Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20161213 AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission SPECIAL MEETING December 13, 2016 5:15 PM Rio Grande Meeting Room 455 Rio Grande Place, 2nd Floor (Above Tasters and Below Parking Department) Please enter from second floor door facing parking garage I. SITE VISIT II. ROLL CALL III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public IV. MINUTES A. Draft November 15, 2016 Minutes B. Draft December 6, 2016 Minutes V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 501 W Hallam St - Variation - Residential Design Standards B. 230 E Hopkins (Mountain Forge Building) - Remand Hearing, Resolution No 5, Series 2016 VII. OTHER BUSINESS VIII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: Resolution 10, Series 2016 Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legal notice (affi d avit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clari fications of applicant 7) Public comments 8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met. Revised April 2, 2014 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 15, 2016 1 Mr. Skippy Mesirow, Vice-Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Jasmine Tygre, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Brian McNellis, Ryan Walterscheid, Jesse Morris and Skippy Mesirow. Spencer McKnight and Keith Goode were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; Andrea Bryan, Jessica Garrow, Phillip Supino and Justin Barker. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Mesirow congratulated Mr. Morris on becoming a full member of P&Z replacing Mr. Jason Elliott. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Klob announced Mr. Jason Elliot resigned from P&Z as of October 25, 2016. Mr. Morris has decided to take the open regular positon on the board and Mr. McKnight will become the first alternate. The Clerk is currently taking applications and the interviews will occur early January. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES November 1, 2016 – Ms. Tygre motioned to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Morris seconded the motion. All in favor, motion approved. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no declarations. OTHER BUSINESS AACP – Land Use Code Amendments Mr. Mesirow turned the floor over to Staff for a continued discussion of the proposed land use code amendments. Present from staff were Ms. Garrow, Mr. Supino and Mr. Barker. Also present was Ms. Sara Adams, BendonAdams, who has been consulting with staff on the amendments. Mr. Barker updated P&Z stating the amendments were presented to Council for a first reading at the meeting on November 15th with Council providing some feedback. P1 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 15, 2016 2 Mr. Barker announced at tonight’s meeting they would provide a check-in on the Commercial Design Guidelines Public Amenity, then follow-up with additional discussion on use mix and dimensional standards, and close with parking. He then referred to p 34 of the packet and reviewed the most recent changes to guideline 1.13. He added it would be difficult to get more than the two ft specification with the direction to cap the height at 28 ft. Ms. Garrow stated this ties in to Ordinance 30, the miscellaneous ordinance with includes an exception for height which allows for Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and P&Z to review up to 18 in to be exempt from the height if it is a decorative element. Mr. Walterscheid asked if a neighboring building is at 28 ft in height, how much of his building would be limited to 26 ft. Ms. Garrow responded the entire building would be limited or the application could go before one of the boards for a review. Mr. Walterscheid then asked if the guidelines allow up to 18 in, would it not be preferable to have the height variation at 18 in instead of 2 ft. Mr. Mesirow suggested changing both to 2 ft to eliminate the difference. Mr. McNellis asked if the variation applies to a building that may span several 30 ft historic front facades. Mr. Barker responded this is not included in the current version. Staff noted they would incorporate some changes. Mr. Barker then reviewed the additions of numbers included with item 1.18 on p 36 of the agenda packet and asked P&Z if they felt the heights specified were necessary and appropriate. Mr. McNellis thinks you would want to see what is around the entry in context. He believes articulation and variation are important. Ms. Adams stated this is probably more related to the Mountain Base Area than the Commercial Core (CC) Area. Mr. McNellis suggested this area be called out. Ms. Garrow asked it makes more sense to modify this section to be more general and then move the more specific language to the Mountain Base Area or should the entire guideline go away as a general item across all character areas. Mr. McNellis replied in general, he would prefer 10 ft if it stays as a general item. Mr. Walterscheid asked what part is specifically eight or twelve ft. Staff remarked they would clarify this in the guideline. Ms. Adams noted it refers to the door itself. Commercial Design Guidelines – Public Amenity Mr. Barker then moved on to guideline PA.3 on p 46 of the agenda packet. He feels this is a key item with Council to ensure the spaces are usable and functional for public amenity. He spoke to the last bullet item of the