH SNOWMELT
84 SF
SPECIALTY PAVING WITH SNOWMELT
97 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-1.3
SITE PLAN
0'5'10'20'
SCALE: 1"= 10'-0"NORTHP76 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: 1086P77
VI.B.