HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20180206
AGENDA
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
REGULAR MEETING
February 06, 2018
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. DRAFT MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 19TH, 2017 & JANUARY 16TH, 2018
V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 230 E. Hopkins Avenue - Final Commercial Design Review, Insubstantial Growth
Management Amendment
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Miscellaneous code update check-in
B. Appoint chair and vice chair
VIII. BOARD REPORTS
IX. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 1
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 Planning & Zoning Commission December 19, 2017
1
Mr. Skippy Mesirow, Chair, called the December 19, 2017 meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members
Rally Dupps, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Spencer McKnight and Ryan Walterscheid present.
Also present from City staff; Mr. James R. True and Ms. Jennifer Phelan.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
There were none.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Ms. Manning stated the City is still seeking applications for open board positions.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were none.
MINUTES
Mr. Walterscheid moved to approve the minutes from December 5, 2017; seconded by Mr. Dupps. All in
favor, motion carried.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There were none.
Aspen Pedestrian Mall Project – Review Design Alternatives
Tim Thompson, asset department, introduced Mike Albert and Darla Calloway from Design Workshop.
Mr. Albert told the Commission they are going to share the results of the analysis that has been completed
and present the three alternatives. They hope the best attributes of each rise to the top for the best plan.
The focus is mainly on the above grade improvements. As far as the schedule goes, they are contracted
for Phase I and II. The goals have been established by the community to maintain the historical integrity
and character. It will explore innovative ways to improve the stormwater system as well as replace aging
utilities. The goal is to retain the malls as an urban park, increase accessibility and engage the public and
business owners. There has been rigorous community engagement for the last year. We asked the
community their priorities. Responses included character, vitality and updating the utilities as the highest
priorities. The David Fountain as well as the fire pit need some consideration. Art should be looked at as
well as the information kiosk and the Sister Cities plaza. We asked about the paving, should the future
mall retain the look of the current brick and 90 percent of the respondents replied yes. They also
suggested additional furniture, water features and at grade plantings. We asked what kind of events
would be appropriate. The most popular were small musical performances, talks and outdoor dining. We
considered flexible elements including art, flowers and food and beverage carts. There were a number of
questions about lighting and benches. Most came back as what we currently have is great. There was a
common theme that there is not enough bike and ski storage.
Ms. Callaway said as far as infrastructure, any stormwater improvements will meet the urban drainage
master plan. We will treat all the surfaces. It is common to treat private parcels within the right of way.
However, this is more of a policy discussion. To treat the adjacent private parcels would not require a
P1
IV.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 19, 2017
2
great deal more infrastructure. Stormwater strategies do not impact the integrity of the mall. It will be
achieved mostly through permeable paving. There will need to be some underground infiltration. This is
not how the mall drains today with the curb and gutter system. This past summer we investigated all the
utilities through potholing and found a mixed bag of conditions. Most impactful to businesses and users
are the water and electrical lines. We could just replace what is there today. There would be significant
impacts to the trees. There is also the question of should the utilities be closer to the buildings. It may
make sense for this project to preserve the trees. Could the utilities go in the alley. The reality is most of
the services today are located in the malls. It would require re-routing to the alleys and significant
construction impacts. We are looking at where the lines go and what the impact to the trees will be.
As far as accessibility, over a five percent grade would not be ADA compliant. There are multiple
directions of travel on the mall. To make it ADA compliant all the cross slopes need to be at two percent.
That is not possible with the connection to the businesses. Most of the mall services will be replaced to
bring it up to ADA standards. One option is can the center of Hyman and Cooper be left alone with the
existing paving and how do we address the slopes. They would need to rise up to meet the direction of
travel. There has been lots of conversation around brick and maintaining the historic character. We
shipped the different brick types to a manufacturer in Denver to see if they could be replicated without the
date stamp. They can. All the options have similar construction impacts as far as timeline and will result
in significant costs.
Mr. Albert spoke about the three alternatives. Option one is stay the course. This most closely aligns
with what is there today. He gave a virtual tour of the mall. The street crossings would be painted
running diagonal at the corners. The dancing fountain would be repaired to today’s standards. The crab
apple trees would be removed off site during the utility replacement. Outdoor dining stays the same along
the sides of the buildings at Mill. The bridges and crossings are replaced as is. The trees would be
replanted. The Kai Davis fountain stays as it is but the water level would be lifted up for more public
interaction. One to two parking spaces would be removed at the corners and replaced with bike racks and
trash receptacles. The playground would be brought up to today’s standards with a nature theme. The
restrooms stay in place. The Sister Cities plaza would be relocated to the node in front of the old
McDonalds building to the original diamond shape. For outdoor dining on Cooper and Hyman some
would stay against the buildings and some would be in the middle. We would work to create better
passage ways across the malls. All alternatives look at the replacement of the information kiosk, this
option would stay in the same location. He showed images of the nature inspired playground. All
alternatives look at a connection to Durant Street. This alternative is just an expanded eight foot sidewalk
with trees between the sidewalk and buss pull in with rain gardens for the stormwater.
Alternative two is more community activity. It is a similar design with a few opportunities to increase
programming. Instead of a painted cross walk at the Wheeler intersection it is concrete. The dancing
fountain is repaired. There is the same tree and dining configuration along Mill Street. The main
difference at Hyman and Cooper is the dining is relocated to the middle. This option rebuilds the Kai
Davis fountain. There is an expanded curb to the east to increase the pedestrian crossing. The
playground is upgraded to an imagination playground. The Sister Cities plaza stays much like today.
There is the opportunity for flexible games at Wagner park to activate the space. The community is open
to additional water features at the Galena node. The fire pit is removed in all three alternatives. He
showed images of the playground. The Durant connection will have additional plantings. There is a bike
shelter included in this alternative.
Alternative three looks at building the South Mill connection. Mill Street has changed the most since the
original connection. This will introduce brick and concrete into the crossing. The dancing fountain is
repaired. The existing crab apple trees would be replaced with a non-fruit bearing ornamental tree.
Along Hyman and Cooper will be similar but outdoor dining is detached from the buildings and placed
along the gutters. The Kai Davis fountain is reconstructed with a cascading water feature. There is a lot
P2
IV.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 19, 2017
3
of change at the Cooper and Sister Cities area. The restrooms are reconstructed to increase visibility to
the park and open it up. There could be a way to increase the size of the restrooms to increase capacity as
well as a pavilion. We asked if the Sister Cities area could become more. This alternative includes a
misting fountain. The Paradise Bakery side of the curb would be reconstructed to improve the crossing.
There would be locations for rotating art at the Galena node. The playground focuses on flexible
elements. The Durant connection would have paved surfaces, street trees and bike and ski storage.
Ms. Calloway reviewed the questionnaire results. Maintaining the historic character was the highest
priority with utilities being next. Also favorable is improving the Wagner park edge. The highest vote of
any question was relocating the restrooms.
Mr. Mesirow asked if the replacement of the water lines would affect the trees. Some won’t be replaced.
Mr. Albert replied it depends on the alternative. Ms. Calloway said the crab apples can be reused. Some
of the trees are too large to box up, store then reuse. It will come down to what the arborist says. We will
come back with a proposed tree planting plan.
Mr. Mesirow asked for the Durant connection, will there still be a curb on the street side. Ms. Calloway
replied yes.
Mr. Dupps asked if alternative three were to go forward what would the construction phasing be. Mr.
Thompson stated that will be an ongoing conversation with the public and business owners. Those are
the big questions we need to tackle as a group. We need to know the impacts to the business owners and
the costs. We won’t know the time frame until we know the preferred option. Mr. Dupps asked if
funding has been secured. Mr. Thompson said we are moving towards a preferred option now and
looking at financing options.
Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the preferred alternative is being designed with a budget in mind. Mr.
Thompson replied we don’t have a number today.
Mr. Walterscheid asked if they have started thinking about the how. Ms. Calloway replied we are very
conceptual but starting to talk about the details. Mr. Walterscheid asked what is the future for the current
restroom building. Mr. Thompson stated it would be relocated to another city project. We are heading
towards moving the building. Mr. Walterscheid asked if it is shifted down is it still in the view plane. He
is curious what the height of a new building in a new location would be. He also asked if there has been
discussion driving the playground configuration. Ms. Calloway said we are trying to build in more age
groups within the space.
Mr. Dupps said engineering had a presentation that we are moving curbs and gutters to a more European
style. Is this design doing that. He also said that pedestrians and cars are all on the same level and
managed by pylons for a safer alternative. Mr. Albert said that will be the case at the Wheeler and
Paradise crossings. It is our intent to maintain that. There is ongoing dialogue about the security
question.
Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if there is discussion about getting rid of the information kiosk. Mr.
Thompson replied yes. She said the structure blocks views any way you look. She likes the posters but
there is information at the Wheeler and Chamber. She does not love it. Kevin Dunnett, parks, said the
plan is to redesign and lighten it. Mr. Albert replied it seems like it is necessary and desired. It creates a
node where people gather and go.
Mr. Mesirow asked about building the connection to the natural element. Mr. Thompson stated that will
come forward in the next design.
P3
IV.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 19, 2017
4
Ms. McNicholas Kury said focusing on the Sister Cities area, it is important to have it realigned as the
square rather than the circle. It reflects more of the historic restoration and matches the design of the
other nodes.
Mr. Dupps agreed that it opens the corner more into its own node. He likes the idea of the water feature.
Mr. Mesirow said he does not want to lose the outdoor game aspect. He likes the natural option for the
playground.
Mr. Dupps said he thinks the crab apples should remain. They are historic with a patina, age and
significance. Mr. Thompson said they have been a big conversation and on people’s minds. Mr. Dupps
said historic trees are being preserved all around Aspen.
Mr. Walterscheid said he is surprised people are in favor of moving the restroom. He is less inclined for a
structured shade shelter and would rather see just trees. Mr. Alberts said there may be trees on the north
and south side to provide shade. We have not got to that level of detail.
Mr. Walterscheid asked what is historic about the Kai Davis fountain. Ms. Calloway replied the fountain
and the curb. Mr. Mesirow said he likes the option with the seating. He asked if the water level could be
brought higher. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if that needs to wait for this project. Ms. Calloway replied
the edge condition could wait.
Ms. McNicholas Kury said extending the curbs would be great. Mr. Mesirow and Mr. Walterscheid
agreed. Mr. Dupps said he also likes the seating around the fountain and an extended place to walk.
Mr. Walterscheid said he understands the dining alignment on either side. He is not opposed to stuff in
the middle but understands the concern. He could see one street being different from the other. Mr.
Mesirow asked if there is more available space for dining in one of the options. Mr. Albert replied he is
not sure. Mc. McNicholas Kury said she likes Ryan’s suggestion. She would hate to see the Cooper mall
lost to dining down the center. Mr. Mesirow said he is concerned with the middle option creating the
opportunity for it to feel privatized.
Mr. Walterscheid asked if the larger trees contribute to the different feel to the streets. Ms. McNicholas
Kury said the Galena water feature would be great. She is a fan of whimsy and public art. She likes the
idea of rotating exhibits. Mr. Mesirow said he is on board with more public art. Ms. Calloway said they
will identify locations for proposed art. Mr. Mesirow said he likes the conversation of food carts and
street vendors.
Mr. Dupps said he loves alternative three and that is the direction to go in. Mr. Dupps excused himself
from the meeting.
Ms. McNicholas Kury said she thinks there is room for discussion about achieving accessibility along the
center. Mr. Walterscheid asked if parks has commented about the trees. Pete Rice, engineering said
mostly it is trees four to six inches in diameter that could be relocated. Ms. Calloway said in some
conditions it is only two.
Mr. Mesirow said he likes the fire pit. It is a gathering place. He understands the fuel used but it is a nice
part of the mall. Ms. Calloway said others have also said that. Mr. Thompson said the conversation of
energy usage comes up. Mr. Walterscheid said it is a nice feature in the winter.
Ms. McNicholas Kury asked how the brick search is going. Ms. Calloway stated they have confirmed
with the manufacturer that they can make an in-kind replacement. Mr. Walterscheid said it would be nice
P4
IV.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 19, 2017
5
to put the completion date on the brick. Mr. Mesirow said he is not in favor of snowmelt. Mr.