street-level pedestrian amenity space requiring a minimum of one third (1/3) of the requirement. Based on an example of a 6,000 sf lot in downtown and the amenity requirement is 25% which necessitate at least 500 sf for one of the public amenity space. He asked if the one third (1/3) amount seemed appropriate. Ms. Adams added the guideline attempts to address an application which attempts to add up all the little nooks on a property to count as their amenity space. P2 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 15, 2016 3 Mr. Mesirow asked if this was only for street level and Ms. Adams confirmed that was true. Mr. Morris noted the last statement of the bullet provides the flexibility to allow for variation based on the proposed amenity space of the application. Mr. Barker responded this would potentially allow for a situation where a space smaller than one third (1/3) of the requirement was proposed and it best considering the context of the block. Mr. Walterscheid asked what separates the public amenity space when you have setbacks and may it adjoin public right-of-ways (ROWs). Ms. Adams stated it will be for P&Z to look at the guideline to determine if a space is meaningful, useful and accessible. Mr. Barker asked if there was anything else under this guideline (PA.3) that might be helpful in defining if a space is truly pedestrian or public amenity. Mr. Mesirow stated previously it was discussed to have some mechanism to acknowledge public spaces. He mentioned posting a sign, medallion or website. Ms. Adams noted there are details to cover hard to find or interior courtyards, but not for street level areas. Mr. Mesirow feels it is valuable because even street level seems to be off limits. Mr. Barker then discussed second floor pedestrian amenities on p 48 of the agenda packet. He stated they have not yet added anything related to the amount of transparency. He noted PA.10 states it must be visible from the street, but it doesn’t describe how or what makes it visible. He asked P&Z if there should be a minimum transparency level of the railing or some other requirement. Ms. Adams remarked as an example, the parapet is so high at 204 Galena (Gap Building), you can’t actually hear or see people on the roof. Mr. Morris asked where the space is accessed from and Mr. Barker remarked from the side. Mr. McNellis stated it is another reason why the ground level amenity spaces are that much more necessary. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there could be some way to clarify the use of open space. He noted the picture of BB’s Kitchen patio taken up entirely by dining tables and noted if you’re not a patron, you would not be allowed to sit there. Ms. Garrow responded staff is considering changing it from public amenity to pedestrian amenity because the word ‘public’ implies anyone can use the space. Mr. Mesirow asked if the intent is that you can either patronize or pass through but not loiter. Ms. Garrow confirmed this is true unless you are a paying customer. Mr. Walterscheid asked if Council had provided feedback. Ms. Garrow stated they have seen it at its first reading and expect it to be a topic of discussion at the second reading. Mr. McNellis noted a patio or deck is an element to energize the street and Ms. Adams stated that is how they want to treat it and noted there are potential legal issues in defining when determining when someone can access private property. Ms. Adams P3 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 15, 2016 4 stated it has been site specific approvals to date. The Sky Hotel and Base Lodge were brought up as examples. Ms. Garrow noted The Sky Hotel met their public amenity requirement at grade and the roof-top deck was an add on which the applicant volunteered to designate it as public amenity space. Ms. Adams noted Base Lodge did the same. Ms. Garrow noted a public access easement requirement is in the current draft and she feels it is a legitimate discussion with HPC and P&Z when the space offered is not at grade. Mr. McNellis stated he would love to see the flexibility built into the guidelines and would favor the amenity on the first floor. Ms. Adams replied this matches the feedback from the community. Mr. Walterscheid suggested in some instances an external access may promote a visual connection to the space. Ms. Adams replied they want to respect traditional building patterns and keep it open for the architect to design it appropriately. Ms. Tygre remarked PA.13 does not make sense. Ms. Adams responded she would work on the wording of it. Mr. Barker then moved on to review the Midblock pedestrian amenity on p 50 of the agenda packet. He stated there are a few instances of this and asked if this is something that would be acceptable in the Commercial Core. Ms. Adams stated Midblock has been in the code for approximately 10-15 years and she is not aware of any applications with it. Ms. Garrow noted the only application that proposed this was the Weinerstube. Staff feels this amenity might need a boost and is proposing it counts for double the value. Mr. Barker added this ties in with the second tier commercial proposals. Mr. Mesirow agrees with the approach and asked if a particular methodology for determining the doubled value. Ms. Adams stated they decided to double it as an incentive and added staff would be happy to entertain other ideas. Mr. Walterscheid asked if an owner owned three