Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20131209 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA December 09, 2013 5:00 PM I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Scheduled Public Appearances IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes) V. Special Orders of the Day a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments b) Agenda Deletions and Additions c) City Manager's Comments d) Board Reports VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion) a) Resolution #110, 2103 - Part 1 Skate Park Design Services Contract for Rio Grande Skate Park Expansion b) Resolution #111, 2013 - Contract - Air Particulate Monitor c) Minutes - December 2, 2013 d) Board Appointment - Open Space VII. First Reading of Ordinances a) Ordinance #51, 2013 - Hotel Aspen, 110 W. Main Street - Consolidated PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning VIII. Public Hearings a) Resolution #112, 2013 - Adopting 2014 Mil Levy b) Ordinance #50, 2013 - Wheeler Board Composition IX. Action Items X. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting January 13, 2014 COUNCIL’S ADOPTED GUIDELINES • Invite the Community to Participate with Us in Solution-Making • Tone and Tenor Matter • Remember Where We’re Living and Why We’re Here COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. P1 VI.a P2 VI.a P3 VI.a P4 VI.a RESOLUTION #110 (Series of 2013) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND TEAM PAIN ENTERPRISES, INC. AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for the Rio Grande Skate Park Street Skate Expansion between the City of Aspen and Team Pain Enterprises, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract for the Rio Grande Skate Park Street Skate Expansion, between the City of Aspen and Team Pain Enterprises, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 9th day of December 2013. Steven Skadron, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held December 9, 2013 Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk P5 VI.a P6 VI . a P7 VI . a P8 VI . a P9 VI . a P1 0 VI . a P1 1 VI . a P1 2 VI . a P1 3 VI . a P1 4 VI . a P1 5 VI . a P1 6 VI . a P1 7 VI . a P1 8 VI . a P1 9 VI . a Page 1 of 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jannette Whitcomb, Senior Environmental Health Program Coordinator THRU: CJ Oliver, Environmental Health Director DATE OF MEMO: December 2, 2013 MEETING DATE: December 9, 2013 RE: Particulate Monitor – TEOM Replacement Contract REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests award of a contract to Grimm Technologies Inc. for the purchase of a particulate matter monitoring system that is entirely funded by impact fees that can only be used for such purposes. A sole source selection process was used for this project. The Environmental Health Department did extensive research into particulate monitors and found through the recommendation of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) that the Grimm particulate monitor will provide the best result with the least technical operations. The next comparable monitor requires extensive technical support and its purchase price was approximately $20,000 more. The total contract is for $34,473 and includes an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved particulate monitor, verification test kit, one annual calibration and free technical support. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:  Council passed Ordinance 33 establishing the Air Quality Impact Fee in 2006.  Council approved at the September 24, 2013 work session, a Memorandum of Understanding with CDPHE APCD that formalizes an agreement to share air monitoring data with CDPHE APCD. BACKGROUND: The City of Aspen has been monitoring particulate matter (PM10) for twenty five years with a PM10 monitor called the TEOM. The TEOM played an integral role in verifying that the air quality measures the community adopted in the mid 80’s were working. These measures include mass transit, paid parking, regulations on wood burning fireplaces and restaurant grills. The particulate monitor in conjunction with our ozone monitor provides P20 VI.b Page 2 of 3 invaluable information about the impact on public health during regional air quality events, such as a wildfire or dust storm. The data also provides city staff information on how Aspen is or is not impacted by traffic congestion and the oil and gas extraction and production in our region. Understanding Particulate Matter Particulate matter (PM) is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets. Particle pollution is made up of a number of components, including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles. The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health problems. EPA is concerned about particles that are 10 micrometers in diameter or smaller because those are the particles that generally pass through the throat and nose and enter the lungs. Once inhaled, these particles can affect the heart and lungs and cause serious health effects. • PM10 is "inhalable coarse particles," and can be found near roadways and dusty industries. • PM2.5 is "fine particles," and can be found in smoke and haze. These particles can be directly emitted from sources such as forest fires, or they can form when gases emitted from power plants, industries and automobiles react in the air. DISCUSSION: Currently, staff is in the process of improving our air monitoring program as well as expanding to monitoring PM2.5. The ability to expand our particulate monitoring came from researching a replacement for the current PM10 monitor. The current PM10 monitor is past its life expectancy and is no longer supported. In researching a replacement, the Grimm PM2.5/10 monitor came highly recommended by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Quality Division (CDPHE). This monitor, while providing measurement of both PM10 and PM2.5, is also known for its ease in operation and maintenance. The next monitor comparable requires extensive technical support and its purchase price was approximately $20,000 more. CDPHE APCD staff has assisted City staff with our air monitoring program and improvement process. In order to assure continued support and quality data, the City of Aspen formalized our partnership with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The MOU defined roles and expectations such that a quality affordable monitoring program can be established that maximizes limited resources while expanding Colorado’s air monitoring network. The contract for the TEOM replacement with the Grimm 108C particulate monitor includes purchase of the monitor, a verification kit, an annual calibration, and free technical support. The contract includes a one year parts and service warranty. The monitor will be located at the same location as the TEOM, on the roof of the Pitkin County Library. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: This project will be paid for completely by the Trust and Agency Fund, Air Quality Impact Fees that can only be used for air quality projects, and which must be spent within the next couple of years. P21 VI.b Page 3 of 3 This project was approved through the Asset Management Program budget approval process. The total cost of the contract is $34,473 and will be paid from the Trust and Agency Fund, which currently has a balance of over $70,000. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Given Aspen’s topography, traffic congestion, and history of air quality concerns, Aspen chose to monitor its air quality over 25 years ago. The COA uses its air quality data to make informed decisions on protective measures, educate the public and monitor the effects of the changing climate. Aspen has a segment of its population with respiratory illness, which includes asthma, which makes them sensitive to air quality conditions. Air quality monitoring helps inform the public about regional air quality events such as wildfires and dust storms. The Environmental Health Department is dedicated to the protection of our air quality and believes updating our particulate monitor will provide valuable information about PM2.5 levels as well as reliable data that can be used for regional air quality forecasting by CDPHE APCD. This is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan and Ecological Bill of Rights goals to protect the health of Aspen residents and visitors by maintaining healthy air quality. RECOMMENDED ACTION: To ensure protection of the health of our residents and visitors, staff recommends that we replace the old TEOM PM10 monitor with the Grimm PM2.5/10 monitor and that City Council approve this contract with Grimm Technologies Inc. for a total of $34,473 using dedicated air quality impact fees. ALTERNATIVES: Council could not approve the contract for the replacement of the TEOM. The main concern with not moving forward with this contract is that current monitor is over twenty years old and is becoming more maintenance intensive. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution # ___ for the particulate monitor TEOM replacement contract with Grimm Technologies, Inc. in the amount of $34,473...” CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: P22 VI.b RESOLUTION # 111 (Series of 2013) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND GRIMM TECHNOLOGIES AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for a Grimm Environmental Fine Dust Monitor and Verification Equipment, between the City of Aspen and Grimm Technologies, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract for a Grimm Environmental Fine Dust Monitor and Verification Equipment, between the City of Aspen and Grimm Technologies, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 9th day of December, 2013. Steven Skadron, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, December 9, 2013. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk P23 VI.b CITY OF ASPEN STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT SUPPLY PROCUREMENT City of Aspen Project No.: 2013-143. AGREEMENT made as of 9th day of December, in the year 2013. BETWEEN the City: Contract Amount: The City of Aspen c/o Environmental Health 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: (970) 920-5055 And the Vendor: Grimm Technologies c/o Bill Roe PO Box 6358 Douglasville, GA 30154 Phone: 877-474-6872 Summary Description of Items to be Purchased: Grimm Model 180C Stationary 19” Environmental Fine Dust Monitor and Verification Equipment. ____________________________________________________________________________ Exhibits appended and made a part of this Agreement: If this Agreement requires the City to pay an amount of money in excess of $25,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the City Council of the City of Aspen. City Council Approval: Date: December 9, 2013 Resolution No.: 2013-111 Exhibit A: List of supplies, equipment, or materials to be purchased. Total: $33,483.00 Annual Calibration $ 990.00 P24 VI.b The City and Vendor agree as set forth below. 1. Purchase. Vendor agrees to sell and City agrees to purchase the items on Exhibit A appended hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if fully set forth here for the sum set forth hereinabove. 2. Delivery. (FOB Delivery will be to COA contractor for equipment, software, shelter integration and installation. Specified address to be determined.) 3. Contract Documents. This Agreement shall include all Contract Documents as the same are listed in the Invitation to Bid and said Contract Document are hereby made a part of this Agreement as if fully set out at length herein. 4. Warranties. Grimm Technologies, Inc. warrants to the consumer purchaser that GRIMM products, when shipped in their original container, will be free from defective workmanship and materials and agrees that it will, at its option, either repair the defect or replace the defective product or part thereof at no charge to the purchaser for parts and labor for a period of twelve (12) months from date of original purchase. Technical support is also available via GRIMM’s toll-free telephone number and/or email. This warranty excludes any product which has been damaged or defaced, which has been subjected to misuse, abnormal service or handling or which has been altered or modified in design or construction. GRIMM Technologies, Inc. will notify client of any enhancements, modifications or upgrades as they become available for the purchased system. 5. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement and all of the covenants hereof shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Vendor respectively and their agents, representatives, employee, successors, assigns and legal representatives. Neither the City nor the Vendor shall have the right to assign, transfer or sublet its interest or obligations hereunder without the written consent of the other party. 6. Third Parties. This Agreement does not and shall not be deemed or construed to confer upon or grant to any third party or parties, except to parties to whom Vendor or City may assign this Agreement in accordance with the specific written permission, any right to claim damages or to bring any suit, action or other proceeding against either the City or Vendor because of any breach hereof or because of any of the terms, covenants, agreements or conditions herein contained. 7. Waivers. No waiver of default by either party of any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof to be performed, kept and observed by the other party shall be construed, or operate as, a waiver of any subsequent default of any of the terms, covenants or conditions herein contained, to be performed, kept and observed by the other party. 8. Agreement Made in Colorado. The parties agree that this Agreement was made in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed. Venue is agreed to be exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado. P25 VI.b 9. Attorney’s Fees. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. 10. Waiver of Presumption. This Agreement was negotiated and reviewed through the mutual efforts of the parties hereto and the parties agree that no construction shall be made or presumption shall arise for or against either party based on any alleged unequal status of the parties in the negotiation, review or drafting of the Agreement. 11. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility, and Voluntary Exclusion. Vendor certifies, by acceptance of this Agreement, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from participation in any transaction with a Federal or State department or agency. It further certifies that prior to submitting its Bid that it did include this clause without modification in all lower tier transactions, solicitations, proposals, contracts and subcontracts. In the event that Vendor or any lower tier participant was unable to certify to the statement, an explanation was attached to the Bid and was determined by the City to be satisfactory to the City. 12. Warranties Against Contingent Fees, Gratuities, Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest. (A) Vendor warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Vendor for the purpose of securing business. (B) Vendor agrees not to give any employee of the City a gratuity or any offer of employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, preparation of any part of a program requirement or a purchase request, influencing the content of any specification or procurement standard, rendering advice, investigation, auditing, or in any other advisory capacity in any proceeding or application, request for ruling, determination, claim or controversy, or other particular matter, pertaining to this Agreement, or to any solicitation or proposal therefore. (C) Vendor represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the City during the term of this Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that may have been disclosed at the time City Council approved the execution of this Agreement. (D) In addition to other remedies it may have for breach of the prohibitions against contingent fees, gratuities, kickbacks and conflict of interest, the City shall have the right to: 1. Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the City; 2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a vendor, contractor or subcontractor under City contracts; P26 VI.b 3. Deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the value of anything transferred or received by the Vendor; and 4. Recover such value from the offending parties. 13. Termination for Default or for Convenience of City. The sale contemplated by this Agreement may be canceled by the City prior to acceptance by the City whenever for any reason and in its sole discretion the City shall determine that such cancellation is in its best interests and convenience. 14. Fund Availability. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available. If this Agreement contemplates the City using state or federal funds to meet its obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of those funds for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 15. City Council Approval. If this Agreement requires the City to pay an amount of money in excess of $25,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the City Council of the City of Aspen. 16. Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform under this Agreement. Vendor agrees to meet all of the requirements of City’s municipal code, section 13-98, pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. Vendor further agrees to comply with the letter and the spirit of the Colorado Antidiscrimination Act of 1957, as amended and other applicable state and federal laws respecting discrimination and unfair employment practices. 17. Integration and Modification. This written Agreement along with all Contract Documents shall constitute the contract between the parties and supersedes or incorporates any prior written and oral agreements of the parties. In addition, vendor understands that no City official or employee, other than the Mayor and City Council acting as a body at a council meeting, has authority to enter into an Agreement or to modify the terms of the Agreement on behalf of the City. Any such Agreement or modification to this Agreement must be in writing and be executed by the parties hereto. 18. Authorized Representative. The undersigned representative of Vendor, as an inducement to the City to execute this Agreement, represents that he/she is an authorized representative of Vendor for the purposes of executing this Agreement and that he/she has full and complete authority to enter into this Agreement for the terms and conditions specified herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The City and the Vendor, respectively have caused this Agreement to be duly executed the day and year first herein written in three (3) copies, all of which, to all intents and purposes, shall be considered as the original. P27 VI.b P28 VI.b Exhibit A Supply Procurement Agreement 1. Grimm Model 180C Stationary 19" Environmental Fine Dust Monitor (see attached quotation) 2. GRIMM Model 186 EDM Test kit (see attached quotation) 3. Warranty of Grimm model 180C Stationary 19” Environmental Fine Dust Monitor for parts and labor for one year from date of purchase. All work performed by Grimm Technologies, Inc. will be done in a manner that meets the EPA’s EQPM-0311-195 for the GRIMM Model EDM 180C PM10/2.5 analyzer. The project timeline will be as follows:  Notice to Proceed: December 10, 2013  Equipment Order Placed: December 11, 2013  Grimm staff will provide support in the Equipment, Software, and Shelter Integration with COA Air Quality Monitoring System’s contractor by March 31, 2014 (based on a 12 week analyzer lead time)*  System Installation on the Pitkin County Library roof by June 30, 2014  Annual calibration by July 31, 2015. *The manufacturing of the analyzer could either delay or move up the schedule. Task * Description Cost 1 Grimm Model 180C Stationary 19" Environmental Fine Dust Monitor $31,890 2 GRIMM Model 186 EDM Test Kit $1,593 3 Grimm staff support with the equipment, shelter, software integration with COA contractor** Included* 4 Annual Calibration/Service*** $990 5 Technical support Included* Total $34,473 *Included means that service is included with price of Grimm Model 180C **Grimm USA agrees that included in the purchase price of the Grimm Model 180C, a site visit to the City’s contractor office to assist with the assembly, integration, and programing of the Grimm Model 180C with the Agilaire data logger and shelter, both purchased by the City. ***Annual Calibration/Service: The price of service, new filters and calibration is $990.00. The City will pay shipping to Grimm USA and Grimm USA will pay shipping back to the City. P29 VI.b P30 VI.b P31 VI.b P32 VI.b P33 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 2, 2013 1 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION .......................................................................................................... 2 COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS .............................................................................................. 2 CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................... 2 Resolution #106, 2013 - Approval of Contract for Purchase of Real Property at 715 E. Hopkins (Units 3, 4 and 5) .......................................................................................................... 3 Resolution #108, 2013 - Approving EOTC 2014 Budget.................................................... 3 Resolution #109, 2013 - Final Design Contract Rubey Park Transit Center ....................... 3 Minutes - November 11, 2013 ............................................................................................. 3 ORDINANCE #50, SERIES OF 2013 – Amending Wheeler Opera House board of Directors composition ..................................................................................................................................... 3 ORDINANCE #49, SERIES OF 2013 – Mocklin Subdivision Amendment ................................. 4 RESOLUTION #107, SERIES OF 2013 – 110 E. Bleeker Street Extension of Vested Rights ..... 4 BURLINGAME PHASE 2 – Construction and Sale of Single Family Houses ............................. 5 201 E. HYMAN CALL UP NOTICE – HPC Approval ................................................................. 7 ORDINANCE #46, SERIES OF 2013 – 549 Race Alley ............................................................... 7 P34 VI.c Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 2, 2013 2 Mayor Skadron called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. with Councilmembers Mullins, Daily, Romero, and Frisch present. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 1. Toni Kronberg complemented Council on their decision making process. 2. Andy Israel told Council Wagner Park currently has zero snow base. Israel said he has not been able to confirm the park is closed 120 days/year but that is his calculation. Israel said there is a work session tomorrow on snow polo in Wagner Park. Israel said manmade snow has a different density than natural snow and the parks department is reworking the agreement to come up with a new base requirement. The applicant is proposing to truck in or blow 150 tons of snow. Israel told Council he spoke to two adjacent property owners who were are not aware of the event. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Councilwoman Mullins said the Sardy House tree lighting yesterday was a great event and thanked the current owners for continuing the tradition. 2. Councilwoman Mullins noted Saturday November 30th was small business Saturday and other cities in the valley did more of a promotion; Aspen did not do a lot. Councilwoman Mullins said she would like to see some promotion of small business Saturday in Aspen next year. 3. Councilwoman Mullins announced Thursday December 5th is a new exhibit opening at the Red Brick. Next week is the book singing and cookie exchange at the Hotel Jerome. 4. Mayor Skadron agreed the tree lighting was wonderful and thanked the police department band. Mayor Skadron thanked the Hickory House for the community Thanksgiving event. 5. Councilman Frisch noted CORE announced today a REACH program and based on income qualifications, people can receive up to $2500 for energy assessments and energy upgrades. CONSENT CALENDAR P35 VI.c Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 2, 2013 3 Mayor Skadron said he would like to discuss Resolution #106, purchase of units on East Hopkins. Jim True, city attorney, requested approval of the contract but it will not be signed until due diligence is complete and at the city manager’s discretion. Councilman Romero moved to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by councilman Daily. The consent calendar is: • Resolution #106, 2013 - Approval of Contract for Purchase of Real Property at 715 E. Hopkins (Units 3, 4 and 5) • Resolution #108, 2013 - Approving EOTC 2014 Budget • Resolution #109, 2013 - Final Design Contract Rubey Park Transit Center • Minutes - November 11, 2013 All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #50, SERIES OF 2013 – Amending Wheeler Opera House board of Directors composition Gram Slaton, Wheeler Opera House, told Council there has been a youth seat on the Wheeler Board for years. This has not lived up to the promise of engaging younger citizens. Brian O’Neil, Wheeler Board, said the teen member comes to the board meetings, which may not be at times convenient to their school schedule and not conducive to what they may want to accomplish. Genna Moe, Wheeler, said she is working on creating a teen council, which will be self-selected and the idea is for them to design one event that they and their peers would be interested in and to promote and produce it. Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #50, Series of 2013; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 50 (Series of 2013) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 48 (SERIES OF 2005) AND RE-ENACTING AN ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE WHEELER OPERA HOUSE. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #50, Series of 2013, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Daily. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Daily, yes; Romero, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. P36 VI.c Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 2, 2013 4 ORDINANCE #49, SERIES OF 2013 – Mocklin Subdivision Amendment Mayor Skadron recused. Justin Barker, community development department, told Council this subdivision was approved in 1995, 6 single family and 1 multi-family lot. There was a plat note that prohibited development other than native vegetation outside of the building envelopes. This note was amended to resolve a conflict with the restriction and the necessity to mitigate for contaminated soils from Smuggler mountain. Barker said the subdivision plat was amended to create a similar benefit for all owners. This request is to amend the plat to add language to allow temporary shoring for the building during construction and site drainage improvements to occur outside the building envelope. When the construction is complete, the area outside the envelope will be revegetated with native landscaping to be approved by the parks department. This request is an “other amendment” and there are no review criteria other than determining whether this is consistent with the approved plat. The ordinance has been amended to include more precise restrictions on site drainage that these should line up with what is currently allowed setbacks on properties. Staff recommends approval. Glenn Horn, representing the applicant, show a picture of the lot that contains a lot of road base as it was used as a staging area for construction of the subdivision. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #49, Series of 2013, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Romero. Mayor Pro Tem Frisch opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Pro Tem Frisch closed the public hearing. Roll Call vote; Councilmembers Romero, yes; Mullins, yes; Daily, yes; Frisch, yes. Motion Carried. RESOLUTION #107, SERIES OF 2013 – 110 E. Bleeker Street Extension of Vested Rights Mayor Skadron returned to Chambers. Amy Simon, community development department, told Council this is a landmarked Victorian house on Bleeker. This is a request to extend vested rights for 3 years. HPC approved a remodel of the house in 2002, which approval was amended in 2004 and the vested rights clock was reset. The project was delayed by some issues and two extensions of vested rights have been granted. Ms. Simon recommended Council not grant a 3 year extension of vested rights. The project approval is 12 years old and it may be outdated in comparison with the current land use regulations. Ms. Simon told Council she has not examined the code to see how it might affect the project. Jody Edwards, representing the applicant, told Council the proposed project is full restoration of a 19th century brick house and is important to the community. The benefits granted were 325 P37 VI.c Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 2, 2013 5 square feet of bonus and a 5% site coverage variance, the applicant agreed to replace the front bay windows and the front doors, remove and replace trees on the property, reduce the height of the connector, remove a non-historic addition to the house and remove non-historic brick on the house. During the building permit application phase, the applicant ended up with a dispute with the neighbor, which took several years to resolve and during which time the building permit expired. The applicant is not ready to do the project and would like to ability to preserve that approval. Edwards told Council he has not examined the code to see if changes would affect this project. Edwards pointed out there have been no changes to the historic preservation guidelines and no changes to the R-6 zone district. Edwards said it would be a waste of everyone’s time to go through the entire process to preserve this Victorian and requested an extension of vested rights. Councilman Frisch said he could approve one year in order for the applicant to get going. Councilman Frisch said there appears no harm to the community based on the bulk and mass and same HPC guidelines. Ms. Simon told Council there are few Victorian-era brick houses left; it is close to town and has a lot of visibility; it is a unique design. Councilman Daily said he would not want the community to lose the benefits of this historic structure; however, the city needs to preserve respect for its own process. Councilman Daily said he could approve a shorter extension. Councilwoman Mullins said if a three year extension were approved, it would take this project out 14 years. Councilwoman Mullins said land use code changes benefit the community and this project was approved under a ten-year old land use code. Councilman Romero said this project needs to become a priority for the applicant; he would approve a one- year extension. Mayor Skadron said for him it is important that applications meet basic criteria and in this case certain standards have to be met; being too busy is not one of the standards. Mayor Skadron stated he will support staff’s recommendation that the extension be denied. Councilwoman Mulllins agreed this request does not meet the criteria. This is an important project and deserves a fresh review. Councilman Frisch moved to approve Resolution #107, Series of 2013, amending it to one-year extension of vested rights; seconded by Councilman Romero. Mayor Skadron opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Skadron closed the public hearing. Councilmembers Frisch, Romero, and Daily in favor; Councilwoman Mullins and Mayor Skadron opposed. Motion carried. BURLINGAME PHASE 2 – Construction and Sale of Single Family Houses P38 VI.c Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 2, 2013 6 Barry Crook, assistant city manager, told Council there are six lots available for construction in phases 2 and 3 of Burlingame; two of these are duplex lots in phase 2. Crook reminded Council to avoid the problems encountered in Burlingame phase 1, their direction was that the city construct the houses and sell them as RO without any subsidy. Crook noted in order to proceed, there had to be two willing buyers to jointly build a duplex; two people have come forward interested in a duplex. Crook noted selling the lots would make it difficult to do without a subsidy; guidelines for sale of RO lots are $179,000 and the costs allocated to this single family lot are $203,000. Crook told Council the interested buyers have an accelerated schedule and would like to go forth in the next several months. Councilman Frisch said there is a group of people with too many assets or too high a salary to fit into the housing categories 1 to 7 and they cannot get into the free market. Councilman Frisch said there is a missing housing component at around $750,000 houses for families and it would be important to keep these families in the community. Councilman Frisch noted ways to fill that gap are the city builds the housing and tries to sell it that price or see if there is a subsidy level that makes sense for a higher category to keep these families in the community. Councilman Daily said he is hesitant to put the city in the position like they were with lots at Burlingame where owners built the houses, there is a loss of city control, and there were problems. Councilman Daily said having the city build it would be the safest course. Crook said the very conceptual plans call for a 2750 square foot house including 900 square feet of basement plus a 487 square foot garage. Eric Cohen said if people do not fit into a category, a house will cost over $1 million. This duplex at 2750 square feet does not make sense at over $1 million and with appreciation, who could afford this in the future. Mayor Skadron stated he has little confidence that if these are owner-built duplexes that the city will not end up in the situation they did in 2009 where city money was needed to complete the projects. Cohen said he does not understand what gives builders the right to come back to the city and ask for more money. Cohen noted the proposed size would be a price restrictor. Councilman Frisch said one issue is whether to pick a target at which to sell these duplexes and if this requires a subsidy to sell at $750,000 will that have more interest from community members. These are duplex lots that will require two sets of interested buyers. If the city is not interested in a subsidy, the price per unit will come in at what it costs. Councilman Daily reiterated he supports the city controlling the project; buyers would not commit to anything until the costs are assessed. Councilwoman Mullins said the previous problems were from buyers building the units. There should be some economies if the city is building the duplexes and other building is going on. City-built would allow more consistency and quality control. Councilwoman Mullins stated she would support the city building these units. Councilman Romero agreed that would be his P39 VI.c Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 2, 2013 7 choice. Councilman Romero said it appears these will cost around $1 million; there could be some cost savings by roughing in basements to make these more cost efficient with a procedure for homeowner to finish the basements with a cap price. Councilman Romero stated this is not a custom product; the city is not in the business of producing custom homes. There will need to be tough design and construction discipline to get a product in the $750,000 price range. Crook told Council staff had not anticipated addressing this issue until a later phase of Burlingame; however, two buyers indicated they were interested and were interested in an accelerated time. Crook noted if Council decides to subsidize units like this, there may be more interest in the community. Councilman Frisch said he would like to know how many people would be interested in a $750-775,000 unit and also if Council should have a subsidy for these units which could be up to $250,000. Mayor Skadron stated Council’s preference is that the city build and sell the finished product in the $750,000 range. Council agreed the first step is to let the public know Council is discussing providing half a duplex at the $750-775,000 range and to let the city know if they are interested. Council said they would also like a construction estimate for this product. Councilman Frisch said the city should be in the supply business. Staff should find out how many people are interested and can they make that interest happen. Council can look at whether the gap really exists and what subsidy might be appropriate. Council agreed the priority is the successful completion and delivery of the current 48 units at Burlingame. Staff will do an outreach that will help Council understand the demand for these $750,000 units and report back to Council next year. 201 E. HYMAN CALL UP NOTICE – HPC Approval Chris Bendon, community development department, told Council this project was well received by HPC. The applicant made an adjustment to the height and it complies with the code. Councilwoman Mullins asked what variances were given. Bendon said they received the full 500 square foot bonus and there were some setback variances along the alley. Councilwoman Mullins said when considering call ups, she would like to know what variances were granted. Council agreed there were not interested in call up. ORDINANCE #46, SERIES OF 2013 – 549 Race Alley Chris Bendon, community development, told Council the applicant did not mail out the public notice so this should be continued. P40 VI.c Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 2, 2013 8 Councilman Frisch moved to continued Ordinance #46, Series of 2013; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Mullins moved, pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4) (b) Conferences with an attorney for the local public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions and (e) Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations; and instructing negotiators, to go into executive session at 7:20 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Romero moved to come out of executive session at 8:50 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Romero moved to adjourn at 8:50 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. Kathryn Koch, City Clerk P41 VI.c MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk DATE: December 4, 2013 RE: Board Appointments By approving the consent calendar, Council is appointing Jessie Young to the Open Space and Trail Board P42 VI.d 110 W. Main Street – Hotel Aspen Staff Memo 12/9/13 Page 1 of 10 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Skadron and City Council FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Hotel Aspen, 110 W. Main Street – Consolidated PUD Review, Subdivision Review and Rezoning- Ordinance No. 51, Series of 2013. Public hearing scheduled for January 13, 2013 MEETING DATE: December 9, 2013 APPLICANT /OWNER: Garmisch Lodging LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. LOCATION: 110 W. Main Street, corner of Main, Garmisch and Bleeker Streets CURRENT ZONING: Mixed Use along Main Street, R-6 (Medium Density Residential) along Bleeker Street, and Lodge Preservation Overlay over the entire 27,000 sf. parcel. SUMMARY: The Applicant requests approval to remodel the existing lodge, increase lodge units from 45 to 54 with an average unit size of 300 sf. The proposal includes 4 free market residential units in the form of 2 duplexes, and 3 onsite affordable housing units. The requested reviews include consolidated PUD, Subdivision, and Rezoning. Photo: Current image of Hotel Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The P & Z recommended denial of the proposed project by a vote of 3 -1, with 1 abstention. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the applicant reduce the overall cumulative floor area and the maximum unit sizes for the free market residential units. Staff recommends that Council adopt the Ordinance on first reading. . P43 VII.a 110 W. Main Street – Hotel Aspen Staff Memo 12/9/13 Page 2 of 10 REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals to redevelop the existing lodge: • Consolidated PUD Review (Chapter 26.445, Planned Unit Development) to establish dimensional requirements. City Council is the final review authority. • Subdivision Review (Chapter 26.480, Subdivision) for a mixed use project to divide legal interests. City Council is the final review authority. • Rezoning Review (Chapter 26.310, Amendment to the Official Zone District Map) to adopt the PUD and to clean up the zoning of the back portion of the lot. City Council is the final review authority. • Fee Waiver (Chapter 26.610.100 Waiver of Fees) to waive the Transportation Demand Management/Air Quality fee and the Parks Development Fee. City Council is the final review authority. BACKGROUND: 110 W. Main Street is a 27,000 square foot lot developed as a small lodge, Hotel Aspen. According to the application, the lodge is about 21,344 square feet (sf) of floor area. The property spans from Main Street to Bleeker Street and encompasses a vacated alley. The south half of the property is located in the Main Street Historic District and is zoned MU Mixed Use. The north half of the property is located in the West End neighborhood and is zoned R-6 Residential. It was remodeled, expanded, condominiumized and converted from the Nugget Lodge to the Hotel Aspen in the 1980s. In 1997, the entire property was rezoned with the Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP). The Lodge Preservation Overlay allows some additional development options and flexibility for Aspen’s traditional small lodges, many of which have historically been located in residential neighborhoods. The overlay allows all dimensional requirements, including floor area and height, to be approved on a case by case basis through the planned unit development (PUD) process. TIMELINE OF PROJECT: Application for HPC: October, 2012 HPC hearing: January, 2013 HPC hearing: February, 2013 HPC hearing: March, 2013 Figure 1: Zone District Map. P44 VII.a 110 W. Main Street – Hotel Aspen Staff Memo 12/9/13 Page 3 of 10 HPC hearing and decision: approved April, 2013 Application for PUD/Sub./ Rezoning: June, 2013 P&Z hearing: scheduled for August, 2013 but postponed by applicant until September and then again until October. P&Z hearing and decision: denied November, 2013 City Council first reading: December 9, 2013 NEXT STEPS: The proposed project requires a major Growth Management Review, which has submittal dates on either February 15th or August 15th for each calendar year. The final review occurs after Growth Management Review when the project is considered by HPC for Final design approvals. PREVIOUS APPROVALS: Historic Preservation Commission: Because the project is partially located within the Main Street Historic District, HPC conducted Conceptual design reviews prior to the PUD/Subdivision/Rezoning application. Recognizing that the