Walterscheid said a lot of businesses ask for it.
Ms. Calloway stated they will return to P&Z as the design progresses.
At 6:10 p.m. Ms. McNicholas Kury moved to adjourn; seconded by Mr. Walterscheid. All in favor,
motion carried.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P5
IV.
1
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 16,
2018
Commissioner Kelly McNicholas called the meeting to order at 4:32 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Kelly McNicholas and Spencer McNight.
Staff present:
James R. True, City Attorney
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
Phillip Supino, Principal Long Range Planner
Ms. McNicholas noted that there is not a quorum present.
Ms. McNicholas opened the hearing for 465 & 557 N. Mill St.
MOTION: Ms. McNicholas moved to continue the hearing for 465 & 557 N. Mill St. to March 6th, 2018.
Ms. McNicholas closed the hearing.
Mr. Supino noted that his code items will be moved to the February 6th, 2018 meeting.
Ms. McNicholas motioned to adjourn at 4:34 p.m.
______________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
P6
IV.
230 E. Hopkins – Staff Memo 2.6.18
Page 1 of 5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Justin Barker, Senior Planner
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
RE: 230 E. Hopkins (Mountain Forge) – Final Commercial Design Review, Insubstantial
Growth Management Amendment
Resolution No. __, Series of 2018 – Public Hearing
DATE: February 6, 2018
APPLICANT/OWNER:
360 Hexagon LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
Stan Clauson Associates, Inc.
LOCATION:
230 E. Hopkins Ave.
CURRENT ZONING & USE:
Mixed Use (MU), commercial and one
affordable housing unit
PROPOSED ZONING & USE:
Mixed Use (MU), commercial, one
affordable housing unit, one free-market
residential unit
SUMMARY:
The applicant requests P&Z approval for
Final Commercial Design Review and
an amendment to the Growth
Management approval to combine the
originally approved two free-market
residential units into one unit.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends P&Z approve the
project with conditions.
Locator Map
Current image of subject property
P7
VI.A.
230 E. Hopkins – Staff Memo 2.6.18
Page 2 of 5
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning & Zoning
Commission:
· Commercial Design Review, Final – pursuant to Section 26.412, for final design approval
of the project.
· Growth Management Amendment – pursuant to Section 26.470, to combine the two
previously approved free-market residential units into one unit.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located at the northwest corner of S. Monarch St. and E. Hopkins Ave.
and is within the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district. The lot measures 6,000 sq. ft. and encompasses
two traditional townsite lots. The building was formerly the studio of artistic blacksmith Francis
Whitaker who lived in both Aspen and Carbondale from the 1960’s through the 1980’s. The
existing mixed-use building was constructed in 1963 and currently contains commercial uses and
one affordable housing unit.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The proposed project received Conceptual approval from P&Z in July 2016. The Conceptual
approval is for a remodel of the existing building which includes changing the roof forms,
demolition and on-site relocation of the existing affordable housing unit, adding two free-market
residential units, and reducing commercial net leasable space. The Applicant was also approved
for on-site and adjacent off-site public amenity space in the form of landscaped open space and a
reduction in required off-street parking.
The Applicant is now requesting Final design approval for the project, which focuses on building
materials, fenestration, landscape, and lighting. The Applicant is also requesting a Growth
Management amendment to combine the two free-market units approved at Conceptual Review
into one unit. An image of the proposed project is provided below.
Figure 1: View from intersection of Monarch and Hopkins
P8
VI.A.
230 E. Hopkins – Staff Memo 2.6.18
Page 3 of 5
STAFF EVALUATION:
Commercial Design (Exhibit A):
Conceptual Commercial Design Review was granted by P&Z in July 2016. The Conceptual
approval is related to the location and form of the envelope of the structure including height,
scale, massing, and proportions. The Applicant is now requesting Final Commercial Design
Review approval. Final Review focuses on building materials, fenestration, landscape, and
lighting. The combination of a Conceptual and Final Review approval constitutes a complete
Commercial Design Review approval.
The design guidelines have been revised over the course of this project review, but the project
remain subject to those guidelines that were in effect at the time the project was originally
submitted. This property is located in the Central Mixed-Use Character Area under the
Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objective and Guidelines. The Central
Mixed-Use area primarily consists of multi-family residential buildings of two and three stories,
although future development as commercial and lodge is likely as a Mixed-Use zone district.
Building height is residential in scale. Shallow front and side yard setbacks are typical, and
buildings tend to be freestanding. Buildings are articulated with varied massing and architectural
details to convey a human scale. Roof forms vary while building materials are relatively urban
with a predominance of brick. The design objectives for this character area are:
1. Reflect a transition in character between the Commercial Core and the outlying
residential neighborhoods.
2. Maintain a sense of front yards with landscaping.
3. Provide a sense of human scale.
4. Maintain a visually interesting street edge.
5. Encourage outdoor use areas.
6. Minimize visual impacts of parking.
Overall, staff finds that the proposed design meets the design guidelines. The project generally
retains the existing mass of the building, but modernizes the roof forms, fenestration, and
materials. The massing is varied and predominately determined by the existing building mass.
The roof profile is varied through proposed changes to the existing roof form to create a
combination of gabled and flat roof forms. The first floor of the building is designed to
concentrate interest at the street level through several windows and retail entrances on each
street façade. The proposed materials are intended to reflect the craftsmanship of hand worked
materials including handmade bricks, metal panels, Corten siding, and cedar siding. The use of
these materials conveys a sense of human scale and are often seen in other buildings throughout
town and are consistent with the character area.
The proposed landscaping and paving are intended to reflect the quality of the architectural
materials and honor Francis Whitaker. The landscape areas also serve as public amenity space
and enhance the public interaction with the building including seating and unique paving
patterns. The Applicant has proposed some minor changes to the layout of the Public Amenity
areas, but there is no reduction in square footage of either on-or off-site Public Amenity from
what was approved at Conceptual Review. In fact, there is an increase of almost 150 sq. ft. from
the original calculation. Staff finds the proposed changes to be minimal and supportive of the
purpose of Public Amenity.
P9
VI.A.
230 E. Hopkins – Staff Memo 2.6.18
Page 4 of 5
Growth Management (Exhibit B):
As part of the Conceptual approval, the project received Growth Management approval for the
development of two free-market residential units and the demolition and on-site relocation of the
existing affordable housing unit. Since Conceptual, the Applicant has revised the project to
combine the two approved free-market residential units into one unit. This revision requires an
amendment to the Growth Management approval.
Under the applicable Code, the maximum unit size for a multi-family residential unit is 2,000 sq.
ft. of net livable area. This may be increased to 2,500 sq. ft. with the landing of a transferable
development right (TDR) on the property. The proposed unit size for the new unit is 2,313 sq. ft.
net livable area. A TDR must be purchased and extinguished on this property prior to issuance
of a building permit to memorialize this allowance. This is included as a condition of approval in
the proposed resolution.
Figure 2: Conceptual Floor Plan, Upper Level – two units
Figure 3: Revised Floor Plan, Upper Level – one unit
UNIT 1 UNIT 2
UNIT 1
P10
VI.A.
230 E. Hopkins – Staff Memo 2.6.18
Page 5 of 5
The Conceptual approval granted the ability to provide Certificates of Affordable Housing
Credit as mitigation for the free-market residential development. The original two units required
a combined mitigation amount of 1.69 FTEs. This mitigation amount is based on the increase in
free-market residential net livable area for the project. The revised design increases the overall
free-market residential net livable area from what was approved at Conceptual by 64 square
feet, which calculates into 1.73 total FTEs of mitigation required. This is an increase of 0.04
FTEs from what was originally approved. The Applicant intends to mitigate for this increase
through Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, the method approved for the original 1.69
FTEs. Staff supports this as a permitted mitigation method by code and a way to retain
consistency and simplicity in mitigation. The revised mitigation requirement for the free-market
residential is reflected in the proposed resolution.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed design is consistent with the applicable Commercial Design Guidelines and the
revised free-market configuration meets the applicable review criteria. Staff recommends P&Z
approve the project.
PROPOSED MOTION:
“I move to approve Final Commercial Design Review and an Insubstantial Growth Management
Amendment for 230 E. Hopkins Avenue, with conditions.”
EXHIBITS:
A. Review Criteria – Commercial Design
B. Review Criteria – Growth Management
C. Application
D. Updated Public Amenity Plan
P11
VI.A.
230 E. Hopkins Ave
Planning & Zoning Commission
Resolution No.__, Series 2018
Page 1 of 10
RESOLUTION NO.
(SERIES OF 2018)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION GRANTING
FINAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL AND A GROWTH
MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOTS R AND S,
BLOCK 74, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 230 E.
HOPKINS AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 273707328008
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from 360
Hexagon LLC (Applicant) represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., requesting the Planning
and Zoning Commission approve Final Commercial Design Review and a Growth Management
Amendment for 230 E. Hopkins Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in
effect on the day of initial application – March 15, 2016, as applicable to this project; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 26.412.030, the Planning and Zoning Commission
may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue an application for Final
Commercial Design Review at a duly noticed public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.140.A, an insubstantial amendment to an
approved growth management development order may be authorized by the Community
Development Director; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B, an application where more than one
development approval is being sought simultaneously may be combined or modified whenever
the Community Development Director determines, in consultation with the applicant, that such
combination or modification would eliminate or reduce duplication and ensure economy of time,
expense, and clarity; and,
WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code requirements,
the Aspen Community Development Department recommended approval with conditions; and,
WHEREAS, all required public noticing was provided as evidenced by an affidavit of
public noticing submitted to the record, and the public was provided full access to review the
Application; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed the Application at a duly
noticed public hearing on February 6, 2018, during which the recommendations of the
P12
VI.A.
230 E. Hopkins Ave
Planning & Zoning Commission
Resolution No.__, Series 2018
Page 2 of 10
Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard by the Planning &
Zoning Commission, and approved the project with conditions by a vote of ____ to ____ (_ – _).
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING & ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: Final Commercial Design Review
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Final Commercial Design Review for the
proposed project. Elevations and floor plans representing the approved design are attached as
Exhibits A & B.
Section 2: Growth Management Amendment
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves amendments to the Growth Management
approval that was granted on July 19, 2016 via P&Z Resolution No. 5, Series of 2016. The
following Growth Management approvals shall replace those granted pursuant to Section 7 of
Resolution No. 5, Series of 2016.
2.1 Growth Management Allotments.
a) One free-market residential unit is approved from the 2016 Growth Management
Allotments.
2.2 Affordable Housing Mitigation Requirements.
a) The addition of one free-market unit measuring approximately 2,313 sq. ft. net livable
area requires the applicant to provide 694 sq. ft. net livable area in affordable housing
mitigation, or 1.73 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs), using the following calculation:
Mitigation requirement = 2,313 sq. ft. of free-market net livable / 30% = 694 sq. ft.
Conversion to FTEs = 694 sq. ft. / 400 sq. ft. = 1.73 FTEs
The Applicant may provide Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation for
the required 1.73 FTEs. Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit shall be extinguished
per Chapter 26.540 of the Land Use Code prior to issuance of a building permit.
The Applicant shall be required to extinguish a Transferable Development Right (TDR)
certificate on this site for the free-market residential unit. The TDR certificate shall be
extinguished prior to issuance of a building permit, pursuant to Section 26.535.080.
b) The existing development provides a net leasable reconstruction credit of 5,699 sq. ft., or
23.16 FTEs as calculated below:
Basement: 1,317 sq. ft. / 1,000 sq. ft. = 1.317 (4.7 FTEs x 0.75) = 4.64 FTEs
Ground Floor: 2,711 sq. ft. / 1,000 sq. ft. = 2.711 (4.7 FTEs) = 12.74 FTEs
Upper Floor: 1,641 sq. ft. / 1,000 sq. ft. = 1.641 (4.7 FTEs x 0.75) = 5.78 FTEs
Total = 4.64 + 12.74 + 5.78 = 23.16 FTEs
P13
VI.A.