blocks and wanted to take advantage of this; would it have to be internal to their project. He asked as an example, if the Art Museum had pulled their setback from the building next door, would this have counted as a Midblock amenity. Ms. Adams stated this would not a midblock. He also noted the walkway beside the old Stage 3 Building. Ms. Adams stated the midblock space must provide access to additional commercial space. Mr. Barker asked if a minimal distance should be specified. Mr. Walterscheid is curious if the midblock spaces would become dead space and suggested providing clarity regarding minimal widths in relation to the block length or something similar. Ms. Garrow asked if would be appropriate to allow this in areas other than commercial and neighborhood mixed use areas, noting the three visuals provided are in the CC. Mr. McNellis feels it could also be applied to other areas such as the Mountain Base and River Approach. Others agreed and added CC. Mr. Walterscheid asked if it needs to be open to the sky. Ms. Adams replied there has been a lot of discussion on this and currently it is required to be open to the sky based on comments from Council. Mr. McNellis agrees with having it open. Mr. Walterscheid agreed also and asked if non- permanent awnings would be allowed. Ms. Garrow and Ms. Adams felt this may be appropriate to provide shelter and define entrances. P4 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 15, 2016 5 Mr. McNellis asked there are additional Midblock pedestrian amenity opportunities. Ms. Garrow responded it will be interesting to see if applicants want to take advantage of this opportunity. The counting double should be an incentive. P&Z and council have purview of this decision. Justin feels the added weight of onsite public amenity space instead of the cash-in-lieu option may provide more opportunity. Mr. Barker then discussed the Mountain Base character area as described on p 94 of the agenda packet. He reviewed the following items which were new to this version and asked P&Z for feedback. 6.1 – He stated the 15,000 sf value was a quick estimate. 6.4 – He stated the same language existed is in the River Approach Character Area guidelines and it was previously suggested to copy it to this character issue. Mr. Mesirow asked what it means to break a lot into smaller volumes (6.1) and was concerned if forcing separate buildings would impact the operations (6.4). Mr. Barker noted there are some logistical issues breaking up a building, but it may be possibly accomplished with a one story connection or something smaller instead of a continuous mass of volume. Ms. Adams stated there are quite a few instances in this area already that has a number of separate buildings on one property. She feels it makes sense based on the access to the property and the ability to centrally locate amenities such as a pool. She reviewed the lot sizes of the area and determined the average size is approximately 15,000 sf unless you look a one of the larger compounds such as the St. Regis. She believes breaking down a lot can be accomplished in a lot of different ways which keeps the neighborhood creative. Factors may include massing, height, materials, windows, and setbacks. Mr. Mesirow feels keeping the method of breakdown more general would be fine at this time. Ms. McNicholas Kury feels this would have been useful when reviewing the Gorsuch Haus application and others agreed. Mr. Mesirow stated he still was not comfortable with item 6.1. Ms. Adams stated options for the building to be considered could include exterior walkways instead of interior corridors to open up a building and bring vitality to the street. Mr. Mesirow mentioned the tunnel recently built may turn in to hyper-exclusive areas and goes against the idea of getting out and mixing. He doesn’t want to encourage private clubs. Ms. Garrow responded private clubs are not allowed and another tunnel would never be approved again. She noted the recently approved Lift One Lodge is an example of a large lot broken in to two different masses. Mr. McNellis asked staff to consider identifying a successful example. Ms. Tygre mentioned The Gant as an example and Ms. Garrow mentioned The Alps. Mr. Barker closed stating the will probably circle back with P&Z in early January for the last review. Mr. Walterscheid asked if the use of the word ‘consider’ allows applicants to consider and then ignore guidelines. Ms. Adams stated it is meant to provide items to contemplate while recognizing all buildings and their context are different. He feels it may be a bit passive and asked staff to consider more forceful language. Ms. Garrow asked the board to forward any suggestions regarding the use of words to Mr. Barker. Ms. Adams then left the meeting. P5 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 15, 2016 6 Ms. Reilly Thimons, Planner Tech, then joined the meeting. Mr. Supino listed the other areas to be reviewed, noting if there something not covered at the meeting, P&Z should reach out to staff with their ideas. Ms. Garrow pointed out the use of colored numbers in the left-hand margin which correspond with the ordinance. They only called out the main policy items changed. Mr. Supino reviewed the proposed changes related to use mix within zone districts. He stated in regards to the approach for the commercial use mix, per Council, they created generalized use categories instead of listing