PUD/Subdivision/Rezoning Reviews overlap with conceptual design reviews, HPC was asked to focus their review on overall issues of architecture and compatibility with the surrounding area. After PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning and GMQS approvals, HPC will hold a Final design review hearing. HPC held four public hearings on the project, continuing each time for a restudy of the height and the footprint of the free market residential units along Bleeker Street. In general, there was little concern expressed with the design of the lodge portion of the development. A major point of debate was roof forms of the free market residential units regarding both height and compatibility with the neighborhood. The hotel and the residences were all initially proposed to have flat roofs. At the March 13th meeting, Staff and HPC members suggested that incorporating gable roof forms on the residences facing Bleeker Street would be more typical of the streetscape and would go a long way in helping that aspect of the project relate to context. The applicant returned to the board on April 24th with this amendment. However, throughout the review, the members in attendance at each hearing varied and the members who attended on April 24th had not given the direction to study gable roofs. Instead, they voted in favor of the flat roofed design that was proposed on March 13th, finding that it reduced the project impact by reducing the height. The overall height with the pitched roofs was actually taller than the flat roofs. HPC granted Conceptual Commercial Design and Conceptual Major Development resolution by a vote of 4-0. As part of their vote, HPC approved the free market residential units to reach a maximum height of 32’ where 28’ is allowed through Commercial Design review. HPC does not evaluate the dimensions of the project; rather the Board focuses on the exterior appearance. Staff did not include the actual floor area numbers of the project to HPC because floor area was not within HPC’s purview through Commercial Design Review. Minutes from all four meetings are attached. P45 VII.a 110 W. Main Street – Hotel Aspen Staff Memo 12/9/13 Page 4 of 10 Planning & Zoning Commission: The P & Z heard the project twice: the first hearing was extensive background and explanation of the project by the applicant, and the second hearing included staff recommendations. The applicant requested a decision at the second hearing: P & Z voted 3-1-1 in denial of the project. Detailed minutes are attached. The majority of P&Z voiced concern over the size and configuration of the free market residential component of the project and were supportive of the lodge component of the project. Concerns were raised about parking in the right of way regarding head-in, angled, or parallel spaces, and providing a possible designated loading zone for the hotel. The proposal to rezone the R-6 portion of the property to Mixed Use was met with concern about the impacts of the rezoning on the residential neighborhood along Bleeker Street. The project is subject to the Land Use Code in place on October 19, 2012 when the application was submitted/deemed complete for HPC review. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: The proposal before Council is complete demolition of all the existing structures except for a portion of the current entry lobby, and replacement with new lodge units, affordable housing and two free market multifamily buildings (in the form of 2 duplexes). The current lodge includes 45 lodge units (average size of 370 sf), a breakfast area, lobby, and 1 affordable housing unit with a grand total of 21, 344 sf of floor area. The proposal is for the following: 54 lodge units with an average of 300 sf net livable area, a café/bar area, lobby, 4 free market residential units, and 3 affordable housing units. The following is proposed for the site: • 1 lodge/affordable housing building along Main Street. o 54 lodge units, 300 sf net livable average size, no lock-offs o Café/bar for lodge guests o 3 affordable housing units: 1 studio and 2 1-bedroom units • 2 free market residential duplex buildings along Bleeker Street: total of 4 multi-family residential units • Subgrade parking garage accessed from the alley (west elevation) o 15 parking spaces • Public amenity area along Main Street. P46 VII.a 110 W. Main Street – Hotel Aspen Staff Memo 12/9/13 Page 5 of 10 The chart below outlines the variation requests for the lot: Table 1: Requested Variance Allowable in MU/LP zone districts Difference Maximum Cumulative Floor Area 36,500 sf (1.35:1) 27,000 sf floor area(1:1) ability to increase to 33,750 sf floor area (1.25:1) through Special Review 9,500 sf floor area over the allowable. 2,750 over the special review maximum Maximum Lodge Floor Area 23,500 sf 20,250 (0.75:1) ability to increase to 27,000 (1:1) through Special Review 3,250 sf floor area over allowable, within the special review maximum Maximum Free Market Multi-family Housing Floor Area 11,000 sf 10,419 sf floor area or 60% of total net livable area for lodge units and affordable housing units (a total of 17,365 sf nla for lodge units and ah units) 581 sf floor area over allowable Maximum net livable unit size cap for Free Market Multi-family Housing Unit 1: 3,750 Unit 2: 3,400 Unit 3: 3,400 Unit 4: 3,750 2,000 sf maximum net livable area (nla) per unit, ability to increase to 2,500 sf nla by landing a TDR Between 1,400 and 1,750 sf over the allowable without a TDR Side yard Setback (Garmisch St.) 0’ 5’ 5’ Front yard Setback (Bleeker St.) 9’9” 10’ 3” PUD REVIEW (EXHIBIT A): The purpose of Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation is to encourage flexibility and innovation in the development of land which: A. Promotes the purposes, goals and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan. B. Achieves a more desirable development pattern, a higher quality design and site planning, a greater variety in the type and character of development and a greater compatibility with existing and future surrounding land uses than would be possible through the strict application of the underlying zone district provisions. C. Preserves natural and man-made site features of historic, cultural or scenic value. D. Promotes more efficient use of land, public facilities and governmental services. E. Incorporates an appropriate level of public input to the planning process to ensure sensitivity to neighborhood and community goals and objectives. Through the PUD process the applicant requests approval to vary the maximum cumulative floor area for the entire site, maximum allowable floor area for the lodge use, maximum allowable P47 VII.a 110 W. Main Street – Hotel Aspen Staff Memo 12/9/13 Page 6 of 10 floor area for the free market multi-family residential use, the free market multi-family unit size maximum, and setback requirements as described below. Floor Area analysis: The maximum cumulative floor area is calculated based on the underlying zoning – Mixed Use. The allowable lodge and affordable housing floor area is also calculated based on the underlying zoning. The allowable free market multi-family housing is calculated based on the allowances in the Lodge Zone District which provides more free market residential floor area for smaller average lodge room sizes. The average lodge room size proposed is 300 sf net livable which provides for a free market residential floor area equivalent to 60% of the total lodge unit and affordable housing net livable area. The applicant proposes 17,365 sf of net livable area for lodge and affordable housing; therefore 10,419 sf of floor area is allowed for free market multi-family residential. Table 2: Floor Area analysis Floor Area Proposed Floor Area Allowable by right in MU/LP zone districts Difference Maximum Cumulative 36,500 sf (1.35:1) 27,000 sf floor area (1:1) ability to increase to 33,750 sf floor area (1.25:1) through Special Review 9,500 sf floor area over the allowable. 2,750 over the Special Review maximum Lodge 23,500 sf 20,250 (0.75:1) ability to increase to 27,000 (1:1) through Special Review 3,250 sf floor area over allowable, within the Special Review maximum Free Market Multi-family Housing 11,000 sf 10,419 sf floor area or 60% of total net livable area for lodge units and affordable housing units (a total of 17,365 sf nla for lodge units and ah units) 581 sf floor area over allowable Affordable Housing 2,000 sf Unlimited, but cannot exceed cumulative maximum FAR The Planning and Zoning Commission requested a comparison of the FAR of the free market residential component to a similar size lot in R-6 zone to better understand the relationship between the proposal and the Bleeker Street neighborhood. There are two scenarios for comparison: 1) Proposed Free Market Residential lot area: Staff drew an imaginary line from the property line along Garmisch Street to the rear of the free market residential rear yards to determine a “lot area” for the purpose of calculating floor area for a similar size lot in the R-6 zone district. Using this methodology, the lot area is 8,400 sf which permits only a single family residential home. The lot must be at least 9,000 sf to permit duplex P48 VII.a 110 W. Main Street – Hotel Aspen Staff Memo 12/9/13 Page 7 of 10 development. The allowable floor area for a single family home is 3,576 sf. If a duplex was allowed on this lot size, the floor area would be 3,984 sf. 2) Traditional Residential lot area: Staff drew an imaginary line from the original alley (since relocated) to Bleeker Street to create a traditional west end lot configuration resulting in a 12,000 sf lot. Two single family residences are allowed with a total combined FAR of 4,260 sf. In either scenario, the allowable floor area by right for a similar sized lot in R-6 (the underlying zoning) is around 4,000 – 4,200 sf. The applicant proposes 11,000 sf of floor area for free market residential use, which is slightly over the allowable floor area under the Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone District. Net Livable Analysis: The project proposes to utilize the Code incentive that allows smaller lodge rooms to develop more free market residential floor area to help drive the lodge redevelopment. The current Code allows a percentage of the lodge/affordable housing net livable area to be developed as free market multi-family housing based on average unit size. The existing lodge has an average unit size of 370 sf of net livable area. The applicant represents an average unit size of 300 sf of net livable area for the new lodge rooms. The affordable housing units meet minimum net livable area sizes for the type of unit at Category 1 or 2 level. The studio unit is 401 sf of net livable area, the two 1-bedroom units are 603 sf and 642 sf of net livable area. The free market multi-family residential units within the MU zone district have a maximum unit size cap of 2,000 sf of net livable area with the ability to increase to 2,500 sf of net livable area with a TDR. The 4 free market multi-family residential units all exceed the maximum unit size cap and require a variation through the PUD. Two units are proposed to be 3,750 sf of net livable area and two units are proposed to be 3,400 sf of net livable area. TDRs are not proposed to be landed. Setbacks: The applicant requests a reduced sideyard setback along Garmisch Street for the free market multi-family residential units. The required side yard is 5’ and 0’ is proposed. A front yard setback variance for the free market multi-family buildings is requested: 9’9” is proposed and 10’ is required. HPC was supportive of the setback variances. Height: HPC granted a height increase through Commercial Design Review from 28’ to 32’ for the free market multi-family buildings. The lodge/affordable housing building is proposed at 28’. Staff comments: Staff is supportive of the lodge redevelopment and understands that the free market residential portion of the project is needed to fund the lodge. The requested floor area increases, net livable increase, and setback reductions may be appropriate; however only with the condition that the overall architecture and massing of the free market multi-family housing is compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent landmarks. There is an appropriate balance that needs to be met between incentivizing lodge redevelopment and preserving the residential mass and scale of the Bleeker Street neighborhood. P49 VII.a 110 W. Main Street – Hotel Aspen Staff Memo 12/9/13 Page 8 of 10 The PUD review criteria require a finding that the mass, bulk, height and architecture is compatible with the neighborhood and with surrounding historic landmarks. HPC held 4 public hearings to discuss the mass of the free market residential buildings (they did not have purview over the proposed floor area numbers for the project) and ultimately decided to support the project on a conceptual design level. In respect to HPC’s design approval, the Staff discussion is focused on the proposed variations from the zoning rather than the bulk and mass of the project which was approved by HPC. Staff does still believe this issue needs more discussion, as the requested variances for the overall cumulative FAR and the free market residential unit sizes are significant. A comparison of the free market residential floor area proposed (11,000 sf) to the free market residential floor area that would be allowed in the R-6 zone district on a same size lot (3,576 sf) raises questions about compatibility with the surrounding R-6 neighborhood to the north of the subject property. City Council is asked to make a finding that the architecture, mass and scale are compatible with the neighborhood in accordance with the PUD review criteria. The proposed floor area for the entire site is significantly over the cumulative allowable floor area which creates challenges regarding compatibility with the neighborhood. In addition, the free market residential unit sizes (two units at 3,750 sf and two units at 3,400 sf), which are not required or proposed to be short-term rentals, are significantly over the maximum cap of 2,000 square feet of net livable area allowed in the zone district. Staff cannot support these variations (maximum cumulative floor area and net livable residential unit size) and, based on the recommended findings of fact in Exhibit A, recommends continuation for further restudy. SUBDIVISION (EXHIBIT B): The applicant requests subdivision, which is required