230 E. Hopkins Ave
Planning & Zoning Commission
Resolution No.__, Series 2018
Page 3 of 10
The proposed development includes 4,892 sq. ft. of net leasable area, or 19.94 FTEs as
calculated below:
Basement: 1,923 sq. ft. / 1,000 sq. ft. = 1.923 (4.7 FTEs x 0.75) = 6.78 FTEs
Ground Floor: 2,292 sq. ft. / 1,000 sq. ft. = 2.292 (4.7 FTEs) = 10.77 FTEs
Upper Floor: 677 sq. ft. / 1,000 sq. ft. = 0.677 (4.7 FTEs x 0.75) = 2.39 FTEs
Total = 6.78 + 10.77 + 2.39 = 19.94 FTEs
Under this approval, affordable housing mitigation is not required for the commercial net
leasable floor area associated with the site, provided the FTEs generated by the proposed
net leasable do not exceed the reconstruction credit. Any reconstruction credit shall be
valid for one (1) year following issuance of a demolition permit, pursuant to Chapter
26.470.130.
Section 3: Public Amenity
This Section shall replace Section 4 of P&Z Resolution No. 5, Series of 2016 in its entirety.
The Applicant is required to provide no less than 10% of the lot size in public amenity, or 600
sq. ft. The Planning and Zoning Commission has approved 586 sq. ft. (9.8%) of public amenity
on-site in the form of landscaped open space along the building's Monarch St. façade, and as a
paved walkway to the entrances along both E. Hopkins Ave and S. Monarch St. The Applicant is
also approved to provide 557 sq. ft. (9.3%) of public amenity off-site, directly adjacent to the site
along Hopkins Ave., between the street and the sidewalk, in the form of landscape
improvements. The on- and off-site public amenity combined equals 1143 sq. ft. (19.1%), and is
represented in Exhibit C.
Section 4:
All approvals and conditions contained in P&Z Resolution No. 5, Series of 2016 not modified
within this Resolution remain valid.
Section 5:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation
presented before the Community Development Department or 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 other specific conditions or an
authorized authority.
Section 6:
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.
P14
VI.A.
230 E. Hopkins Ave
Planning & Zoning Commission
Resolution No.__, Series 2018
Page 4 of 10
Section 7:
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.
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ____ day of __________, 2018.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
_______________________________ ___________________________________
James R True, City Attorney Skippy Mesirow, Chair
Attest:
_______________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
Attachments
Exhibit A – Elevations
Exhibit B – Floor Plans
Exhibit C – Public Amenity
P15
VI.A.
230 E. Hopkins Ave
Planning & Zoning Commission
Resolution No.__, Series 2018
Page 5 of 10
EXHIBIT A
P16
VI.A.
230 E. Hopkins Ave
Planning & Zoning Commission
Resolution No.__, Series 2018
Page 6 of 10
EXHIBIT B
P17
VI.A.
230 E. Hopkins Ave
Planning & Zoning Commission
Resolution No.__, Series 2018
Page 7 of 10
P18
VI.A.
230 E. Hopkins Ave
Planning & Zoning Commission
Resolution No.__, Series 2018
Page 8 of 10
P19
VI.A.
230 E. Hopkins Ave
Planning & Zoning Commission
Resolution No.__, Series 2018
Page 9 of 10
P20
VI.A.
230 E. Hopkins Ave
Planning & Zoning Commission
Resolution No.__, Series 2018
Page 10 of 10
EXHIBIT C
P21
VI.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design
Page 1 of 8
EXHIBIT A
COMMERCIAL DESIGN
26.412.050. Review Criteria.
An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or
denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial
design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of
development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of
the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards.
Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be
used to justify a deviation from the standards.
Staff Findings: The proposed plans meet the requirements of the Commercial Design
Standards. See responses in Section 26.412.060 below. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the
proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design
standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the façade of the building may be required
to comply with this Section.
Staff Findings: This application does not involve the conversion of an existing structure to
commercial use. The existing structure contains both commercial and residential uses, and
these uses are proposed to continue. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and
Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate
Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to
be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal
is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards
and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways
of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must
determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means.
Staff Findings: This property is located within the Central Mixed-Use Character Area. The
application complies with the applicable guidelines.
26.412.060. Commercial Design Standards.
The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district
design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed-use
development:
A. Public Amenity Space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to
an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and
P22
VI.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design
Page 2 of 8
entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational
improvements to public rights-of-way or private property within commercial areas.
On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public amenity,
the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method
or combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning
and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to
the procedures herein and according to the following standards:
1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of
uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants
and uses.
2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this
characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade
trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent
rights-of-way are encouraged.
3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures,
rights-of-way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment.
4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls,
sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian
environment.
5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection
26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements.
Staff Findings: The applicable Code requires provision of public amenity equal to at least 25%
of the lot; however, a deficit may be maintained so long as no less than 10% of the public
amenity is provided. The subject site measures 6,000 sq. ft., and the current on-site public
amenity measures 490 sq. ft., which is approximately 8% of the site. Given the existing deficit,
the applicant is responsible for providing 10%, or 600 sq. ft. of public amenity. The applicant
is proposing 586 sq. ft. of public amenity space on-site in the form of landscaped areas along
the Monarch St. façade, and 557 sq. ft. of public amenity off-site, as landscaped areas directly
adjacent to the property, along Hopkins Ave., for a total of 1143 sq. ft. (19.1%) of public
amenity space. This exceeds the 10% requirement for public amenity space associated with
the redevelopment.
The proposed public amenity along Monarch St. serves as a visual relief from development
and creates a buffer between the building and the sidewalk. The public amenity along
Hopkins Ave. is proposed to be landscaped area between the street and the sidewalk with plans
to include bench seating and an interpretive marker and a sculpture reflecting Francis
Whitaker’s work. Any improvements other than landscaping that are made to the public right-
of-way will need to be approved by the City’s Engineering Department. These areas do not
duplicate existing pedestrian space.
Both areas are proposed at sidewalk level, and will contribute to a positive pedestrian
environment as the area transitions from residential to the west towards the commercial area
P23
VI.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design
Page 3 of 8
to the east. No variations from design or operational standards are being sought by the
applicant. Staff finds these criteria to be met.
B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of
a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success
of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding
properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The
following standards shall apply:
1. A trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the
minimum size and location standards established by Title 12, Solid Waste, of the
Municipal Code, unless otherwise established according to said Chapter.
2. A utility area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum
standards established by Title 25, Utilities, of the Municipal Code, the City’s Electric
Distribution Standards, and the National Electric Code, unless otherwise established
according to said Codes.
3. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located and combined to the greatest
extent practical.
4. If the property adjoins an alleyway, the utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be
along and accessed from the alleyway, unless otherwise approved through Title 12, Solid
Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review.
5. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be fenced so as not to be visible from the
street, unless they are entirely located on an alleyway or otherwise approved though Title
12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. All
fences shall be six (6) feet high from grade, shall be of sound construction, and shall be
no less than ninety percent (90%) opaque, unless otherwise varied through Chapter
26.430, Special Review.
6. Whenever utility, trash, and recycle service areas are required to be provided abutting an
alley, other portions of a building may extend to the rear property line if otherwise
allowed by this Title, provided that the utility, trash and recycle area is located at grade
and accessible to the alley.
7. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property. Easements shall allow
for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the
extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an
historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly
licensed.
8. All commercial and lodging buildings shall provide a delivery area. The delivery area
shall be located along the alley if an alley adjoins the property. The delivery area shall be
accessible to all tenant spaces of the building in a manner that meets the requirements of
the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City
of Aspen. All non-ground floor commercial spaces shall have access to an elevator or
dumbwaiter for delivery access. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be utilized
P24
VI.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design
Page 4 of 8
as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International
Building Code. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building.
Shared facilities are highly encouraged.
9. All commercial tenant spaces located on the ground floor in excess of 1,500 square feet
shall contain a vestibule (double set of doors) developed internal to the structure to meet
the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended
by the City of Aspen, or an air curtain.
10. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the
roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical.
11. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within
the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed
behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a
public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for
future ventilation and ducting needs.
12. The trash and recycling service area requirements may be varied pursuant to Title 12,
Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code. All other requirements of this subsection may be
varied by special review (see Chapter 26.430.040.E, Utility and delivery service area
provisions).
Staff Findings: There are two trash and recycle areas that will be provided off the alley, which
does not require fencing. Environmental Health has granted Special Review approval for a
total of 150 sq. ft., which is 50 less than the 200 sq. ft. that would otherwise be required. The
utility area is also located along the alleyway. The existing transformer at the end of the block
has been determined sufficient for the remodel. There are no proposed encroachments. The
delivery area is proposed along the alley, with an access path along the west property line to a
door on the side and access to an elevator for the upper and lower floors. All commercial areas
are less than 1,500 sq. ft. and therefore do not require vestibules. All mechanical equipment
will be vented through the roof and ducting accommodated internally or on the roof. Staff
finds these criteria to be met.
26.412.070. Suggested design elements.
The following guidelines are building practices suggested by the City, but are not mandatory. In
many circumstances, compliance with these practices may not produce the most desired
development, and project designers should use their best judgment.
A. Signage. Signage should be integrated with the building to the extent possible.
Integrated signage areas already meeting the City's requirements for size, etc., may minimize
new tenant signage compliance issues. Common tenant listing areas also serves a public way-
finding function, especially for office uses. Signs should not block design details of the building
on which they are placed. Compliance with the City's sign code is mandatory.
Staff Findings: The applicant plans to integrate signage into the building but has yet to
finalize these plans. A sign permit for all signs will be submitted by the applicant prior to any
signage on the building, and will be reviewed to ensure compliance with the City’s sign code at
the time of application. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable at this time.
P25
VI.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design
Page 5 of 8
B. Display windows. Display windows provide pedestrian interest and can contribute to the
success of the retail space. Providing windows that reveal inside activity of the store can provide
this pedestrian interest.
Staff Findings: Large floor-to-ceiling, first-story windows are planned along the E. Hopkins
St. façade, partially wrapping around the southeastern corner of the main floor. The
Monarch Street façade includes a band of smaller windows that span almost the entire width
of the commercial space. These windows are located around head height allowing for a better
connection with the activity inside the building. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. Lighting. Well-lit (meaning quality, not quantity) display windows along the first floor
create pedestrian interest after business hours. Dynamic lighting methods designed to catch
attention can cheapen the quality of the downtown retail environment. Illuminating certain
important building elements can provide an interesting effect. Significant light trespass should
be avoided. Illuminating the entire building should be avoided. Compliance with the City's
Outdoor lighting code, Section 26.575.150 of this Title, is mandatory.
Staff Findings: The proposed design includes several different light fixtures. Lighting is
primarily located near building entrances and along circulation and utilitarian areas. Final
compliance with the lighting code shall be determined at building permit review. Staff finds
this criterion to be met with conditions.
P26
VI.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design
Page 6 of 8
Central Mixed-Use Character Area
Final Review Design Guidelines
2.17 To reduce the perceived mass of a building the design should respect the design character
of the area and reflect the human scale and character of the city. This shall be achieved through
all of the following:
· The massing of building forms
· The articulation of the façade(s) through a varied roof profile
· The use of a variation in architectural materials, and detailing
Staff Findings: The first floor of the building is designed to concentrate interest at the street
level through several windows and retail entrances on each street façade. The massing is
varied and predominately determined by the existing building mass. The roof profile is varied
through proposed changes to the existing roof form to create a combination of gabled and flat
roof forms. The proposed materials are intended to reflect the craftsmanship of hand worked
materials including handmade bricks, metal panels, Corten siding, and cedar siding. The use
of these materials conveys a sense of human scale and are often seen in other buildings
throughout town. Staff finds this guideline to be met.
2.18 Any new buildings shall be designed to maintain a minimum of 9 feet from floor to
ceiling on all floors.
Staff Findings: The proposed project is a remodel of an existing building. Staff finds this
guideline to be not applicable.
2.19 The first floor façade should be designed to concentrate interest at the street level, using
the highest quality of design, detailing and materials.
Staff Findings: The proposed design includes several street level windows and clearly defined
entrances. The materials are of high quality and varied throughout the design to create visual
interest. Staff finds this guideline to be met.