all the individual uses to be allowed. A table of the uses per commercial zone district was provided in the memo starting on p 304. They also revised the zone definitions and purpose statements to be more relevant to current conditions of the different zone districts and provide more illustration as to what the City would like to see in a particular zone district in the future. He noted they refined the allowed uses in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I) zones within the use categories to reflect the current era. The residential uses were basically eliminated from the Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (C-1) zones. Affordable housing is allowed in all five commercial zone districts, but the extent to which they are allowed is more limited in regards to the floor area ration (FAR). This is based on Council’s direction to preserve the buildings in CC and C1 as commercial buildings. Stand alone, free market residential uses are allowed in the Mixed Use (MU) zone district, but not in a MU building. It must be a one off residential only building. Mr. Walterscheid asked if the FAR limitations prevent affordable housing on the site for a total build out. Ms. Garrow responded probably not in every situation and would depend on what was proposed. She stated it may if a policy change in growth management goes forward or not. Council is interested in requiring affordable housing mitigation for spaces that never previously mitigated. Currently, you get a credit for existing space and mitigate the net new. If the building built prior to required mitigation went through redevelopment, they would have 100% of the commercial space to mitigate for so they probably would not be able to achieve the affordable housing onsite. The applicant would need to use credits or cash-in-lieu. Mr. Supino added another relevant, related policy is that residential in the CC and C1 zone districts will no longer be able to generate credits. A development may mitigate some portion of the affordable housing onsite, but the development of the units can’t generate credits. Council did not want to create any incentive for providing residential onsite where they prefer to see primarily commercial uses. Ms. Garrow noted the change is ratio is limited to 0.75:1 for downtown properties. A couple of weeks ago it was 0.25:1 and P&Z felt it was too limiting. Mr. Walterscheid asked if you could have a standalone affordable housing if it is a single use, but multiple units. Mr. Supino stated multifamily affordable housing was acceptable. Mr. Supino then discussed second-tier commercial spaces as presented in the use mix ordinance and commercial design guidelines. Based on Council’s direction, the goal is to created affordable spaces to locally-owned or lower-yield business models. On the land use code side, there are a number of ways they are trying to accomplish this goal. A commercial replacement program will be created which will be similar to the multi-family program requiring existing net commercial space to remain on the property. P6 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 15, 2016 7 Ms. Garrow referred P&Z to p 294 of the packet noting it as a new section within the commercial design standards for second-tier commercial space. And on the next page, there are some numbers for discussion. Mr. Walterscheid asked why CC is the smallest value of the zone districts. Ms. Garrow responded the CC is where there is a concentration of high-end retail stores and will likely remain this way. Mr. Supino stated the reduced percentage for CC acknowledges the existing development pattern in CC and the ability to even provide access to a second story commercial space is not available. Mr. Mesirow asked for the average sf of a building in CC. Staff did not know the exact value, but estimated given a 6,000 sf lot at 2:1, would be 10,000-12,000 sf. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated she feels very cynical and her gut thought is for 2,000 sf rather than a 6,000 sf glass store front. Mr. Supino stated this would be in addition to the street level store. Ms. McNicholas stated limiting the free market frames this. Mr. Mesirow likes the approach but can’t confirm the numbers reflect reality. Mr. Morris asked if the numbers are benchmarks from other communities that have taken this approach. Ms. Garrow stated no one else has taken this approach. Ms. Garrow stated in growth management, the alley store review is an administrative review currently and sized at 600 sf or less with no access to the main street. Staff has carried this through to this. Ms. Garrow asked if there should or should not be a size limitation. Mr. Walterscheid stated he can’t imagine how he could present a project and tell you what is there and what is not. Instead of making an applicant account for what was there and how much is being saved, he feels there should just be a flat requirement. Ms. Garrow noted it is easy to have a percentage for a public amenity. With this you are doing net leasable calculations and then determine if it is a first or second-tier space using the guidelines. Mr. Walterscheid stated even to do the net leasable calculations on a multiuse building may require six meetings. The amount of time and associated costs spent trying to de-value one part of the building raises the value on the rest of the building. Ms. Garrow asked what if was tied to lot