for mixed-use project with multiple residential units. Exhibit B addresses the review criteria. Staff comments: In Staff’s opinion the review criteria are met with the exception of criterion 26.480.050.A.1 that requires compatibility with “mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of density, height, bulk, architecture…” REZONING (EXHIBIT C): The purpose statement of the Lodge Preservation (LP) zone district is as follows: “…to provide for and to protect small lodge uses on properties historically used for lodge accommodations, to permit redevelopment of these properties to accommodate lodge and affordable housing uses, to provide uses accessory and normally associated with lodge and affordable housing development…to encourage development which is compatible with the neighborhood and respective of the manner in which the property has historically operated and to provide an incentive for upgrading existing lodges on site or onto adjacent properties.” P50 VII.a 110 W. Main Street – Hotel Aspen Staff Memo 12/9/13 Page 9 of 10 The LP zone district offers incentives to redevelop and to preserve the existing small lodges, which includes flexibility of dimensional requirements through the adoption of a PUD. Floor area for each use typically refers to the underlying zoning, however for a lodging project the LP district allows the amount of free market residential floor area to be established pursuant to the Lodge zone district as an incentive for redevelopment. The Lodge zone district relates the amount of free market residential floor area to the size of the lodge units – the smaller the lodge units, the more free market residential floor area permitted. LP overlay zoning is scattered throughout town and is typically found on small lodge properties such as the Boomerang Lodge, Christiana Lodge, St. Moritz Lodge, Hearthstone House, Hotel Lenado and Molly Gibson to name a few. Currently the property is zoned Mixed Use (MU) along Main Street and Medium Density Residential (R-6) zone district along Bleeker Street. The Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) zone district encompasses the entire property. While the MU zone district allows lodge and multi- family free market residential as permitted uses, neither are allowed in the R-6 zone district. The LP overlay permits lodge and multi-family free market residential uses, defines floor area allowances for a lodge project, and allows the adoption of a PUD to define dimensional requirements. Rezoning the rear parcel to MU, so that the entire property has one underlying zone district, simplifies the underlying zoning. With the current development and the proposed development, the R-6 zone district does not play a very active role as an underlying zone district since the proposal is for a mixed use development that is not permitted in R-6. Rezoning to MU does not permit more development on the parcel since the property is pursuing a PUD that will define dimensional standards. Staff has calculated the allowances in the MU district as the underlying zone for comparison since R-6 does not have dimensional requirements for the proposed uses. Furthermore, the free market residential component of the project is tied to the lodging component because the development is considered one project and the amount of free market residential is determined by the size of the lodge units. The project requires rezoning to adopt the PUD designation. Staff suggests that the entire property be rezoned to Mixed Use Zone District with the Lodge Preservation overlay to simplify the underlying zoning by removing the R-6 designation. Exhibit C addresses the review criteria. Staff comment: Rezoning the entire parcel to Mixed Use/ Lodge Preservation Overlay, does not significantly impact the allowed uses on the parcel. Staff finds that the review criteria are met to rezone the parcel to Mixed Use/Lodge Preservation Overlay. FEE WAIVERS: The applicant requests waiver of the Parks Development fee and the Transportation Demand Management/Air Quality fee. The Land Use Code authorizes Council to waive or to reduce impact fees as an economic incentive for lodging developments. Parks Development Fee ($5.45/new sf of floor area): Proposed floor area 36,500 – existing floor area 21,344 = 15,156 sf new floor area P51 VII.a 110 W. Main Street – Hotel Aspen Staff Memo 12/9/13 Page 10 of 10 Total Parks Development Fee requested waiver: (15,156 * $5.45) = $82,600.20 Transportation Demand Management/ Air Quality Fee ($0.61/ new sf of floor area) Proposed floor area 36,500 – existing floor area 21,344 = 15,156 sf new floor area Total TDM/Air Quality Fee requested waiver: (15,156 * $0.61) = $9,245.16 Grand total of waivers requested: $91,845.36 Staff comment: The Parks Department does not support the requested waiver for Park Development Fees because “the development includes improvements to the City’s right of way and an increase in lodging and free market space. Both of which will add impacts to public park space requiring additional financial maintenance responsibilities.” The Transportation Department does not support the requested waiver for TDM/ Air Quality Impact Fees because “this type of development typically increases transit usage, thus requiring additional fleet/facility maintenance and replacement responsibilities.” RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council adopt the ordinance on First Reading and recommends that the applicant reduce the net livable size of the free market residential units and reduce the overall cumulative floor area proposed for the site. RECOMMENDED MOTION: “I move to adopt Ordinance No. 51, Series of 2013 on First Reading.” CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance #51, Series of 2013 Attachments: Exhibit A – Staff Findings, PUD Review Criteria Exhibit B – Staff Findings, Subdivision Review Criteria Exhibit C – Staff Findings, Rezoning Review Criteria Exhibit D – Development Review Committee Comments Exhibit E – Meeting Minutes from HPC January – April, 2013. Exhibit F – Draft Meeting Minutes from P&Z on November 19, 2013. Exhibit G – Application P52 VII.a Ordinance 51, Series 2013 Hotel Aspen Page 1 of 8 ORDINANCE N0.51, (SERIES OF 2013) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, SUBDIVISION AND REZONING APPROVAL FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE HOTEL ASPEN INCLUDING LODGING, MULTI-FAMILY FREE-MARKET RESIDENTIAL, AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 110 EAST MAIN STREET, HOTEL ASPEN CONDOMINIUMS, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2735-124-61-800 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Garmisch Lodging LLC represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. requesting approval of a redevelopment of the existing lodge; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director determined pursuant to Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.445.030.B.2 that a Consolidated Conceptual and Final Planned Unit Development Review is permitted, WHEREAS, the property is zoned Mixed Use (MU), Medium Density Residential (R-6), Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) and Main Street Historic District Overlay; and, WHEREAS, the property is partially located within the Main Street Historic District and is not considered a contributing building to the integrity of the Historic District; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 24, 2013 the Historic Preservation Commission granted Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Conceptual Major Development Review approval via Resolution No. 14, Series of 2013; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 19, 2013 continued from October 15, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Commission denied Resolution No.21, Series of 2013, recommending the Aspen City Council not approve a PUD, Subdivision, and Rezoning; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended continuation of the application; and, WHEREAS, on December 9, 2013 the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 51, Series 2013, on First Reading by a ____ to ____ (_-_) vote, approving with conditions a PUD, Subdivision and Rezoning of the Property; and, P53 VII.a Ordinance 51, Series 2013 Hotel Aspen Page 2 of 8 WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council approve a PUD plan, Subdivision, and Rezoning of the underlying zone district to Mixed Use. The project is subject to all conditions included in HPC Resolution #14, Series of 2013 and requires Growth Management approvals, Final Commercial Design, and Final Major Development approval prior to the issuance of a development order. Section 2: PUD/ Subdivision Plat and Agreement The Applicant shall record a Subdivision/PUD agreement (hereinafter “Agreement”) that meets the requirements of the Land Use Code within 180 days of approval. The 180 days shall commence upon the granting of Final Commercial Design and Final Major Development approvals by the Historic Preservation Commission. A final PUD/Subdivision Plat and Agreement shall be recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder’s Office within 180 days of the adoption of a resolution by the Historic Preservation Commission granting Final Commercial Design and Final Major Development approvals and shall include the following: a. A final plat meeting the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code. b. An illustrative site plan of the project showing the proposed improvements, parking, and dimensional requirements as approved. c. A detailed landscaping plan. d. A drawing representing the project’s architectural character, including building elevations. e. A grading and drainage plan meeting all requirements of the Aspen Municipal Code. f. A utility and public facilities plan. g. The PUD agreement shall include a commitment to relocate the existing Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District owner main sanitary sewer line. P54 VII.a Ordinance 51, Series 2013 Hotel Aspen Page 3 of 8 h. The PUD agreement shall include a landscape guarantee in accordance with Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.445.070.C.3 i. The PUD agreement shall include a public facilities guarantee in accordance with Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.445.070.C.4. The Applicant shall condominiumize the units after substantial completion of the project. The condominium plat(s) shall be reviewed pursuant to the Aspen Municipal Code. The Subdivision/PUD Agreement shall require recordation of a condominium plat prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Section 3: Rezoning The entire subject property is hereby rezoned to the Mixed Use Zone District as the underlying zone district with the Lodge Preservation Overlay. The Main Street Historic District Overlay applies to half of the property (measured 100 feet back from Main Street toward Bleeker Street). Section 4: Dimensional Requirements The approved dimensional requirements are as follows in Table 1: Table1: Dimensional Requirements Hotel Aspen PUD Dimensional Requirements Minimum lot size 27,000 Minimum lot area per dwelling unit n/a Maximum allowable density n/a Minimum lot width 110’ Minimum front yard (Main Street) - lodge 10’ Minimum front yard (Bleeker Street) – multi-family residential 9’ 9” Minimum side yard (Garmisch) - lodge 5’ Minimum side yard (Garmisch) – multifamily residential 0’ Minimum rear yard n/a The property spans between two streets and does not necessarily have a rear yard. In Staff’s opinion the property is delineated by use so there are two front yards – one for lodge, and one for multi-family residential. Maximum site coverage 87% Maximum height - lodge 28’ Maximum height – multi-family residential 32’ Maximum distance between buildings – lodge and multifamily residential 16’ between affordable housing/lodge and multi-family residential Maximum distance between buildings – multifamily residential 12’ 9” Minimum percent open space 15% or 4,030 sf - reduction of public amenity approved by HPC via Resolution #14, Series of 2013 P55 VII.a Ordinance 51, Series 2013 Hotel Aspen Page 4 of 8 Trash access area 10’ d x 15’3” w (open to the sky) Cumulative Allowable Floor Area 36,500 sf (1.35:1) Maximum multi-family residential floor area 11,000 sf Maximum net livable area for multi-family residential dwelling unit size Unit 1: 3,750 sf nla Unit 2: 3,400 sf nla Unit 3: 3,400 sf nla Unit 4: 3,750 sf nla Maximum lodge floor area 23,500 sf Maximum affordable housing floor area 2,000 sf Minimum off-street parking spaces 15 subgrade parking spaces The maximum affordable housing floor area may be increased through growth management reviews with the condition that both the maximum cumulative floor area is not increased and the lodge floor area is not changed. Pursuant to Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.710.090.D.11(a)(5), as shown below, the allowable free market multi-family housing floor area is calculated based on the allowances in the Lodge Zone District which provides more free market residential floor area for smaller average lodge room sizes. The average lodge room size proposed is 300 sf net livable area which provides for a free market residential floor area equivalent to 60% of the total lodge unit and affordable housing net livable area. The applicant proposes approximately 17,365 sf of net livable area for lodge and affordable housing; therefore 10,419 sf of floor area is allowed for free market multi-family residential. A variance allowing 11,000 sf of floor area is granted with the adoption of this PUD. The average individual lodge unit size is not permitted to be increased above 300 sf of net livable area without reducing the free market residential floor area allowed on the property in accordance with the chart below. Table 26.710.109.1 Allowable Free-Market Residential FAR Table 26.710.190.1 Average net livable area of individual lodge units on the parcel Free-market residential FAR as a percentage of total lodge unit and affordable housing net livable area Greater than 600 square feet 5% 600 square feet 15% 500 square feet 40% 400 square feet 50% 300 square feet or less 60% When the average lodge unit size falls between the square footage categories, the allowable free-market multi-family or large lodge/timeshare unit floor area shall be determined by interpreting the above schedule proportionately. For example, a lodge project with an P56 VII.a Ordinance 51, Series 2013 Hotel Aspen Page 5 of 8 