2.20 A new building should be designed to maintain the stature of traditional street level retail
frontage.
· This should be a minimum of 11 ft. in floor to floor height on the first floor.
Staff Findings: The proposed project is a remodel of an existing building. Staff finds this
guideline to be not applicable.
2.21 Minimize the appearance of a third floor.
· Where a third floor’s floor to ceiling height is in excess of 10 ft., it should be set back a
minimum of 15 ft. from the street façade to reduce the apparent height.
· Increase the parapet height to screen the visual impact of a tall top floor.
P27
VI.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design
Page 7 of 8
· The design of a set back third floor shall be simpler in form, more subdued in modeling,
detail and color than the primary façade.
Staff Findings: The proposed design does not include a third floor. Staff finds this guideline to
be not applicable.
2.22 The retail entrance should be at the sidewalk level.
· All entrances shall be ADA compliant.
· On sloping sites the retail frontage should be as close to a level entrance as possible.
Staff Findings: All entrances are at the sidewalk level and ADA compliant, except for the
lower level entrance in the areaway. This is a pre-existing entrance and access to these spaces
is still viable through a common elevator inside the building. Staff finds this guideline to be
met.
2.23 Incorporate an airlock entry into the plan for all new structures.
· An airlock entry that projects forward of the primary façade at the sidewalk edge is
inappropriate.
· Adding temporary entries during the winter season detracts from the character of the
historic district.
· Using a temporary vinyl or fabric “airlock” to provide protection from winter weather is
not permitted.
Staff Findings: The proposed project is a remodel of an existing building. Staff finds this
guideline to be not applicable.
2.24 The roofscape should be designed with the same design attention as the secondary
elevations of the building.
· Group and screen mechanical units from view.
· Locate mechanical equipment to the rear of the roof area.
· Position, articulate and design rooftop enclosures or structures to reflect the modulation
and character of the building.
· Use materials which complement the design of the building facades.
· Design roof garden areas to be unobtrusive from the street.
· Use ‘green roof’ design best practice, where feasible.
Staff Findings: The proposed roofscape includes a large common deck that is well landscaped
and includes water features. Mechanical units will be grouped and screened near the rear of
the roof area. Most of the landscaping will occur in the northwest corner, along the alley.
Other landscaping is simple planter boxes around the edges that are not easily perceived from
the street level. The elevator overrun is located closer to the west lot line which is set back far
from the street façades. Staff finds this guideline to be met.
2.25 High quality, durable materials should be employed.
P28
VI.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design
Page 8 of 8
· The palette of materials proposed for all development should be specified and approved
as part of the general and detailed development approvals process, including samples of
materials as required.
Staff Findings: The proposed materials are intended to reflect the craftsmanship of hand
worked materials including handmade bricks, metal panels, Corten siding, and cedar siding.
These are durable materials that complement the adjacent commercial areas and are
consistent with the character area. Staff finds this guideline to be met.
2.26 Building materials should have these features:
· Convey the quality and range of materials seen historically.
· Reduce the perceived scale of the building.
· Convey a human scale.
· Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within this climate.
Staff Findings: The proposed materials meet all the above characteristics. Staff finds this
guideline to be met.
2.27 Landscaping and paving should have the following characteristics:
· Enhance the street scene.
· Integrate the development with its setting.
· Reflect the quality of the architectural materials.
Staff Findings: The proposed landscaping and paving are intended to reflect the quality of the
architectural materials and honor Francis Whitaker. The landscape areas also serve as public
amenity space and enhance the public interaction with the building including seating and
unique paving patterns. Staff finds this guideline to be met.
2.28 Landscaping should be provided in all projects.
Staff Findings: Extensive landscaping is provided in this project, primarily to satisfy the
public amenity requirement. Staff finds this guideline to be met.
P29
VI.A.
Exhibit B – Growth Management
Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT B
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
26.470.140. Amendment of a growth management development order.
A. Insubstantial amendment. An insubstantial amendment to an approved growth
management development order may be authorized by the Community Development Director if:
1. The change conforms to all other provisions of the Land Use Code and does not exceed
approved variations to the residential design standards, require an amendment to the
commercial design review approval or such variations or amendments have been
approved.
Staff Findings: Under the applicable Code, the Mixed-Use zone district allows a
maximum multi-family unit size of 2,000 sq. ft. This may be increased to 2,500 sq. ft.
with the landing of a transferable development right (TDR) on the property. The
proposed unit size for the new unit is 2,313 sq. ft. net livable area. The Applicant must
land a TDR on this site for the proposal to comply with the zone district requirements.
A condition to land a TDR is included in the draft resolution. All other aspects of the
change conform to the provisions of the Land Use Code applicable to this project. Staff
finds this criterion to be met with conditions.
2. The change does not alter the number, size, type or deed restriction of the proposed
affordable housing units, or those changes have been accepted by the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority.
Staff Findings: The proposed affordable housing unit does not change in size, type or
deed restriction as a result of this change. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. The change is limited to technical or engineering considerations discovered prior to or
during actual development that could not reasonably be anticipated during the review
process or any other minor change that the Community Development Director finds has
no substantial effect on the conditions and representations made during the original
project review.
Staff Findings: The proposed change is considered minor and has no substantial effect
on the conditions and representations made during the Conceptual review. The overall
residential area is slightly increased and commercial area slightly decreased. The
affordable housing area remains the same. There are no changes to the exterior of the
building as a result of this change. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P30
VI.A.
P31VI.A.
P32VI.A.
P33VI.A.
P34VI.A.
P35VI.A.
P36VI.A.
P37VI.A.
P38VI.A.
P39VI.A.
P40VI.A.
P41VI.A.
P42VI.A.
P43VI.A.
P44VI.A.
P45VI.A.
P46VI.A.
P47VI.A.
P48VI.A.
P49VI.A.
P50VI.A.
P51VI.A.
P52VI.A.
P53VI.A.
P54VI.A.
P55VI.A.
P56VI.A.
P57VI.A.
P58VI.A.
P59VI.A.
P60VI.A.
P61VI.A.
P62VI.A.
P63VI.A.
P64VI.A.
P65VI.A.
P66VI.A.
P67VI.A.
P68VI.A.
P69VI.A.
P70VI.A.
P71VI.A.
P72VI.A.
P73VI.A.
= input
= calculation
DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS:
APPLICANT CONTACT
INFORMATION:
NAME, COMPANY,
ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL
Minor
Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Total
Commercial (sf)-777.0 sf -1.22 -0.55 -1.76 -1.29 -1.93 -3.22
Free-Market Housing (Units)1 Units 0.19 0.48 0.67 0.46 0.36 0.82
Affordable Housing (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lodging (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Essential Public Facility (sf)0.0 sf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
-1.02 -0.07 -1.09 -0.83 -1.57 -2.40
Land Use Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting
Commercial 2.27 0.69 0.31 4.14 0.4 0.6
Free-Market Housing 0.67 0.29 0.71 0.82 0.56 0.44
Affordable Housing 0.75 0.48 0.52 0.89 0.55 0.45
Lodging 0.25 0.57 0.43 0.31 0.52 0.48
Essential Public Facility 0.86 0.62 0.38 1.66 0.4 0.6
Net New
Units/Square Feet of
the Proposed ProjectProposed Land Use
*For mixed-use (at least two of the established land uses) sites, a 4% reduction for AM Peak-Hour and a 14% reduction for PM Peak-Hour is applied to
the trip generation.
Name: Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA
Company: Stan Clauson Associates, Inc.
Address: 412 N Mill Street, Aspen, CO 81611
Phone: 970 925-2323
Email: stan@scaplanning.com
Trip Generation
11/20/2017
AM Peak Average PM Peak Average
Trips Generated
AM Peak-Hour PM Peak-Hour
TOTAL NEW TRIPS
ASSUMPTIONS
ASPEN TRIP GENERATION
Is this a major or minor project?
230 E Hopkins Avenue
Mountain Forge
Instructions:
IMPORTANT: Turn on Macros: In order for code to run correctly the security settings need to be altered. Click "File"
and then click "Excel Options." In the "Trust Center"category, click "Trust Center Settings", and then click the "Macro
Settings"category. Beneath "Macro Settings" select "Enable all Macros."
Sheet 1. Trip Generation: Enter the project's square footage and/or unit counts under Proposed Land Use. The
numbers should reflect the net change in land use between existing and proposed conditions. If a landuse is to be
reduced put a negative number of units or square feet.
Sheet 2. MMLOS: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable under each of the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections.Points are
only awarded for proposed (not existing) and confirmed aspects of the project.
Sheet 3. TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project.
Sheet 4. Summary and Narrative: Review the summary of the project's mitigated trips and provide a narrative which
explains the measures selected for the project. Click on "Generate Narrative" and individually explain each measure
that was chosen and how it enhances the site or mitigates vehicle traffic. Ensure each selected measure make sense for
Minor Development -Inside the Roundabout
Major Development -Outside the Roundabout
Helpful Hints:
1. Refer to the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for information on the use of this tool.
2. Refer to TIA Frequently Asked Questions for a quick overview.
2. Hover over red corner tags for additional information on individual measures.
3. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not
receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context
of project location and future use.
Transportation Impact Analysis
TIA Frequently Asked Questions
P74
VI.A.
= input
= calculation
31
Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points
1
Does the project propose a detached sidewalk where an attached
sidewalk currently exists? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer
meet standard minimum widths?
No 0
2 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width greater than the standard
minimum width?No 0
3 Does the project propose a landscape buffer greater than the
standard minimum width?No 0
0
4
Does the project propose a detached sidewalk on an adjacent block?
Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard minimum
widths?
No 0
5 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width on an adjacent block
greater than the standard minimum width?No 0
6 Is the proposed landscape buffer on an adjacent block greater than
the standard minimum width?No 0
0
7 Are slopes between back of curb and sidewalk equal to or less than
5%?Yes 0
8 Are curbs equal to (or less than) 6 inches?Yes 0
9
Is new large-scale landscaping proposed that improves the pedestrian
experience? Properties within the Core do not have ample area to
provide the level of landscaping required to receive credit in this
category.
Yes 5
10 Does the project propose an improved crosswalk? This measure must
get City approval before receiving credit. Yes 5
10
11 Are existing driveways removed from the street?No 0
12 Is pedestrian and/or vehicle visibility unchanged by new structure or
column?Yes 0
13 Is the grade (where pedestrians cross) on cross-slope of driveway 2%
or less?Yes 0
14
Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian access points from
the ROW? This includes improvements to ADA ramps or creating new
access points which prevent pedestrians from crossing a street.
Yes 5
15 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian or bicyclist interaction
with vehicles at driveway areas?No 0
5
16 Is the project's pedestrian directness factor less than 1.5?Yes 0
17
Does the project propose new improvements which reduce the
pedestrian directness factor to less than 1.2? A site which has an
existing pedestrian directness factor less than 1.2 cannot receive
credit in this category.
No 0
18 Is the project proposing an off site improvement that results in a
pedestrian directness factor below 1.2?* No 0
19 Are traffic calming features proposed that are part of an approved
plan (speed humps, rapid flash)?*No 0
0
20
Are additional minor improvements proposed which benefit the
pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen
staff?
Yes 3
21
Are additional major improvements proposed which benefit the
pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen
staff?
No 0
3
18Pedestrian Total*
MMLOS Input Page
Subtotal
SubtotalSidewalk Condition on Adjacent BlocksSidewalk Condition on Project FrontageSubtotal
Instructions: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable to each measure under the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections.
Subtotal
Subtotal
PedestriansSubtotalAdditional Proposed ImprovementsTOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS MITIGATED:Pedestrian RoutesTraffic Calming and Pedestrian NetworkDriveways, Parking, and Access ConsiderationsP75
VI.A.
Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points
22 Is a new bicycle path being implemented with City approved design?NA 0
23 Do new bike paths allow access without crossing a street or driveway?NA 0
24 Is there proposed landscaping, striping, or signage improvements to
an existing bicycle path?NA 0
25 Does the project propose additional minor bicycle improvements
which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0
26 Does the project propose additional major bicycle improvements
which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0
0
Bicycle Parking27 Is the project providing bicycle parking?Yes 5
5
5
Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points
28 Is seating/bench proposed?Yes 3
29 Is a trash receptacle proposed?No 0
30 Is transit system information (signage) proposed?No 0
31 Is shelter/shade proposed?No 0
32 Is enhanced pedestrian-scale lighting proposed?No 0
33 Is real-time transit information proposed?No 0
34 Is bicycle parking/storage proposed specifically for bus stop use?No 0
35 Are ADA improvements proposed?Yes 5
8
36 Is a bus pull-out proposed at an existing stop?NA 0
37 Is relocation of a bus stop to improve transit accessibility or roadway
operations proposed?NA 0
38 Is a new bus stop proposed (with minimum of two basic amenities)?NA 0
0
8
Bicycles Total*
Transit Total*BicyclesModifications to Existing Bicycle PathsTransitBasic AmenitiesSubtotal
Subtotal
Enhanced AmenitiesSubtotal
Subtotal
P76
VI.A.
Category Measure
Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT
Reductions
Will an onsite ammenities strategy be implemented?NA
Which onsite ammenities will be implemented?
Will a shared shuttle service strategy be implemented?NA
What is the degree of implementation?
What is the company size?
What percentage of customers are eligible?
3 Nonmotorized Zones Will a nonmotorized zones strategy be implemented?NA 0.00%
0.00%
Category Measure
Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT
Reductions
Will a network expansion stragtegy be implemented?No
What is the percentage increase of transit network coverage?
What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips?
Will a service frequency/speed strategy be implemented?NA
What is the percentage reduction in headways (increase in frequency)?
What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips?
What is the level of implementation?
Will a transit access improvement strategy be implemented?NA
What is the extent of access improvements?
7 Intercept Lot Will an intercept lot strategy be implemented?0.00%
0.00%
Category Measure
Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT
Reductions
Will there be participation in TOP?No
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a transit fare subsidy strategy implemented?No
What percentage of employees are eligible?
What is the amount of transit subsidy per passenger (daily equivalent)?
Is an employee parking cash-out strategy being implemented?No
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a workplace parking pricing strategy implemented?No
What is the daily parking charge?
What percentage of employees are subject to priced parking?
Is a compressed work weeks strategy implemented?No
What percentage of employees are participating?
What is the workweek schedule?
Is an employer sponsered shuttle program implemented?No
What is the employer size?
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a carpool matching strategy implemented?No
What percentage of employees are eligble?
Is carshare participation being implemented?No
How many employee memberships have been purchased?
What percentage of employees are eligble?
Is participation in the bikeshare program WE-cycle being implemented?No
How many memberships have been purchased?
What percentage of employees/guests are eligble?
Is an end of trip facilities strategy being implemented?No
What is the degree of implementation?
What is the employer size?
Is a self-funded emergency ride home strategy being implemented?No
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a carpool/vanpool priority parking strategy being implemented?No
What is the employer size?
What number of parking spots are available for the program?
Is a private employer shuttle strategy being implemented?No
What is the employer size?
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a trip reduction marketing/incentive program implemented?No
What percentage of employees/guests are eligible?
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1. 22% work trips represents a mixed-used site (SF Bay Area Travel Survey). See Assumptions Tab for more detail.
Maximum Reduction Allowed in CategoryTransit System Improvements Strategies1
2
4
5
6
8
9
10
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category
Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Bikeshare Program
0.00%
TDM Input Page
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%Commute Trip Reduction Programs StrategiesOnsite Servicing
Shared Shuttle Service
Neighborhood/Site Enhancements Strategies0.00%
0.00%
Network Expansion
Service Frequency/Speed
Transit Access Improvement
Participation in TOP
Transit Fare Subsidy
Employee Parking Cash-Out
Workplace Parking Pricing
Compressed Work Weeks
Employer Sponsored Vanpool
Carpool Matching
Carshare Program
Self-funded Emergency Ride Home
Carpool/Vanpool Priority Parking
Private Employer Shuttle
Trip Reduction Marketing/Incentive
Program
End of Trip Facilities
Cross Category Maximum Reduction, Neighborhood and Transit
Global Maximum VMT Reductions
11
12
13
14
15
21
16
17
18
19
20
Instructions TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Proposed TDM or
MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit for
measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context of project
location and future use.
P77
VI.A.
DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS:
APPLICANT CONTACT
INFORMATION:
NAME, COMPANY,
ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL
Peak Hour Max Trips Generated MMLOS TDM Total Trips Mitigated
AM -1.1 31 0.00 31.00 0.00
A minimum of two TDM measures must be utilized for minor projects. Please return to Sheet "3. TDM" and select a minimum of two measures.
Name: Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA
Company: Stan Clauson Associates, Inc.
Address: 412 N Mill Street, Aspen, CO 81611
Phone: 970 925-2323
Email: stan@scaplanning.com
Summary and Narrative:
Narrative:
11/20/2017
Mountain Forge
230 E Hopkins Avenue
Trip Generation
SUMMARY
Trip Mitigation NET TRIPS TO BE
MITIGATED
Click on the "Generate Narrative" Button to the right.
Respond to each of the prompts in the space provided.
Each response should cover the following:
1. Explain the selected measure.
2. Call out where the measure is located.
3. Demonstrate how the selected measure is appropriate to enhance the project site
and reduce traffic impacts.
4. Explain the Enforcement and Financing Plan for the selected measure.
5. Explain the scheduling and implementation responsibility of the mitigation measure.
6. Attach any additional information and a site map to the narrative report.
Project Description
In the space below provide a description of the proposed project.
This project consists of a remodel of the existing Mountain Forge building. The existing building contains 5,669 SF of Commercial net leasable
floor area. The remodeled building will contain 4,892 SF of Commercial net leasable floor area, for a net reduction of 777 SF. The remodeled
building will contain one free-market unt and one affordable housing unit. The current building contains only one affordable housing unit.
Therefore, there is a net gain of one free-market unit.
MMLOS
In the space provided desicribe what new landscaping is proposed and how the proposed landscaping plan enhances the pedestrian
experience. This measure is only applicable to large scale projects and requires more extensive landscaping then a few plantings or lawn area.
The project shall establish extensive landscaping which significantly benefits the site and improves the pedestrian comfort and experience.
There will be a paved pedestrian amenity space that contains a sculpture honoring Francis Whitaker, the iron sculptor for whom the Mountain
Forge building is named. There will also be a seating bench provided adjacent to the pedestrian right-of-way, along with bicycle parking.
Explain the proposed improved crosswalk and how this improvement benefits the pedestian experience and the site as a whole. An improved
crosswalk includes measures such as incorporating a corner bulb out or defining a crosswalk path with colored concrete. Simply re-striping a
crosswalk will not recieve credit. This measure must be pre-approved by City staff.
The original crosswalk and pedestrian ramp was not in correct alignment with the opposite ramp on Monarch Street owing to the earlier
presence of a large tree that had long since been removed. New pedestrian ramps will resorte the correct alignment.
P78
VI.A.
Describe the enhanced pedestrian access point(s). This measure is to improve pedestrian access to the site from the ROW. It includes adding
additional access points which prevent pedestrians and bicyclists from crossing a street, improvements to the project's ADA ramps in the
ROW, and improvements to existing access points.
Please see description above.
Explain any additional minor improvements which benefit the pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff.
Pedestrian improvements include a paved seating and sculpture area dedidicated to Francis Whitaker for whom the Moutain Forge building was
named.
Describe the proposed seating/bench and the bench location for which existing bus stop.
There is no existing bus stop.
Explain the proposed bus stop ADA improvements.
There is no existing bus stop.
Include any additional information that pertains to the MMLOS plan in the space provided below.
The project is designed to enhance the pedestrian environment.
TDM
Include any additional information that pertains to the TDM plan in the space provided below.
A TDM plan is not required for this project.
MMLOS Site Plan Requirements
Include the following on a site plan. Clearly call out and label each measure. Attach the site plan to the TIA submittal.
Slopes Between Back of Curb and Sidewalk
Landscape Plan
Crosswalk Improvement(s)
2% Slope at Pedestrian Driveway Crossings
Enhanced Pedestrian Access Point
Pedestrian Directness Factor (See callout number 9 on the MMLOS sheet for an example)
Additional Minor Pedestrian Improvement
Bicycle Parking
Bus Stop Seating/Bench
Bus Stop ADA Improvements
Enforcement and Financing
Provide an overview of the Enforcement and Financing plan for the proposed transportation mitigation measures.
P79
VI.A.
Provide a monitoring and reporting plan. Refer to page 17 in the Transportation Analysis Guidelines for a list of monitoring plan
requirements. Components of a Monitoring and Reporting Plan should include (1) Assessment of compliance with guidelines, (2) Results and
effectiveness of implemented measures, (3) Identification of additional strategies, and (4) Surveys and other supporting data.
A monitoring and reporting plan is not required for this project.
The pedestrian improvements will be incorporated into a final Development Agreement and a required bond for these improvements will be
posted.
Scheduling and Implementation Responsibility of Mitigation Measures
Provide an overview of the scheduling and implementation responsibility for the proposed transportation mitigation measures.
The implementation of the pedestrian improvements will be completed following the building remodel and prior to the issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy for the building.
Monitoring and Reporting
P80
VI.A.
P81VI.A.
P82VI.A.
P83VI.A.
P84VI.A.
P85VI.A.
P86VI.A.
P87VI.A.
P88VI.A.
P89VI.A.
P90VI.A.
P91VI.A.
P92VI.A.
Miscellaneous Code Update – P&Z Check-In
January 16, 2017
Page 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Phillip Supino, Principal Long-Range Planner
Justin Barker, Senior Planner
THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
MEETING DATE: January 16, 2018
RE: Miscellaneous Code Amendment
REQUEST OF P&Z: The purpose of this discussion is to update and solicit feedback from the
Commission regarding the process to amend the Miscellaneous Regulations, Definitions, and Parking
and Mobility sections of the Land Use Code.
SUMMARY: The focus of the proposed amendment is on Section 26.575.020, Calculations and
Measures, which includes the standards for calculating a wide range of development metrics, including
building height, floor area, deck exemptions, and more. The proposed amendments will have to include
some amendments to the Definitions included in Part 100, and other sections of code to ensure
coordination between various regulations and standards. The Parking and Mobility section will undergo
targeted amendments to make sure the regulations deliver the policy objectives identified during the
2016-2017 AACP-LUC coordination process.
Periodically, the Planning staff amends the Miscellaneous Regulations section of the Land Use Code to
improve ease of use, clarify regulations, better coordinate various sections of the Code, and adjust
regulations to align with Council goals and new development practices. The last miscellaneous code
amendment was conducted in 2015. Every few years this section of the Code requires updating to
remain relevant to current building practice, to create more predictability in zoning review, and to ensure
that the purpose of the requirement is met. Most of the changes are clarifications and slight adjustments,
as well as formatting and organization of the section.
Since last November, Planning staff has met biweekly with a focus group of 11 design and development
industry professionals to discuss specific topics within the amendment process, including representatives
from P&Z (Rally Dupps and Jasmine Tygre) and HPC (Gretchen Greenwood). The over-arching goal of
the amendment process is to improve the utility, interpretation, formatting and appearance of the
standards in 26.575.020 Calculations and Measures, while not significantly changing the development
rights provided to commercial and residential properties by the regulations in the Land Use Code.
Between focus group meetings, staff discusses the concepts developed by the focus group and further
refines the amendments being proposed. All this input will be used to produce revised code language in
January and February, following check-in meetings with HPC, P&Z and City Council.
P93
VII.A.
Miscellaneous Code Update – P&Z Check-In
January 16, 2017
Page 2 of 4
To date, the focus group has discussed three major topic areas: exterior features calculations, grade and
height calculations, and formatting. Each of these discussions has resulted in conceptual frameworks for
the amendments to the Land Use Code. The following memo outlines those frameworks and identifies
additional topics and goals to be considered by the focus group in the coming months. P&Z is
encouraged to provide ideas for additional discussion or specific amendments and improvements to the
sections of the LUC open for amendment.