size. Mr. Walterscheid feels replacing the calculations with a flat requirement would be best. He feels the expense is then passed to the person leasing the space. Ms. Garrow if the flat rate would be on the building or lot size. Mr. Walterscheid feels it is a much bigger discussion to determine the value. Ms. Garrow stated of all things going on in the moratorium, there is no silver bullet on use mix. It is a combination of many things to reach the community goals. Mr. Supino asked if the hard percentage would apply to the commercial replacement. Mr. Walterscheid stated he is a proponent of the second-tier space, but he doesn’t want to minimize their need. He would prefer to figure out an average replacement or second-tier space and just apply it everywhere. Ms. Tygre agreed and added you don’t want to tie it to what was there previously if something better can work. She believes you are encouraging people to replace the percentage that previously existed and is not necessarily what is wanted. A minimum amount of space may be best regardless of what was previously in the space. Mr. Mesirow suggested picking ten or so buildings that currently reflect an acceptable use mix to calculate an average the amount. Mr. Walterscheid felt surveying existing properties to determine the value would be a good approach. P7 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 15, 2016 8 Mr. Walterscheid asked if the basement of the replaced Gap building could be defined as second-tier and Ms. Garrow responded it would. He feels a lot of people are taking advantage of the basement space. Ms. Garrow suggested a 100% of the lot area is second-tier meaning they could do half on the second floor and half in the basement or all in the basement. She added tying it to the lot area is easier. She stated it sounds like a lot of space, but is small considering the total sf that may be built on the lot. Mr. Walterscheid feels the businesses in the spaces are successful when they are visually noticed from the street level. Mr. Supino then discussed the Essential Business Overlay zone (EBO) and noted only the NC and S/C/I zone districts allow for a voluntary rezoning for the overlay to include the EBO. He stated it does not change the underlying zoning. Some of the incentives would open up use types and proportions of FAR within the use types as well as some setback changes. The heights of the two zone districts would not change based on the EBO overlay. His best example was as part of a redevelopment; an applicant could explore live-work spaces. He then asked P&Z to identify possible incentives which could be dimensional or related to use. He also asked if this should be limited to NC and S/C/I zone districts as well as tools to make this more attractive and effective. Mr. McNellis feels it is great idea. Mr. Morris asked about incentives that have been discussed. Mr. Supino responded they feel the most appropriate would be changes to setbacks and proportions of FAR. He also feels it may allow for specific use types not attractive on its own. Ms. Garrow it also allows for alternative dimensional requirements without going through a Planned Development (PD). Ms. Tygre cautioned staff including the work-live spaces and feels this is most open to abuse. She feels most will just live and not work. She noted an example in the past when a woman was going to have a dance studio combined with an apartment. The space was eventually filled with architect offices. She feels residential drives everything and does not feel it is appropriate in S/C/I because it should be business-focused. She also feels it will end up like downtown commercial is currently. Mr. Supino stated they could add something to ensure it is not free market residential. Ms. Tygre responded enforcement would be difficult to which Ms. Garrow agreed. Mr. Mesirow stated in terms of use, he noted shared collaborative or co-working spaces may be considered. He feel upstarts need a place to land. He also noted a hostel may be appropriate. Mr. Walterscheid echoed Mr. Mesirow and noted there are no apartments or hostels currently available within the community. He feels with the proposed changes eliminating housing downtown will move everyone to the business center, Basalt or further down the valley. He feels we are focused on keeping business here, but we will lose people. He is curious how Council plans to respond. Ms. Garrow stated initial conversations also included micro-units and resident occupied (RO) units. Council has pushed this off until after the moratorium. Mr. Morris strongly recommend as part of the EBO overlay, a certain very specific residential uses be carved out as allowable uses including micro-housing and shared work spaces. Mr. Mesirow strongly agreed. Mr. Supino asked if this included anything that was not deed restricted or affordable to which both Mr. Morris and Mr. Mesirow replied no. Mr. Supino asked if different dimensions and occupancy standards should be considered and both replied yes. P8 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 15, 2016 9 Ms. McNicholas feels this may be wading away from the intent of the EBO by focusing on economic diversity within town and perhaps focus should be on the uses within the zones rather than the tool. Mr. Walterscheid stated there are times P&Z reviews properties for livability standards related to the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS). He would be inclined to allow more of this type of discussion and perhaps keep the bulk of the development to commercial. He feels there may be an opportunity for further discussion. Ms. Garrow stated in terms of livability, staff has reformatted the review standards in the Growth Management ordinance (p 366, section 26 at the bottom). She asked P&Z to review and comment if any review criteria or standards are missing P&Z wants to have when evaluating applications. Mr. Mesirow asked if a hostel would be allowed in the new use categories. Mr. Supino stated lodging has been removed. He added perhaps defining it as forms of temporary/shared housing instead of housing. Ms. Garrow suggested dorm-style housing. Mr. Walterscheid suggested using ‘seasonal’ to describe the type of housing. Mr. Supino then discussed the dimensional standards in the zone districts. High level from Council included the following. Ms. Garrow added staff is not sure Council will approve the decorative element part. • Reduce FAR to correspond with reduced building heights in commercial zones • Reduce building heights – 28 ft max with exemption of 18” of decorative to be approved by P&Z or HPC • Update internal FAR to reflect desired uses Mr. Walterscheid noted currently there is an exception for railing and parapet walls up to approximately five ft and is curious how this may be changed. He added he likes roof-top decks. Ms. Garrow stated they have not heard from Council yet on this matter. Mr. Supino asked in regards to a parapet exemption of 18 in of discretion and it was tied to the top of plate, then it could lead to three ft parapet. Mr. Walterscheid noted currently it is tied to the top of the structure which is very specific at this time. He feels it may be challenging if the rules are changed. Mr. Supino asked from a design standpoint, does 18 in get you anywhere. Mr. Walterscheid replied it gets you a cornice. He noted P&Z has had numerous conversations regarding roof-top decks. He added as you are coming down the ski hill, the roof is another side of a building that should be taken advantage of and he would rather see it used and planted rather than gravel roofs with mechanical on it. Mr. Supino then moved to the subject of internal floor area allotments. He asked if P&Z wanted to walk through the different allowances. He noted they are all tied to overall FAR. Mr. McNellis asked for the differences. Ms. Garrow responded everything decreases. Right now you can have a three story building on one side of the street and in the CC there is a 2.75:1 that decreases to a P9 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 15, 2016 10 2:1. Moving out, the overall ratio continues to go down. In C1, currently it is a 2.25:1 and will go down 1.75:1. Council wants the highest FAR in the CC zone district where the more traditional buildings cover the entire lot typically. As you move out, it may be desirable to see more outside public amenity and provide for on-site parking. Lodging stays the same in both zones which is 0.5:1 and can go up to 1.5:1 depending on average room size. Free market stays the same and affordable housing decreases. There really are not a lot of FAR changes in S/C/I other than the limiting the free market for an overall at 2.25:1 to potentially accommodate a three story building. In NC, lodging is removed so the internal FAR goes away and the overall FAR is proposed at 1.5:1 which is what it is now. The allowable FAR for affordable housing is 0.75:1 and MU is provided as a table (p 324) because staff intends to propose a value for the Main St Historic District and another value for other MU areas. The maximum FAR without a special review goes to 1:1 and non-historic areas is 1.5:1 which would require a special review with P&Z. Ms. Garrow noted this is the only district in which you could do 100% affordable housing or an affordable housing credits project. Free market is limited to a 0.5:1 and could be increased to 0.75:1 if there is equal affordable housing. Mr. Walterscheid asked if the residential multi-family area remains as is. Ms. Garrow stated Council is interested in looking at it as it relates to the commercial zone districts. Mr. Walterscheid noted the discussion seems to allow for more courtyards and he asked when floor area is calculated for space below grade with an exposed wall area, you are now increasing the floor area. He understands the decision to minimize the bulk of the building but if courtyards are included, the floor area will be further decreased. He feels it is something to consider and few people will understand it. Ms. Garrow stated Council asked staff to run through previously approved project to see if they could still be built or not. Mr. McNellis feels the FAR reductions may prevent capitalization of the second-tier spaces. He wonders if there might be a bonus incentive for second-tier spaces. Ms. McNicholas Kury feels a walled-in basement space and a courtyard basement space are the same and asked if they are being treated differently. Ms. Garrow stated part of what staff is working on includes identifying areas of contradiction and encouraged P&Z to let staff know if they see something. Ms. Reilly Thimons provided background for parking and mobility, noting consultants hired over the past summer conducted research and came back with four areas (listed below) representing strong opportunities for code updates. These are