PROPOSED CHANGES/TOPIC AREAS: The focus of this Miscellaneous Code Amendment is on the
Calculations and Measures standards in Section 26.575.020. The standards in this section are used to
assess metrics like floor area, height, setback standards and the location and extent of various building
features and appurtenances. The code amendments seek to clarify and simplify those sections. The
following is a summary of the frameworks developed for the topics listed above.
Exterior Features Calculations
The current code treats these features, including decks, patios, walls, large eaves and overhangs, entry
features, and other appendages as elements which contribute to floor area unless explicitly excepted.
For example, the current code allows for decks which occupy up to 15% of floor area to be exempted
from floor area calculations. All deck area above 15% counts toward floor area. This standard, with its
explicit, specific references to deck, leads staff and applicants to have regular discussions about what
constitutes a deck, and whether this or that example should count or not. The proposed amendment is
intended to eliminate those discussion by including all appended, exterior features in one category with a
square footage cap.
In an effort to simplify understanding of and compliance with the regulations regarding these features,
and to facilitate quality, flexible design, the focus group developed three categories for treating mass on
a development site. The primary mass is that portion of the building that is within the “thermal
envelope” (enclosed space). The ancillary mass are those elements attached to the primary mass but not
within the “thermal envelope” (e.g. a deck, loggia or large overhang). The ground plane includes those
features below a specific height and outside of the primary and ancillary mass. (See the drawings in
Exhibit A for illustrations of the three feature categories.) Each of the three categories would contribute
to floor area in specific ways.
The outcome of the proposed framework is a simplification of the regulations for features in each
category, while not increasing the square footage available for each feature type. The proposed
framework is intended to eliminate the frequent conversations between staff, applicants and boards as to
what constitutes a “deck” or “loggia” or “fence.” Additionally, the proposed framework would make
clearer the way those features are calculated as part of floor area. Finally, the proposed framework
would simplify the calculation of how various features in yards and setbacks, which are not attached to
the building, may or may not be included in floor area. All of this is underpinned by the goal of not
significantly impacting development rights for properties.
Grade and Height
The current code relies on different definitions of existing, natural, and finished grade to assist in the
determination of grade for development, the measurement of height from grade. The three definitions
are applied in different ways and to measure different aspects of a development plan. This leads to
confusion and the misapplication of some standards. Amendments to these regulations are intended to
P94
VII.A.
Miscellaneous Code Update – P&Z Check-In
January 16, 2017
Page 3 of 4
simplify the standards for designers and staff, while not increasing building heights or incentivizing
excessive site grading.
This topic area presented some challenges to achieving the dual goals of simplification and maintenance
of current development rights. The framework that emerged from the discussion was the idea of
establishing one grade to measure height based on the existing grade of the site. That established grade
would then be projected up to the maximum height limit in the zone district to set the height limit for the
property. To simplify the measurement of height and the establishment of grade, a cap may be placed
on the amount (depth or height) of grading from existing grade that can be conducted on a site. The
intent of this cap is to reduce the desire to significantly modify existing grade in order to gain the benefit
of measurement from various points in the design and development review process.
Formatting
The discussion regarding formatting yielded several concepts to improve navigation through the section
and ease of use. The most significant recommendation from the focus group was to break out the
standards in 26.575.020 into their own section. The group recommended having the calculations and
measures standards in close proximity to the setback and use standards in 26.710. Also, giving those
standards their own section allows more space to separate the regulations from one another and
simplifies referencing those standards.
The group also discussed using simple formatting changes, such as more paragraphs, more numbered
subsections and separating individual standards from one another to achieve a more user-friendly code.
Adding subsection headers which clearly identify the contents of that subsection would improve
navigation and understanding. These changes would make the section longer without necessarily adding
language, so breaking out 26.575.020 into its own section would allow for that expansion without
lengthening Chapter 26.
Additional Concepts
The focus group suggested the addition of intent statements to the various sections of Calculations and
Measures. These statements would clarify what the code is attempting to regulate and why. For
example, an intent statement regarding regulation of features in yards above the ground plane might
include discussion of the effect on the over-all mass of development by significant detached structures
like a built-in grill and above grade patio features.
Additional graphics will be added and current graphics updated to improve ease-of-use and
interpretation of regulations throughout 26.575.020. Those graphics will include charts, tables, and
sketches to illustrate examples of specific standards.
As part of the amendment process, staff also plans to make minor changes to the parking standards in
section 26.515. The parking section of the Land Use Code was rewritten in 2017 as part of the AACP-
Land Use Code coordination process. Staff has worked with those standards through a few projects
since they were adopted. A handful of the standards, as well as some of the wording in the regulations,
are confusing and require a second look to ensure they deliver the outcomes intended through the
original amendments.
P95
VII.A.
Miscellaneous Code Update – P&Z Check-In
January 16, 2017
Page 4 of 4
HPC FEEDBACK: Staff met with the Historic Preservation Commission on January 10th to discuss the
amendment process to date, the frameworks developed by the focus group for the various topic areas,
and receive feedback and ideas to inform the next steps of the process. Staff outlined for the
commission all the concepts included in the “Proposed Changes/Topic Areas” section of this memo.
HPC members expressed support for the over-all amendment process goals of improving ease of use and
interpretation of the code, while not significantly altering development rights for commercial or
residential projects. HPC members also generally supported all the conceptual frame works for the
various topic areas.
Some specific comments from HPC members included: cautioning staff not to further restrain the 15%
exemption for residential deck area provided in the code, not adopting code language adding mass or
floor area to projects, ensure the new formatting is conducive to design and presentation processes,
better coordinating the calculation of floor area relative to grade, and analyzing whether the
methodology for determining net lot area needs refinement. Staff will take these comments, along with
the feedback received from P&Z, and incorporate it into the code language development process in the
coming months.
Staff requests feedback from P&Z on the following questions:
a. Does P&Z support the conceptual frameworks developed for the topic areas discussed in
the memo?
b. What additional topics or regulations should the focus group consider in the coming
weeks?
c. Where in Section 26.575.020 would the introduction or redesign of graphics aid in ease of
use of the section?
NEXT STEPS: Staff is working with the advisory group, as well as HPC and P&Z, in January and
February to develop draft code language. Following additional focus group meetings in the coming
weeks, staff will work with Council to develop a policy resolution and draft ordinance for consideration
in March. If staff is unable to schedule a meeting to discuss specific code language, the proposed
language will be provided to P&Z by email for individual feedback prior to Council review.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Mass Sketches
P96
VII.A.
P97
VII.A.
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
RE: Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson
MEETING
DATE: January 16, 2018
At the first meeting of the year, the Planning and Zoning Commission is tasked with electing a
Chair and Vice-Chair. The appointment is for one year and currently elected members can be re-
elected.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission may use this motion “I
move to make a recommendation to elect ____________, as chairperson and _______________as
vice-chairperson of the Planning and Zoning Commission for 2018.”
P98
VII.B.
RESOLUTION NO. __
Series of 2018
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission is required to elect a chairperson and vice-
chairperson as outlined in Section 26.212.030, Membership-Appointment, removal, terms and
vacancies of the land use code; and
WHEREAS, the term of each position is for one (1) year; and
WHEREAS, the commission voted to elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson on January 16,
2018; and
WHEREAS, _______________was elected chairperson and __________________was elected
vice-chairperson; and
WHEREAS, both positions shall expire on January 15, 2019; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of Aspen,
Colorado, by this resolution that _______________be appointed as chairperson and
_________________be appointed as vice-chairperson.
DATED: January ____, 2018
_________________________
_______________, Chair
ATTEST:__________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy Clerk
P99
VII.B.
EXHIBIT
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 230 E. Hopkins Ave., Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Tuesday, February 6, 2018
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
1, Tawn Hillenbrand (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City
of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that 1 have complied with the public notice
requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following
manner:
Publication ofinotice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
_X_ Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on the 15th day of January, 2018, to and including the date and time of the public
hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
_X_ Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach,
summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as
required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the
neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and
a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
EXHIBIT
s
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 230 E. Hopkins Ave., Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Tuesday, February 6, 2018
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
I, Tawn Hillenbrand (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City
of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice
requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following
manner:
Publication ofnotice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
_X_ Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on the 15`h day of January, 2018, to and including the date and time of the public
hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
X Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach,
summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as
required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the
neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and
a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt
requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the
date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development.
The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current
tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, PDs that create more
than one lot, and new Planned Developments are subject to this notice
requirement.
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any
way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this
Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be
made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or
otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal
description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of
real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the
proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning
agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on such amendments.
aGL X
ign tuS re
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 16th day
of January, 2018, by Patrick Rawley.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
PATRICK S. RAWLEY
NOTARY PUBLICOM commission fires: 2 6 Z. .2a
STATE OF COLORADO y expires:
NOTARY ID#199940122.59
My Cntnrmssinn Expires July 26,2020
Notary Public
ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:
COPY OF THEPUBLICA TION
• PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN)
• LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BYMAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3
THE CITY OF ASPEN
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611
p: (970) 920.5000
f: (970) 920.5197
w: www.aspenpitkin.com
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RE: 230 E. Hopkins Ave.
Public Hearing: February 6, 2018, 4:30 PM
Meeting Location: City Hall, Sister Cities meeting room — 130 S. Galena St, Aspen CO 81611
Project Location: 230 E. Hopkins Avenue
Description: The applicant requests final approvals to remodel the existing building, replace
the on-site affordable housing unit, and to create one free-market residential
unit.
Land Use Reviews: Final Commercial Design, Growth Management Quota System Amendment
Decision Making Body: Planning&Zoning Commission
Applicant: 360 Hexagon LLC, 119 Hyslop Road, Brookline, MA 02445
More Information: For further information related to the project, contact Justin Barker at the City of
Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2797,
justin.barker@cityofaspen.com.
7 „moi' J
.r`
11 � ®
v-., .,i :tai ■
1' rr -:(1 .r „fj, lr �f•.Y ��M1'y, °` • j•��♦]Y t � t i��� '� f
r
7 r
•��/Ye ll Y-f/� r� .:r "i. (� .� � nVl7f1. !Sf c ��..��+ �,i�r
e C'
jjpp ti i o u
2 ;t Of
1. o
e � �l lr �/ � r rl� iSj' r�'1�•,ltt' �• 7,e _„, d! ��'.
Y 4c
r ftql1'� �.(Jt� =,,
er
��
�.t•t '?j°p>ti � 7f , ' i ij r.� t ,.r rte_ ,.-..
�i.� t � 1, n d. F a 4»�, a �;_/*w•t•;�,t l r�"{y r
.� 4. f ti r f lyw J
�7 �j °1 •• �",v 11 •., �/i� y: � �.{} is
"ff3!M� � . •,.3ry ! ;($,r{ �f �jyS��{}"t r��j '„y/Y ly`+� � 5�1��i 'w>,'� (,.,,,a
��y ,�,�1 c�.� r f l 1� f' Y < §,_,� r } �?y. +� � •lly,}j� �'r
jry !
r 'l
ray '�'�-: �y,l`�v ' �` [ Ir''�' � f /"•� r :6�
• • 1 �A ��3t ry �Y �" �r { ��l �� V � Y � i I�'�!F
kit
W,. h. F.t; l�Lr � )_fit ,-�..�✓1` +"� � i/ .y
Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius
From Parcel: 273707328008 on 01/11/2018
tTKIN
COUNT.
Instructions:
This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be
printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to
page" or"shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the
margins such that they no longer line up on the labels
sheet. Print actual size.
Disclaimer:
Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web
site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to
ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic
system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral
estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County -
does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners.
Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning
the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this
site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and
reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the
user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and
liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or
data obtained on this web site.
httl37//WWW.Pitkinmai)sandmore.com
CITY OF ASPEN HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP INC CARLS REAL ESTATE LLC
130 S GALENA ST 3539 NORTHSIDE PKWY PO BOX 1365
ASPEN,CO 81611 ATLANTA,GA 30327 ASPEN,CO 81612
MINERS REAL ESTATE LLC CARVER RUTH A REV TRUST 232 EAST MAIN STREET LLC
PO BOX 1365 116 S ASPEN ST 2001 N HALSTED#304
ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 CHICAGO,IL 60614
201 E MAIN HOLDINGS LLC ASPEN CORNER OFFICE LLC ASPEN BRANCH HOLDINGS LLC
2416 E 37TH ST N 200 E MAIN ST 3033 E FIRST AVE
WICHITA,KS 67219 ASPEN,CO 81611 DENVER,CO 80206
1543 LLC NUNN RONALD FAMILY LP AJAX JMG INVESTMENTS LLC
1543 WAZEE ST#400 10500 BRENTWOOD BLVD 9401 WILSHIRE BLVD 9TH FL
DENVER,CO 80202 BRENTWOOD,CA 94513 BEVERLY HILLS,CA 902122974
JAFFE JONATHAN 8 KAREN DCBD2 LLC MONARCH BUILDING LLC
88 EMERALD BAY 2100 ROSS AVE#3300 PO BOX 126
LAGUNA BEACH,CA 92651 DALLAS,TX 75201 WOODY CREEK,CO 81656
PEARCE FAMILY TRUST PEARCE MARGARET A SUNNY SNOW LTD
216 E MAIN ST 216 E MAIN ST 308 TORCIDO DR
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 SAN ANTONIO,TX 78209
303 EAST MAIN LLLP WELLS FARGO BANK MILL STREET PLAZA ASSOC LLC
PO BOX 8016 PO BOX 2609 602 E COOPER#202
ASPEN,CO 81612 CARLSBAD,CA 92018 ASPEN,CO 81611
ICONIC PROPERTIES JEROME LLC FREDRICK LARRY D ROBERTS JANET A
1375 ENCLAVE PKWY 215 S MONARCH ST#G101 215 S MONARCH ST#G 101
HOUSTON,TX 77077 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
MOJO ASPEN LLC CLARKS ASPEN LLC GRAND SLAM HOLDINGS LLC
215 S MONARCH#G102 818 SOUTH MAIN ST 215 S MONARCH ST#101
ASPEN,CO 81611 BLANDING,UT 84511 ASPEN,CO 81611
ORR ROBERT L CLARK FAMILY TRUST BRINING ROBERT D
2700 G ROAD#12A PO BOX 362 215 S MONARCH#203
GRAND JUNCTION,CO 81506 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611
PCU-5 LLC HART GEORGE DAVID&SARAH BERNSTEIN JEREMY M PROFIT SHARING PL
PO BOX 2563 PO BOX 5491 610 NORTH ST
ASPEN,CO 81612 SNOWMASS VILLAGE,CO 81615 ASPEN,CO 81611
KELLY GARY DAVIDSON DONALD W 1000 EAST HOPKINS LLC
PO BOX 12356 864 CEMETERY LN 215 S MONARCH #104
ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
BRINING ROBERT DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED GOODING NANCY A
215 S MONARCH ST#203 215 S MONARCH#104 4800 S HOLLY ST
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ENGLEWOOD,CO 80111
TRUE JAMES R JOHNSON PETER C&SANDRA K PARK CENTRAL CONDO ASSOC
PO BOX 2864 51 OVERLOOK DR 215 S MONARCH ST STE 203
ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611-1008 ASPEN,CO 81611
DESOTO LINDA JANE LIVING TRUST GORDON BRIAN S MORRONGIELLO LYDIA LIVING TRUST
155 LONE PINE RD 49 26985 CRESTWOOD 8109 WILLOW BEND CT
ASPEN,CO 81611 FRANKLIN,MI 48025 BOULDER,CO 80301
FEDER HAROLD L&ZETTA F DAVIDSON ARIAIL SCOTT COHEN FRANK R
985 CASCADE AVE PO BOX 5141 360 S MONROE ST#702
BOULDER,CO 80302-7550 ASPEN,CO 81612 DENVER,CO 80209
PLACE BRADLEY E JR REV TRUST PLACE PENNY L REV TRUST YOUNGS RICHARD B&JACQULINE L
5701 S COLORADO BLVD 5701 S COLORADO BLVD 3940 MARSH RD
LITTLETON,CO 80121 LITTLETON,CO 80121 BROOKLYN,MI 49230
YOUNG BARBARA A WHITMAN WENDALIN WHITMAN WENDALIN
210 E HYMAN#9 PO BOX 472 210 E HYMAN AVE#101
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611
IFTNFS LLC BUSH ALAN DAVID JMS LLC
0115 GLEN EAGLES DR 0046 HEATHER LN 0115 GLEN EAGLES DR
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611-3342 ASPEN,CO 81611
ELLIOTT ELYSE A TRUST KATIE REED BUILDING LLC RACZAK JOSEPH S&JANET L
610 NORTH ST 407 S HUNTER ST#3 0234 LIGHT HILL RD
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 SNOWMASS,CO 81654
HOFFMAN JOHN L 8 SHARON R TRUST KATIE REED PLAZA CONDO ASSOC SEGUIN BUILDING CONDO ASSOC
411 E 63RD ST 301 E HOPKINS AVE COMMON AREA
KANSAS CITY,MO 64108 ASPEN,CO 81611 304 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN,CO 81611
PARK CENTRAL WEST CONDO ASSOC JPS NEVADA TRUST SEDOY MICHAEL
210 E HYMAN AVE 1701 N GREEN VALLEY PKWY#9C 35 SUTTON PL#19B
ASPEN,CO 81611 HENDERSON,NV 89074 NEW YORK,NY 10022
SHVACHKO NATALIA 308 EAST HOPKINS CONDO ASSOC 314 HEXAGON LLC
35 SUTTON PL#19B COMMON AREA 25880 W 104 TERR
NEW YORK,NY 10022 308 E HOPKINS AVE OLATHE,,KS 66061
ASPEN,CO 81611
COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS MEDIA CO 314-200 HEXAGON LLC MOTHER LODE CONDO ASSOC INC
580 MALLORY WY 25880 W 104 TERR 25880 W 104 TER
CARSON CITY,NV 89701 OLATHE,KS 66061 OLATHE,KS 66061
314-PH HEXAGON LLC MOTHER LODE CONDO ASSOC PEGOLOTTI DELLA
25880 W 104 TERR COMMON AREA 202 E MAIN ST
OLATHE,KS 66061 314 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN,CO 81611
ASPEN,CO 81611
ROCKING LAZY J PROPS LLC 208 MAIN LLC 312 EAST HYMAN AVENUE LLC
202 E MAIN ST 623 E HOPKINS AVE 2001 N HALSTED#304
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 CHICAGO,IL 60614
� r
4 �
FV
ti
16
r y
' R': FL.'A f J x0.'34♦
,r
�! r
x
r
r -
r
Y p'�UBLvG
,
a•
TIrmre,:,�4�3p�p;��
P;{aC0• (C,{tytHalN} i1.3�QS? `Ci~` _ r " 2"ter.
(l' (1/� r•Gs-�, 's�}`�w T t=�•.�+♦\8M1F� I+ i'R a r ,Y•Y ICY
tGN�YVN� 3 '�'1 tiKr s
[P$fi � . Atntrd+ilct �phi
4DQ t ;t �iutH �C �Q ��fl�+(nit ;tiOd�
Wr y.
rCft�rt�O�f{7`� S�ifOrl{ij1C unit♦ �` ` }tsY,Y "14i;':
_on P to�rmrii ncorttnc�'ir � g ;e ,'
64
x
- {r t ,�� V iryryJ�I ++�:i0v.. tf,":�t.
.J�'Y+' a w��°tri t's�N �nJ' `0t a [w ri7i�"Jix kre,` iC�P r" ?• '. �,1,' tiia �It
l'f
,
r
'h " �/��� a ✓�I.G`''� .f • ..' +�� ��t1R ��q !}ij 'f x� ��1�� ��' �! 'y�`�T�.1..
8F c "wa
� 'T
;'«y R4� ° r*�•' xa3`7 .F'� ',r 'r'i'* +r+'Yua CS +a la i . 'Y�ta .sir s k ¢�., +aw-,,
°'ti � �;y,,! .p,�e�+�«jt it�� f T-y,+i�" ra:�r ,�•5 r+„y�"a. �, ,7 '. P
•` vyts. w d s�.' ri's�s.. :, �,}y +° a54 4"�'r n, "v�F.
a
3 Y Y
�pA k 1f�1.i 1r o.
$ ` 1
y EXHIBIT
:_
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 230 E. Hopkins Ave., Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Tuesday, February 6, 2018
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
I, Tawn Hillenbrand (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City
of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice
requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following
manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy gfthe publication is attached hereto.
x Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high; and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on the 15'h day of January, 2018, to and including the date and time of the public
hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
_X_ Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. snail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach,
summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as
required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the
neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and
a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt
requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the
date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development.
The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current
tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, PDs that create more
than one lot, and new Planned Developments are subject to this notice
requirement.
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any
way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this
Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be
made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or
otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal
description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of
real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the
proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning
agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on such amendments.
:. A , 0 ._t
Si nature
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 16th day
of January, 2018, by Patrick Rawley.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
PATRICK S. RAWLEY
NOTARY PUBLIC M commission expires: 26 .2020
STATE OF COLORADO Y P
NOTARY ID#19994012259 `
toy Commission Expires July 26,202
Notary Public
ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:
• COPY OF THEPUBLICA TION
• PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN)
• LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BY MAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3
THE CITY OF ASPEN
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611
p: (970) 920.5000
f: (970) 920.5197
w: www.aspenpitkin.com
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RE: 230 E. Hopkins Ave.
Public Hearing: February 6, 2018, 4:30 PM
Meeting Location: City Hall, Sister Cities meeting room— 130 S. Galena St, Aspen CO 81611
Project Location: 230 E. Hopkins Avenue
Description: The applicant requests final approvals to remodel the existing building, replace
the on-site affordable housing unit, and to create one free-market residential
unit.
Land Use Reviews: Final Commercial Design, Growth Management Quota System Amendment
Decision Making Body: Planning& Zoning Commission
Applicant: 360 Hexagon LLC, 119 Hyslop Road, Brookline, MA 02445
More Information: For further information related to the project, contact Justin Barker at the City of
Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2797,
justin.barker@cityofaspen.com.
w�
q "^�. 1 � �� °� Sa' as •
(t�rAFY ! a
�,. � l �,�rj�"x f2 .�'1 �,z�/e . ah� ♦ � �.t � �y 4; ��,.,.� • y�
31 11 1
471
'�., ak�)��Y, �� �, ry-' .. li �§ t�j«l x' i.' •�'rJ r �4 y��r, /�1
y� a
ri
0 i
?;1
f� ptibL. (A`'°'1 /1 ff � ` a :4 �, (I,•�}ry a ...q�„"'dY � ,; ����*����$
,�rk,�y�.',,,,liry.��Y}�Y i'a! �t� � y ,2r ~{��'y�'�✓r.t;����` t � 1 Y ?c�r�' J ^�,�)� � � .
'l `
-
�' tlir t�'r ,('� f �lil n.) r(`.1 F" rb `a�. y f 7 �..�a{'{`� • a -"'t
• • ]l�� 4 h}�L� �.,�•Yf�'f„`�7 1/�`VY'w{,r � d H��C '.,' • ; r��,l �)/A,�� ✓
Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius
From Parcel: 273707328008 on 01/11/2018
tTKIN
COUNTit
Instructions:
This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be
printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to
page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the
margins such that they no longer line up on the-labels
sheet. Print actual size.
Disclaimer:
Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web
site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to
ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic
system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral
estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County
does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners.
Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning
the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this
site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and
reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the
user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and
liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or
data obtained on this web site.
htto://www.Ditkinmal)sand more.com
CITY OF ASPEN HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP INC CARLS REAL ESTATE LLC
130 S GALENA ST 3539 NORTHSIDE PKWY PO BOX 1365
ASPEN,CO 81611 ATLANTA,GA 30327 ASPEN,CO 81612
MINERS REAL ESTATE LLC CARVER RUTH A REV TRUST 232 EAST MAIN STREET LLC
PO BOX 1365 116 S ASPEN ST 2001 N HALSTED#304
ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60614
201 E MAIN HOLDINGS LLC ASPEN CORNER OFFICE LLC ASPEN BRANCH HOLDINGS LLC
2416 E 37TH ST N 200 E MAIN ST 3033 E FIRST AVE
WICHITA,KS 67219 ASPEN,CO 81611 - DENVER,CO 80206
1543 LLC NUNN RONALD FAMILY LP AJAX JMG INVESTMENTS LLC
1543 WAZEE ST 4400 10500 BRENTWOOD BLVD ( 9401 WILSHIRE BLVD 9TH FL
DENVER,CO 80202 BRENTWOOD,CA 94513 BEVERLY HILLS,CA 902122974
JAFFE JONATHAN&KAREN DCBD2 LLC MONARCH BUILDING LLC
88 EMERALD BAY 2100 ROSS AVE#3300 PO BOX 126
LAGUNA BEACH,CA 92651 DALLAS,TX 75201 WOODY CREEK,CO 81656
PEARCE FAMILY TRUST PEARCE MARGARET A BUNNY SNOW LTD
216 E MAIN ST 216 E MAIN ST 308 TORCIDO DR
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 SAN ANTONIO,TX 78209
303 EAST MAIN LLLP WELLS FARGO BANK MILL STREET PLAZA ASSOC LLC
PO BOX 8016 PO BOX 2609 602 E COOPER#202
ASPEN,CO 81612 CARLSBAD,CA 92018 ASPEN,CO 81611
ICONIC PROPERTIES JEROME LLC FREDRICK LARRY D ROBERTS JANET A
1375 ENCLAVE PKWY 215 S MONARCH ST#G101 215 S MONARCH ST#G101
HOUSTON,TX 77077 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
MOJO ASPEN LLC CLARKS ASPEN LLC GRAND SLAM HOLDINGS LLC
215 S MONARCH#G102 818 SOUTH MAIN ST 215 S MONARCH ST#101
ASPEN,CO 81611 BLANDING,UT 84511 ASPEN,CO 81611
ORR ROBERT L CLARK FAMILY TRUST BRINING ROBERT D
2700 G ROAD#12A PO BOX 362 215 S MONARCH#203
GRAND JUNCTION,CO 81506 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611
PCU-5 LLC HART GEORGE DAVID&SARAH BERNSTEIN JEREMY M PROFIT SHARING PL
PO BOX 2563 PO BOX 5491 610 NORTH ST
ASPEN,CO 81612 SNOWMASS VILLAGE,CO 81615 ASPEN,CO 81611
KELLY GARY DAVIDSON DONALD W 1000 EAST HOPKINS LLC
PO BOX 12356 864 CEMETERY LN 215 S MONARCH 4104
ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
BRINING ROBERT DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED GOODING NANCY A
215 S MONARCH ST 4203 215 S MONARCH#104 4800 S HOLLY ST
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ENGLEWOOD,CO 80111
TRUE JAMES R JOHNSON PETER C&SANDRA K PARK CENTRAL CONDO ASSOC
PO BOX 2864 51 OVERLOOK DR 215 S MONARCH ST STE 203
ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611-1008 ASPEN,CO 81611
DESOTO LINDA JANE LIVING TRUST GORDON BRIAN S MORRONGIELLO LYDIA LIVING TRUST
155 LONE PINE RD#9 26985 CRESTWOOD 8109 WILLOW BEND CT
ASPEN,CO 81611 FRANKLIN,MI 48025 BOULDER,CO 80301
FEDER HAROLD L&ZETTA F DAVIDSON ARIAIL SCOTT COHEN FRANK R
985 CASCADE AVE PO BOX 5141 360 S MONROE ST#702
BOULDER,CO 80302-7550 ASPEN,CO 81612 DENVER,CO 80209
PLACE BRADLEY E JR REV TRUST PLACE PENNY L REV TRUST YOUNGS RICHARD B&JACQULINE L
5701 S COLORADO BLVD 5701 S COLORADO BLVD 3940 MARSH RD
LITTLETON,CO 80121 LITTLETON,CO 80121 BROOKLYN,MI 49230
YOUNG BARBARA A WHITMAN WENDALIN WHITMAN WENDALIN
210 E HYMAN#9 PO BOX 472 - 210 E HYMAN AVE 4101
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611
IFTNFS LLC BUSH ALAN DAVID JMS LLC
0115 GLEN EAGLES DR 0046 HEATHER LN 0115 GLEN EAGLES DR
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611-3342 ASPEN,CO 81611
ELLIOTT ELYSE A TRUST KATIE REED BUILDING LLC RACZAK JOSEPH S&JANET L
610 NORTH ST 407 S HUNTER ST#3 0234 LIGHT HILL RD
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 SNOWMASS,CO 81654
HOFFMAN JOHN L 8 SHARON R TRUST KATIE REED PLAZA CONDO ASSOC SEGUIN BUILDING CONDO ASSOC
411 E 63RD ST 301 E HOPKINS AVE COMMON AREA
KANSAS CITY,MO 64108 ASPEN,CO 81611 304 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN,CO 81611
PARK CENTRAL WEST CONDO ASSOC JPS NEVADA TRUST SEDOY MICHAEL
210 E HYMAN AVE 1701 N GREEN VALLEY PKWY 49C 35 SUTTON PL#19B
ASPEN,CO 81611 HENDERSON,NV 89074 NEW YORK,NY 10022
SHVACHKO NATALIA 308 EAST HOPKINS CONDO ASSOC 314 HEXAGON LLC
35 SUTTON PL#19B COMMON AREA 25880 W 104 TERR
NEW YORK,NY 10022 308 E HOPKINS AVE OLATHE,KS 66061
ASPEN,CO 81611
COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS MEDIA CO 314-200 HEXAGON LLC MOTHER LODE CONDO ASSOC INC
580 MALLORY WY 25880 W 104 TERR 25880 W.104 TER
CARSON CITY,NV 89701 OLATHE,KS 66061 OLATHE,KS 66061
314-PH HEXAGON LLC MOTHER LODE CONDO ASSOC PEGOLOTTI DELLA
25880 W 104 TERR COMMON AREA 202 E MAIN ST
OLATHE,KS 66061 314 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN,CO 81611
ASPEN,CO 81611
ROCKING LAZY J PROPS LLC 208 MAIN LLC 312 EAST HYMAN AVENUE LLC
202 E MAIN ST 623 E HOPKINS AVE 2001 N HALSTED#304
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 CHICAGO,IL 60614
I
i � � . ] aA�t� 1V �yi( eco
�ti, M,,`�t h _
. ._ . �. _
, � _ — `
.� � � 1 r t
,, ...,.
� a 1 .`-.�' �za rri=�y�'l' " rui,G �fa'w.�S � �
y`µ� � 11�„-' "'�` 'v'�1,�1 L' �+t � n � ��rN w:.i� a}'. i�`".1 5�..��'i '';fw ] � �$4
4w' h .[��\ -t � ti +f R���rR.l � kf' ;Y C 'sG
�� i 1 ' srh.g nu STs - Si..si".•.�+�� �� � .
�4 r♦�� YrbTyvlb�� Z' i .; Yri
I �' k--,.�� i�sy ,�'-�- `� ,w✓,�� ,, ,
—'� �Y"#' ..� ady'� •. �.NS�ti Y # r14jv, . S it 4 M� ° .. '�
_.. r ISI+ � �• ..
a M �1TV�4n-1���C C ( I �r 'W �1 A`�� [.: rY t
yy`` T R•
��: � "'1a r.� .. .:. t 1 1 �
f:�� «., ,
1 •� L t �' ^,*
w
E"', �r1 ! r tea:;:... �,.:,
'V.Wt j Y ✓' '1
f' � �.r l �i 1 - .... �� srt �`3,.:. 'yyt,p p. a„r t. � r '�1 �
I l (a ram.y
.. ', J gal � �*./: '�.,. i� _ r 1 �i
y, � - rel /4�.� , �"`�.'an".i...1+""y�..:.�.+.u^.M� ' ^
i e \�
'y t I o " ' !
Y ,:
�1 ''.1Yay '. Vit: � _ - - f
� $� �
. � w ,� +ep. '.
J(4�l
l 4 �' �'?
.�j'y'�,j� y Aq � • Al uC " Y M�
1 UiL b` �•'^'�i l �si�fb'9�i k 'C R"4 •si�ti. 4'S. y � p Y
' ^��•..ti'f Alf , � C .i
���4�y�k _.. 7b 4f��1 r Jtr �� Y��1w yp �i177 _ fi'i"ti �� • �7r� •
A r 'Lrp • �!] • u ���"'RRR222 ♦ 4 ! w`
"i�A'✓"i�l v� . },� •..r'• �4r� �i�r, aYt+��'Tr v • ;' +�S.t`�Ix +-i,� 4.i���b dJ� * y�, t�* C "�
+� .1 .': `T }�. + {•k `' �p 1+��' i� `'A;��.�.!d�ri�. it �,o.•c p �•5iR T�l�/
�ii � °":. b, £,� � ,( + Ia� ,�ygr',;k ZXp"`1f(' •� • i4 r �u°ii+iryiy» Y
J * �,r�tRti�lp� 't � P r' Z'',•t C.^�"'i' :r�!•�r.����4 '^ryA '(Y+w
0.1�'a t3 r ����A�i:f,�J•�.�y� ''�.rv�r_�g��: +4��Wy,^.
ti4�'ti'a+a T f., 't��. �rW iI�'.p �• � y.r. ;�P,� 'r a�''y��'•�4i'�A1YArW,i'ff ?.,i.y 1`�`�A4�r'S.,: r�!' x'
a A1i� �'W 1.T '- i ri ylit y� " rY # u•'y d. Y•.t«n'+i'wn�� i �. 1� .c
r 'll i 4 cam• � > �-•--. .�
tf1' •�3s. t �a6f.fY9�rAe4•ls,� sl'� ( 1 •�: +
ti4'Yitthh� ��uyg
�NiI4•��11f1i�(N{fljj$jt0�t0'�ltllx-t /}�a�10� f
4�+�1P�lA�i ly}S�ti y
m
f - j ✓�YMrwYJx�
ft
{��aPU
"
,,max •t�'.�,� ��'°,,y«. .iA, .�-,,�. �ry rl��au4ltJ�afi
1a�. eii�(��" ,r
IVh'���y� 7 � t!`�
'�n �'y MM1 r• i+?'S '1. QV leu wrl
Mp
t � p w �4sdf�J111d1 f�
i.°A0y2rsepro�y�yySrS�'t1S�.
a4 �
•
!J
t
g EXHIBIT
9
THE CITY OF ASPEN
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611
p: (970)920.5000
f: (970) 920.5197
w: www.aspenpitkin.com
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RE: 230 E. Hopkins Ave.
Public Hearing: February 6, 2018, 4:30 PM
Meeting Location: City Hall, Sister Cities meeting room — 130 S. Galena St, Aspen CO 81611
Project Location: 230 E. Hopkins Avenue
Description: The applicant requests final approvals to remodel the existing building, replace
the on-site affordable housing unit, and to create one free-market residential
unit.
Land Use Reviews: Final Commercial Design, Growth Management Quota System Amendment
Decision Making Body: Planning&Zoning Commission
Applicant: 360 Hexagon LLC, 119 Hyslop Road, Brookline, MA 02445
More Information: For further information related to the project, contact Justin Barker at the City of
Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2797,
justin.barker@cityofaspen.com.
`EXHIBIT
THE CITY OF ASPEN
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street,Aspen, CO 81611
p: (970) 920.5000
f: (970)920.5197
w:www.aspenpitkin.com
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RE: 230 E. Hopkins Ave.
Public Hearing: February 6, 2018, 4:30 PM
Meeting Location: City Hall, Sister Cities meeting room—130 S. Galena St, Aspen CO 81611
Project Location: 230 E. Hopkins Avenue
Description: The applicant requests final approvals to remodel the existing building, replace
the on-site affordable housing unit, and to create one free-market residential
unit.
Land Use Reviews: Final Commercial Design, Growth Management Quota System Amendment
Decision Making Body: Planning& Zoning Commission
Applicant: 360 Hexagon LLC, 119 Hyslop Road, Brookline, MA 02445
More Information: For further information related to the project, contact Justin Barker at the City of
Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2797,
justin.barker@cityofaspen.com.
t �