in line with Council’s direction for the following. a) Incorporate the Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) and the off-street parking chapters together b) Increase the use of alternative modes of transportation c) Reduce vehicle trips d) Increase the availability of off-street parking She reviewed a table of code options, use mix and commercial design standards to address the four areas. Their efforts include: • Introducing the concept of a soft parking maximum and basically retaining the current requirements. P10 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 15, 2016 11 • Look into updating the fee which is currently $30,000. They have asked the consultants to look into the real cost of parking as compared to similar cities. • Look to expand the language in the cash-in-lieu section of the off-street parking requirements so it is more robust in how it defines how the funds may be used. • The consultant conducted a study at ten different sites across town with different uses identified there is a significant amount of parking in structures that is not being used to its fullest capacity. • The study also identified seasonal and daily parking peaks which may allow the City to move into a shared parking management system which may assist with building infrastructure. • Both Council and the consultant spoke to incorporating the TIA into the off-street parking chapter to push for alternative modes and incentives. The goal is to create a mobility requirement and not just a parking requirement. Mr. Morris stated he fully supports the integration of parking with mobility and asked staff to speak to the allowable uses of the funds. Ms. Garrow pointed P&Z to the mobility improvement calculations table on p 407 and stated when an applicant provides their TIA, it is a combination of multi-modal levels of service (MMLOS) which includes infrastructure and transportation demand management (TDM) which includes the program piece (car share, car-to-go, bus passes and We-Cycle). The MMLOS and TDM are pulled together with parking and cash to satisfy mobility units. She stated the parking impact requirements table on p 409 identifies the percentage of each to meet the mobility requirement. Mr. Supino added the language creates a clear relationship between the collection of cash-in-lieu and the City making direct investments in pedestrian and parking infrastructure and multi-modal infrastructure. Mr. Morris asked how funds are utilized and if there is science behind which of the mechanisms to use to achieve outcomes. He suggested maintaining a level of flexibility in how the funds are distributed. Ms. Garrow directed P&Z to review item 2 – Use of Funds which specifically outlines how the funds can be used. She stated right now it goes to the bottom line of transportation and parking. Staff is trying to create a better framework. She asked P&Z to review and provide suggestions in this area. Ms. Garrow noted per state law the funds can’t be used for operations so there may be unintended consequences such as unfunded mandates when the funds are used to improve a particular program. Staff is trying to work through this. Mr. McNellis is excited with the shared parking program. Ms. Thimons noted there are two scenarios. One going forward in the new code language and one potentially through an amendment allowing for existing developments to take part in the program. The recent study identified a lot of inefficient parking scenarios in the downtown core. They would like to push people away from this using the cash-in-lieu fee. They looked at locations with large amount of existing parking that could be participating in a shared parking with the City. The new development shared parking comes in when you hit your soft maximum. For example, if there another development similar to the Aspen Meadows, which has land to provide parking, a number of spaces above their soft parking maximum would be identified for use by the public. Council has asked Staff what it would take to have existing properties voluntarily participate in a shared parking program. Ms. Garrow stated right now the properties are PDs so they would have to go through a PD amendment. Staff is looking at a special review with P&Z instead of the PD amendment process. P11 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 15, 2016 12 Ms. McNicholas Kury asked why it would need to come to P&Z. Ms. Garrow stated because it is land use, to unwind it may require a board if it is a minor PD amendment. Mr. Walterscheid feels it opens up opportunity for an existing property and Ms. McNicholas Kury agreed. Mr. Walterscheid asked if any steps are being taken to direct applicants away from the PD process and utilize the underlying zoning through the moratorium discussion. Ms. Garrow replied they have not gone there. Ms. Garrow added Referendum 1 and the lengthy review process keeps applicants from pursuing the PD process. Ms. Tygre stated she does not understand mobility improvements and how it will get people out of cars. Ms. Garrow stated the table on p 409 best illustrates Council’s direction for the CC and C1 zones. Council has discussed what is the highest and best use of limited land in these areas that are really more pedestrian oriented, eliminating on-site parking as well as pushing people towards cash-in-lieu to be used for broader infrastructure. She added in the other areas, allowing for 100% parking space. Ms. Tygre doesn’t seem to relate to getting people out of their cars. Mr. Supino said the approach is if we build it, hopefully it will be used because the City can’t physically remove people from cars. Mr. Mesirow stated you can eliminate the spots where they land and drive their cars and would prefer a stronger approach. Mr. McNellis stated he was surprised the minimum requirement remains the same. Mr. Morris agreed and stated there are precedence of other cities and jurisdictions that have eliminated off- street parking requirements completely and it has worked. He stated there are also examples to Ms. Tygre’s point noting if new spaces are built, cars will come, but if the money is put into other solutions there is no guarantee people will get out of their cars. Ms. Tygre is not sure the efforts presented will remove cars. She feels there are more cars and they are just circling. She added just reducing parking is not the answer and we already have buses and other things and there are still cars downtown. Mr. Walterscheid noted the more convenient ways created for people to not actually use their cars, the less likely they will. Mr. Morris stated if the goal is to make the City more pedestrian friendly, then what was presented does not have enough teeth. Mr. McNellis stated reducing parking spaces is probably the best tool available for physically removing people from cars. Mr. Walterscheid suggested preventing cars in the core during specified hours. Ms. Garrow pointed out this is dealing with requirements for development and in conjunction with this effort, there are ongoing discussions about parking rates and expanded no drive zones. Ms. Garrow stated those are discussions with Parking and Transportation primarily. She has heard ideas from the consultant on how to manage the street parking resources differently as well as increase utilization of the parking garage. Ms. Garrow stated the conversations here need to focus on the site. She asked if reducing minimums or reducing percentages allowed for parking or something similar was preferred. Ms. McNicholas asked if it could be tied to use such as no spots provided for restaurants. Mr. Morris suggested eliminating off- street parking requirements. The majority of the board stated they would support greatly removing off- street parking requirements. Ms. Garrow closed Staff’s presentation stating the goal is to have all the code amendments completed by January 23rd. P12 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 15, 2016 13 ADJOURN Mr. Mesirow then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager P13 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 6, 2016 1 Mr. Keith Goode, Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM without a quorum of board members. Also present from City staff; Jennifer Phelan. Public Hearing – 501 W Hallam St – Variation – Residential Design Standards Mr. Goode opened the public hearing. Because there was no quorum, Mr. Goode continued the public hearing until December 13, 2016. Mr. Goode then closed the hearing. Public Hearing – 730 E. Cooper – Base Lodge Mr. Goode opened the public hearing. Because there was no quorum, Mr. Goode continued the public hearing until December 13, 2016. Mr. Goode then closed the hearing. Mr. Goode closed the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager P14 IV.B. 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. P15 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 P16 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. P17 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. P18 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 P19 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 P20 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. P21 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 P22 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 P23 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 P24 VI.A. P25 VI.A. P26 VI.A. P27VI.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 ViewP28 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"1BasementP29 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 1P30 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 2P31 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"2NorthP32 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"2WestP33 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. P34 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 P35 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 P36 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. P37 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. P38 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 P39 VI.B. P40 VI.B. P41 VI.B. P42 VI.B. P43 VI.B. P44 VI.B. P45 VI.B. P46 VI.B. P47 VI.B. P48 VI.B. P49 VI.B. P50 VI.B. P51 VI.B. P52 VI.B. P53 VI.B. P54 VI.B. P55 VI.B. P56 VI.B. P57 VI.B. P58 VI.B. P59 VI.B. P60 VI.B. P61 VI.B. P62 VI.B. P63 VI.B. P64 VI.B. P65 VI.B. P66 VI.B. P67 VI.B. P68 VI.B. P69 VI.B. P70 VI.B. P71 VI.B. P72 VI.B. P73 VI.B. P74 VI.B. P75 VI.B. P76 VI.B. P77 VI.B. P78 VI.B. P79 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. P80 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. P81 VI.B. P82VI.B. P83VI.B. P84VI.B. P85VI.B. P86VI.B. P87VI.B. P88VI.B. P89VI.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"NORTHP90 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: 1086P91 VI.B.