average unit size of 450 square feet shall be allowed to develop a free- market residential floor area up to 45% of the total lodge unit net livable area. This percentage of free-market residential FAR may not be otherwise established for a project through a planned unit development review. All non-unit space attributable to free-market residential or large lodge/timeshare units shall count towards the individual FAR allowance for free-market residential or large lodge/timeshare units. Section 6: Engineering The Applicant’s design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. Drainage: The project shall meet the Urban Runoff Management Plan Requirements. A compliant drainage plan must be submitted with a building permit application. This includes detaining and providing water quality for the entire site. If the site chooses fee-in-lieu of detention (FIL), it can only be applied to existing impervious areas. All new impervious areas will need to discharge at historic rates. Sidewalk/Curb/Gutter: All sidewalk curb and gutter shall meet the Engineering Standards of City of Aspen Municipal Code Title 21. The sidewalk shall be detached parallel to Garmisch Street. Excavation Stabilization: Due to the proximity of the neighboring property and the excavation of the building, an excavation stabilization plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department prior to building permit submittal. CMP: The Construction Management Plan shall describe mitigation for: parking, staging/encroachments, and truck traffic. The outbound bus land shall not be impacted by the proposed CMP. The adjacent bus stop shall not be impacted by the proposed CMP. On-street parking: All on street parking shall be parallel parking spaces in accordance with the Engineering Standards unless otherwise approved by the Engineering and Parking Departments. A minimum of one signed “loading zone” parking space for hotel guests is permitted with approval from the Parking Department. Section 7: Affordable Housing The project is required to mitigate for affordable housing and shall submit an application for growth management review pursuant to the Aspen Land Use Code after receiving PUD approval by City Council. The representations made in the PUD application do not constitute approval of affordable housing. P57 VII.a Ordinance 51, Series 2013 Hotel Aspen Page 6 of 8 Section 8: Environmental Health The trash enclosure area is approved with the condition that one of the following options is met: Option 1): The transformer is either not required or is located somewhere else on the property, not inside the trash enclosure; or Option 2): The transformer remains inside the trash enclosure and the Hotel Aspen agrees to not use a trash compactor (a permanent structure) and instead uses a 2 yard trash bin (moveable), leaving more room for recycle bins. The lodge shall have at a minimum 4 recycle bins. Section 9: Fire Mitigation This project shall meet all of the codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District. This includes, but is not limited to, Fire Department Access (International Fire Code 2009 Edition Section 503), and the installation of approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC 2009 Sections 903 and 907 as amended). Section 10: Utilities This project shall meet all applicable standards in the City of Aspen Municipal Code, specifically Title 25. Individual buildings shall have individual taps. The transformer shall be located on the subject property. Section 11: Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD shall review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. Elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor The applicant shall relocate the existing Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District owned main sanitary sewer line that currently runs through the middle of Block 58 at the applicant’s expense and in a manner that is acceptable to the District. Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an P58 VII.a Ordinance 51, Series 2013 Hotel Aspen Page 7 of 8 additional proportionate fee shall be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line). A “Line Extension Request” and a “Collection System Agreement” are required for this application. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. Section 12: Parks Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW requirements, Chapter 21.20. There shall be no plantings within the City ROW which are not approved by the City Parks Department and the Engineering Department. Irrigation of the street trees shall be required with a specific planting medium appropriate for tree growth. Tree removal permits shall be required before any tree is removed and prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project. The Parks Development Fee is hereby waived by City Council. Section 13: Transportation The applicant commits to a courtesy shuttle for lodge guests and to providing a bike rack and bicycles for lodge guests. The Transportation Demand Management Fee and the Air Quality Fee is hereby waived by City Council. Section 14: Parking The project shall reserve 3 parking spaces for the affordable housing units and 4 spaces for the free market residential units in the subgrade parking garage. Section 15: Outdoor Lighting All outdoor lighting shall meet the requirements of the Aspen Municipal Code. Section 16: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. P59 VII.a Ordinance 51, Series 2013 Hotel Aspen Page 8 of 8 Section 17: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 18: 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. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 9th day of December, 2013. _______________________________ Steven Skadron, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___th day of _____________, 2013. _______________________________ Steven Skadron, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________ _______________________________ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk James R. True, City Attorney P60 VII.a Exhibit A – PUD Review Criteria Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street 12/9/13 Page 1 of 15 Exhibit A – PUD Review Criteria Sec. 26.445.040.General provisions. The following provisions shall apply to all property designated with a PUD Overlay on the Official Zone District Map unless otherwise provided pursuant to an adopted final PUD development plan for the property. A. Uses: The land uses permitted in a PUD shall be limited to those allowed in the underlying zone district in which the property is located. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi- family dwelling units shall only be allowed when permitted by the underlying zone district. The proposes uses - Lodge, Affordable Housing, and Multi-family Residential - are permitted in the underlying zone districts (Mixed Use and R-6) and the Lodge Preservation (LP) overlay. Free market multi-family housing is not a permitted use in the R-6 Zone District; however the LP overlay allows multi-family uses to be established. The free market multi- family housing is in the form of two duplexes, which is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood which allows duplex development. B. Density: Unless otherwise established pursuant to a final PUD Development Plan, the maximum aggregate density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district, considering the inclusions and exclusions of Lot Area, as defined and the mandatory density reduction for steep slopes as described below. The proposed density is no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone districts. C. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall be established with the adoption of a final PUD development plan. The underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimension for each provision. The final development plan shall clearly define all dimensional requirements for each lot within the PUD. In the absence of a final development plan, a single detached or duplex residential dwelling, if listed as a permitted use in the underlying zoning, may be developed in conformance with the provisions of the underlying Zone District. P61 VII.a Exhibit A – PUD Review Criteria Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street 12/9/13 Page 2 of 15 Table 1: Dimensional Requirements Proposed dimensions Allowable dimensions in MU and LP zone districts Minimum lot size 27,000 Minimum lot area per dwelling unit n/a n/a Maximum allowable density n/a n/a Minimum lot width 110’ 30’ Minimum front yard (Main Street) - lodge 10’ 10’ Minimum front yard (Bleeker Street) – multi-family residential 9’ 9” 10’ Minimum side yard (Garmisch) - lodge 5’ 5’ Minimum side yard (Garmisch) – multifamily residential 0’ 5’ Minimum rear yard n/a The property spans between two streets and does not necessarily have a rear yard. In Staff’s opinion the property is delineated by use so there are two front yards – one for lodge, and one for multi-family residential. 5’ Maximum site coverage 87% n/a Maximum height - lodge 28’ 28’ may be increased to 32’ Maximum height – multi- family residential 32’ 28’ may be increased to 32’ Maximum distance between buildings – lodge and multifamily residential 16’ between affordable housing/lodge and multi- family residential 10’ Maximum distance between buildings – multifamily residential 12’ 9” 10’ Minimum percent open space 15% or 4,030 sf - reduction of public amenity approved by HPC via Resolution #14, Series of 2013 18% - 4,857 sf required public amenity Trash access area 10’ d x 15’3” w (open to the sky) 10’d x 10’ w x 10’ h Cumulative Allowable Floor Area 36,500 sf (1.35:1) 27,000 sf (1:1) with the ability to increase to 33,750 (1.25:1) through Special Review P62 VII.a Exhibit A – PUD Review Criteria Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street 12/9/13 Page 3 of 15 Maximum multi-family residential floor area 11,000 sf 10,419 sf [60% of total net livable area for lodge units and affordable housing units (17,365 sf nla * 60%)] Maximum net livable area for multi-family residential dwelling unit size Unit 1: 3,750 sf nla Unit 2: 3,400 sf nla Unit 3: 3,400 sf nla Unit 4: 3,750 sf nla 2,000 sf maximum net livable area (nla) per unit, ability to increase to 2,500 sf nla by landing a TDR Maximum lodge floor area 23,500 sf 20,250 sf (.75:1) with ability to increase to 27,000 (1:1) through Special Review Maximum affordable housing floor area 2,000 sf n/a Minimum off-street parking spaces 15 subgrade parking spaces 11.5 spaces for new development 26.445.050. Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD. A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be compatible with the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of density, height, bulk, and architecture, as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan. The applicant proposes a mixed use project including lodge, free market residential and affordable housing uses. The property spans between two zone districts – Mixed Use Zone/Main Street Historic District and the R-6 Medium Density Residential Zone District. The development on this site is challenging because each zone district has a different neighborhood context with more commercial/lodge structures on Main Street and primarily single family/duplex residence along Bleeker Street. The project includes complete demolition of all the existing structures except for a portion of the current entry lobby, and replacement with new lodge units, affordable housing and two duplex structures. The HPC reviewed the project and granted conceptual design approvals after 4 public hearings. The Planning and Zoning Commission held 2 public hearings and adopted a recommendation of denial of PUD, Subdivision and Rezoning to City Council. The requested variations are outlined in Table 2 below. Staff is supportive of the lodge portion of the development and finds that it is compatible with the mix of uses and architecture along the Main Street corridor. The proposed Hotel P63 VII.a Exhibit A – PUD Review Criteria Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street 12/9/13 Page 4 of 15 Aspen remodel is compatible with the height, mass and architecture of the Molly Gibson, Innsbruck Inn and Annabelle Inn which are all in close proximity to the project site. Within the Planning Staff, there is remaining concern with the size of the free market residences which significantly exceed the unit size cap of 2,000 sf of net livable area and the overall maximum cumulative floor area proposed for the property. While necessary to enable the small lodge accommodations to be revitalized, the free market residential buildings impose some impacts on Bleeker Street neighbors. These concerns were voiced by Staff and HPC resulting in many revised roof forms and building setbacks along Bleeker through the HPC process. Council has the ability to set the dimensional allowances of the proposal based on site specific and program specific considerations through the PUD process. If that were not the case, the Hotel Aspen proposal would not be allowed because the development along Bleeker Street represents approximately 3,000 square feet of floor area above and beyond what would be typical of an equivalent lot area in the West End. Approximately 2/3rds of the Hotel Aspen site is devoted to hotel rooms, affordable housing and amenities. Fitting the desired residential square footage in the remaining property is causing the project to creep into the traditional setback areas on the east, and up in height. The applicant proposes, and HPC approved, a height of 32 feet1 and flat roof buildings for the residential buildings, and a height of 28 feet for the lodge buildings. Council is asked to make a finding that the project is compatible with the neighborhood. Staff finds that the development is not compatible with the neighborhood and finds that the review criteria are not met. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. The proposal is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. The Main Street Historic District includes lodges, commercial and residential uses. There is multi-family housing across Garmisch Street, single family homes on the adjacent parcels along Bleeker Street, and commercial and lodging uses along Main Street. The one story Yellow Brick building is located across Bleeker Street. The proposed lodge and residential uses are consistent with the surrounding area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. The uses are consistent with underlying zoning and the neighborhood. A lodge and an affordable housing unit already exist on the parcel. The free market multi-family units are consistent with the neighborhood – they are arranged as 2 duplexes which is an allowed use in the R-6 zone district. Future development of the surrounding area should not be adversely affected by the proposed project. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 1 The Mixed Use Zone District (MU) allows a height increase from 28 – 32 feet for mixed use properties through conceptual commercial design review. Residential properties within the MU District are restricted to 25 feet. The R- 6 Zone District allows a 25 feet height limit. P64 VII.a Exhibit A – PUD Review Criteria Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street 12/9/13 Page 5 of 15 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. The project requests consolidated PUD review. GMQS review shall occur after PUD review is granted. At this time, GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development. The applicant proposes to mitigate for affordable housing onsite and through either cash-in-lieu or housing credits for the remainder of the housing requirement. The quality and configuration of the units shall be discussed during GMQS review for the development of affordable housing. B. Establishment of dimensional requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying Zone District shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking and historical resources. The proposed dimensional requirements are consistent with the underlying Mixed Use Zone District with the exception of maximum cumulative FAR, maximum Floor Area for lodge use, maximum Floor Area for free market multi-family residential use, and maximum unit size cap for free market residential units as outlined below. (Please refer to Table 1 for all dimensions of the project). P65 VII.a Exhibit A – PUD Review Criteria Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street 12/9/13 Page 6 of 15 Table 2: Requested variations Requested variance Allowable in MU/LP zone districts Difference Maximum Cumulative Floor Area 36,500 sf (1.35:1) 27,000 sf floor area(1:1) ability to increase to 33,750 sf floor area (1.25:1) through Special Review 9,500 sf floor area over the allowable, 2,750 over the Special Review maximum Maximum Lodge Floor Area 23,500 sf 20,250 (0.75:1) ability to increase to 27,000 (1:1) through Special Review 3,250 sf floor area over allowable, within the Special Review maximum Maximum Free Market Multi-family Housing Floor Area 11,000 sf 10,419 sf floor area or 60% of total net livable area for lodge units and affordable housing units (a total of 17,365 sf nla for lodge units and ah units) 581 sf floor area over allowable Maximum net livable unit size cap for Free Market Multi-family Housing Unit 1: 3,750 Unit 2: 3,400 Unit 3: 3,400 Unit 4: 3,750 2,000 sf maximum net livable area (nla) per unit, ability to increase to 2,500 sf nla by landing a TDR Between 1,400 and 1,750 sf over the allowable without a TDR Side yard Setback (Garmisch St.) 0’ 5’ 5’ Front yard Setback (Bleeker St.) 9’9” 10’ 3” There are no known natural or man-made hazards on the site. The property is flat and already developed. The proposal includes increasing lodge units from 45 to 54 and removing the on-street parking spaces. A subgrade parking garage is proposed to have 15 parking spaces that will serve the lodge, affordable housing, and free market residential units. The applicant proposes to have a guest courtesy van and a bike fleet to serve guests. The property is located adjacent to a bus stop, a Wecycle station, and a car-to-go station. Staff finds that the proposed dimensional requirements are appropriate and compatible with the man- made characteristics of the property such as noise, traffic, transit, parking due to the location of the project to transportation options and to downtown Aspen. The project does not contain any historic resource. Historic landmarks are located adjacent to the property, and it is partially located within the Historic District. HPC has conceptually approved the project. Staff finds that this criterion is not met and recommends that the applicant continue to develop the free market residential units to better relate to the adjacent landmarks. P66 VII.a Exhibit A – PUD Review Criteria Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street 12/9/13 Page 7 of 15 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. HPC reduced the amount of public amenity space required on the site during their Conceptual review of the project: 4,857 square feet is required and 4,030 square feet is proposed (a reduction of 18% to 15%). The public amenity space is provided along Main Street in the form of a little seating area accessed from the hotel café. The proposed amenity space is much more organized and planned than what currently exists today. There is a slight increase to the existing site coverage proposed: 82% existing to 87% proposed. Staff finds that the proposed open space is appropriate for the proposed PUD and the neighborhood. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any nonresidential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the City. The Land Use Code permits a redevelopment to maintain an existing deficit of parking. Currently, there are no parking spaces for the Hotel which equals a deficit of 22.5 spaces for the lodge (.5 spaces/lodge unit) and a deficit of 1 space for the affordable housing unit. The applicant proposes a subgrade parking garage with 15 parking spaces. The new proposed development requires a total of 11.5 parking spaces: 7 spaces for the residential portion (3 for AH and 4 for FM) and 4.5 for the lodge portion (9 new lodge units * .5 spaces). The application meets the required number of parking spaces according to the Code. The Engineering Department prefers to convert the head-in parking to parallel parking along Garmisch Street, which will increase safety along the street and decrease parking spaces that are currently used mainly by the Hotel. The applicant proposes to have a guest courtesy van and a bike fleet to serve lodge guests. The property is located adjacent to a bus stop, a Wecycle station, and a car-to-go station. Staff is supportive of the proposed parking due to the other available transit options. Staff recommends that 3 parking spaces be reserved for the Affordable Housing Units and 4 spaces be reserved for the Free Market Residential Units (1 space/unit) to ensure that the residential portion of the project is parked onsite. Staff finds the criteria above to be met. P67 VII.a Exhibit A – PUD Review Criteria Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street 12/9/13 Page 8 of 15 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance to the proposed development. Sufficient infrastructure capabilities and roads exist on the site, which is already developed with a lodge. The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) requires that the existing District owned main sanitary sewer line that runs through the middle of Block 58 be relocated by the applicant. The applicant agrees to this condition. ACSD comments on the flows of the project include: “where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line).” These issues are included as conditions of approval for the project. Staff finds that the criteria are met. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. The maximum allowable density is not proposed to be reduced. The land is already developed with a lodge. There are no natural hazards or natural site features on the property. Staff finds the criteria are met. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: P68 VII.a Exhibit A – PUD Review Criteria Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street 12/9/13 Page 9 of 15 a) The increase in density serves one or more adopted goals of the community as expressed in an applicable adopted regulatory master plan. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics. Notes: a) Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher or lower rate than specified in the underlying Zone District as long as, on average, the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density provisions of the respective Zone District or as otherwise established as the maximum allowable density pursuant to a final PUD Development Plan. b) The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are required to be reflected in the final PUD development plans. The applicant does not propose an increase to the maximum allowable density in the underlying zone district. C. Site design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Preservation of Aspen’s small lodging base is very important to the community and to town’s identity. The applicant proposes to maintain and to update the lodge. Half of the property is located within the Historic District and as such is reviewed by the HPC for compliance with historic preservation design guidelines. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. No significant open spaces or vistas exist on the site which requires the clustering of structures. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. P69 VII.a Exhibit A – PUD Review Criteria Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street 12/9/13 Page 10 of 15 The structures are located perpendicular to public streets to contribute to the residential and mixed use context of the adjacent neighborhoods. Staff recommends that the applicant provide a detached sidewalk along the entire length of Garmisch Street, not just in front of the lodge portion of the project to maintain consistency in the block. Staff also recommends the applicant look into increasing setback for the free market residential buildings to better contribute to the neighborhood context as discussed below. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. The project shall meet Fire and Building Codes. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. The project shall meet Building Codes regarding accessibility. Elevators and ADA lodging rooms are proposed. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. The property shall meet the requirements of the Urban Run-off Management Plan. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 7. For nonresidential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. The lodge buildings are designed to accommodate the lodge function, similar to the current configuration. Staff finds that this criterion is met. D. Landscape plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the City, with surrounding parcels and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well-designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. HPC will review the landscape plan in detail during Final Commercial Design Review. The proposed plan includes enhanced street plantings along Garmisch Street, new sidewalks along both Garmisch and Main Streets, and a patio/café area along Main Street. The project P70 VII.a Exhibit A – PUD Review Criteria Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street 12/9/13 Page 11 of 15 is required to meet Parks Department requirements for protection of existing vegetation and for new plantings in the right of way. As mentioned previously, Staff recommends a detached sidewalk along the length of Garmisch Street for consistency in the block. Staff finds the criteria are met with the condition that the sidewalk along Garmisch is detached. E. Architectural character. 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. The map below shows adjacent historic resources in white shading and the star indicates the subject property. Figure 1: Map of adjacent historic resources. Staff finds that the lodge portion of the project is appropriate for Main Street, where the context supports a flat roof and the proposed massing. A third of the overall floor area is proposed in the form of the free market residential units along Bleeker Street. The large unit sizes and allowable floor area create a challenge regarding compatibility with the neighborhood and surrounding historic landmarks (landmarks along Bleeker Street are shown P71 VII.a Exhibit A – PUD Review Criteria Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street 12/9/13 Page 12 of 15 below). Staff and HPC struggled with how the amount of proposed floor area fit into the context without compromising the lodge redevelopment and without adverse impacts to the neighborhood. Staff finds that the criterion is not met. Photos (clockwise from top left): 2 story Victorian directly adjacent to Hotel Aspen property; Victorian on the corner of Bleeker and First Streets; Victorian located between the top two photos. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. P72 VII.a Exhibit A – PUD Review Criteria Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street 12/9/13 Page 13 of 15 The applicant proposes to update the existing mechanical system and has not provided specific details as to how this will occur. Metal sun shades are proposed on the lodge to increase energy efficiency. There are no large eave overhangs or other natural heating/cooling measures represented in the application for the southern elevation of the free market residential units or the affordable housing units. Staff finds the criterion is met. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. The applicant represents that snow shedding and storage will be accommodated in a safe and appropriate manner. The flat roof buildings will retain most of the snow load throughout the winter and pathways are proposed to have a snowmelt system. The applicant does not expect a large amount of snow removal on the property due to the flat roof buildings. Staff finds the criterion is met. 4. Emphasize quality construction and design characteristics, such as exterior materials, weathering, snow shedding and storage, and energy efficiency. The applicant proposes high quality materials including wood, stone, metal and glass. Materials will be reviewed by HPC during Final Design review for compatibility with the Historic District and compliance with the Commercial Design Standards. Staff finds that the criterion is met with the condition that HPC review materials during Final Design reviews. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both Public Safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. The applicant represents that the lighting will meet all applicable lighting standards in the Municipal Code. A lighting plan is not included in the application and will be subject to HPC Final design review after PUD approval is granted. Staff finds the criterion is met. G. Common park, open space or recreation area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location and design of the common park, open space or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief P73 VII.a Exhibit A – PUD Review Criteria Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street 12/9/13 Page 14 of 15 to the property's built form and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial or industrial development. A common park, open space or recreation area is not proposed for this development. H. Utilities and public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Referral departments represent that adequate facilities exist or need to be improved upon by the developer to accommodate the development, as described in the DRC comments attached to the staff memo. Staff finds the criteria are met. I. Access and circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way or other area dedicated to public or private use. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. P74 VII.a Exhibit A – PUD Review Criteria Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street 12/9/13 Page 15 of 15 4. The recommendations of adopted specific regulatory master plans, as applicable, regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. 6. Security gates, guard posts or other entryway expressions for the PUD or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. The buildings are located with adequate access to public streets. The development proposes a minor change in density to the existing lodge. The applicant represents that the project will have a minimal impact on traffic patterns. The Engineering and Parking Departments recommend that the existing head-in parking along Garmisch be converted back to parallel parking for safety reasons and for consistency in the neighborhood. Staff finds the criteria are met. J. Phasing of development plan. (does not apply to conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. The applicant represents that they will construct this project in one phase. P75 VII.a Exhibit B – Subdivision Review Criteria Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street 12/9/13 Page 1 of 3 Exhibit B - Subdivision Review Criteria 26.480.050. Review standards. A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: A. General requirements. 1. The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space, as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan. Please refer to Exhibit A – PUD Review Criteria. Staff finds this criterion is not met. 2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. The proposal is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. The Main Street Historic District includes lodges, commercial and residential uses. The character of Bleeker Street is a mix of residential and public uses. The proposed lodge and residential uses are appropriate. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. The proposal shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. The uses are consistent with underlying zoning and the neighborhood. Staff finds the criterion is met. 4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. The proposed subdivision is in compliance with the requirements of the Land Use Code. Staff finds the criterion is met. B. Suitability of land for subdivision. 1. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other P76 VII.a Exhibit B – Subdivision Review Criteria Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street 12/9/13 Page 2 of 3 condition that will be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. 2. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. The proposed subdivision meets the requirements for land suitability. The property is already developed with a lodge and it located in downtown Aspen. Staff finds the criterion is met. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with an applicable adopted regulatory plan, Title 28, the municipal code, the existing, neighboring development areas and/or the goals of the community. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. The proposed subdivision meets the review criteria above. Simultaneously with Subdivision Review, the applicant is applying for a PUD review to vary the FAR and setback requirement for the project. Staff finds the criterion is met. C. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Section 26.470.070.5, Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. The project is required to apply for Growth Management review and allotments for the new lodge units, free market residential units, and the affordable housing units. The applicant proposes three onsite units and cash in lieu payment for the remaining mitigation requirement. Growth Management Review shall occur after PUD approval is granted. The applicant is required to submit the GMQS application on either Feb. 15th or Aug. 15th. Receipt of GMQS allotments and approvals is included as a condition of approval in the draft Resolution. Failure to receive growth management shall void the PUD/Subdivision/Rezoning approval. P77 VII.a Exhibit B – Subdivision Review Criteria Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street 12/9/13 Page 3 of 3 D. School land dedication. Compliance with the School land dedication standards set forth at Chapter 26.620. The applicant is required to pay School Land Dedication fee prior to issuance of a building permit. The fee is calculated based on the Land Use Code in place at the time of building permit submittal. F. Growth management approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH-PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. The project is required to apply for Growth Management review and allotments for the new lodge units, free market residential units, and the affordable housing units. The applicant proposes three onsite units and cash in lieu payment for the remaining mitigation requirement. Growth Management Review shall occur after PUD approval is granted. The applicant is required to submit the GMQS application on either Feb. 15th or Aug. 15th. Receipt of GMQS allotments and approvals is included as a condition of approval in the draft Resolution. Failure to receive growth management shall void the PUD/Subdivision/Rezoning approval. P78 VII.a Exhibit C – Rezoning Review Criteria Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street 12/9/13 Page 1 of 2 Exhibit C – Rezoning Review Criteria 26.310.090. Rezoning - Standards of review. In reviewing an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, the City Council shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. The adoption of a planned unit development (PUD) requires a rezoning of the property. In addition, Community Development recommends that the R-6 Zone District portion of the property be rezoned to Mixed Use (MU) to provide one underlying zone district for the entire property. Changing the back portion of the property to MU does not change the allowable uses due to the Lodge Preservation Overlay designation over the entire property, which Staff proposes remain in place. The PUD dictates the dimensional requirements for the project. Removing the R-6 zone district simplifies the application of the underlying zoning to the parcel. Staff finds the criterion is met. Figure 1: Current zone district map. Arrow indicates subject property. P79 VII.a Exhibit C – Rezoning Review Criteria Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street 12/9/13 Page 2 of 2 B. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency medical facilities. Exhibit A – PUD Review Criteria addresses impacts of the project on public facilities. Adopting a PUD and MU zoning for the entire parcel does not result in demands that exceed the maximum capacity of public facilities. The applicant agrees to update aging facilities and to relocate an existing sewer line as part of the project. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the Parks Development Impact fee and the Transportation Demand Management Impact fee which mitigate impacts on parks and transit. Fee waivers are subject to Council review. Staff finds the criterion is met. C. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. The proposed rezoning does not have any adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff finds the criterion is met. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City and in harmony with the public interest and the intent of this Title. The proposed rezoning is consistent with community character and in harmony with the public interest. It provides flexibility for the redevelopment of a lodge which is a community goal. Staff finds the criterion is met. P80 VII.a DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE COMMENTS Environmental Health After reviewing the proposed plans for 101 West Main Street – Hotel Aspen, Environmental Health requests the plans be changed to ensure the trash and recycling area measure, at the minimum, ten by twenty feet to meet Section 26.575.060 of the City of Aspen code. The current plans show a proposed trash and recycling area that measures approximately 15 feet by 10 feet. Separate from the City of Aspen code, the Environmental Health Department encourages the applicant to consider that best practices in waste management show the minimum space requirement for trash and recycling will not be large enough to handle the proposed size of the Hotel Aspen development. City staff strongly recommends the area be increased greatly in size to accommodate the bins listed below or that the applicant consider making space for a secondary trash and recycling collection area in another area of the development. This would create easier access for all users in all sections of the development. A development of this size will require the following bins in order to properly collect waste - One (1) 6-10 yard trash container or two (2) four yard containers - Three to four (3-4) toters for comingled recycling - One (1) toter for office paper recycling - Two (2) toters for newspaper and magazines - One (1) 6 yard bin for cardboard collection or a 4 yard container with area to stack extra - Space to grow to include one (1) 4 yard compost collection bin to further reduce trash generation and costs Water The development seems pretty conceptual at this point, Water requests individual taps to individual buildings, and location for a transformer w/ associated easement on their property. Parks Landscaping within the Public Right of Way: Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW requirements, Chapter 21.20. There shall be no plantings within the City ROW which are not approved by the City Parks Department and the Engineering Department. Where space permits, the applicant should recommend a tree species based on the trees recommended in the City of Aspen Arbor guide. The Parks Department will work with the applicant on the final approved tree species. Irrigation will be required with a specific planting medium appropriate for tree growth. Tree Permit: Per City Code 13.20 an approved tree permit will be required before any tree is removed or impacted under the drip line of the tree. Parks is requesting that the tree removal permit be approved prior to approval of building permits. If a permit is necessary, contact the Parks Department at 920-5120 or download the permit at www.aspenpitkin.com on the Natural P81 VII.a Resource page, click on the tree permit tab. Mitigation for removals will be paid cash in lieu or as an on-site planting per City Code 13.20. Parks will approve a final landscape plan during the review of the tree removal permit based on the landscape estimates. Impact Fees: The Parks Department does not support the applicant’s position to request a waiver for Park Impact Fees. The development includes improvements to the City’s right of way and an increase in lodging and free market space. Both of which will add impacts to public park space requiring additional financial and maintenance responsibilities. Zoning It is difficult to review the project to without underlying zoning or an approved PUD. The dimensional standards are as of yet unknown;for example, the allowable floor area, the height, setbacks. It is not accurate to list the residential component as ‘duplex’ they are multi-family units. Transportation The Transportation Department Staff offers the following comments/questions regarding this application: REGULATORY COMMENTS: 1. The project will provide TDM/Air Quality Fees as required by the Land Use Code, Section 26.610.090 Current Impact Fees. Fees are estimated at $6,713.66. PROJECT COMMENTS: 1. The outbound Main Street bus lane may not be impacted by the project’s construction and/or parking requirements. 2. The adjacent bus stop may not be impacted by the project’s construction. QUESTIONS: 1. Has a trip generation for this project been determined? 2. Will a traffic generation study and TDM plan be completed as part of this project? 3. Will a guest courtesy van continue to be provided by the applicant? 4. Are any changes proposed to parking on Main Street, Garmisch Street, or Bleeker Street? P82 VII.a Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District The applicant for this proposed development would have to commit to relocating the existing District owned main sanitary sewer line, which currently runs through the middle of Block 58. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. Elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line). A “Line Extension Request” and a “Collection System Agreement” are required for this application. Both are ACSD Board of Director’s action items. P83 VII.a The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed building and utility plans are available. Fire Department This project shall meet all of the codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District. This includes but is not limited to Fire Department Access (International Fire Code 2009 Edition Section 503), and the installation of approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC 2009 Sections 903 and 907 as amended). P84 VII.a Hotel Aspen Land Use Referral Page 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Sara Adams, Community Development Department FROM: APCHA Board of Directors THRU: Tom McCabe, APCHA Executive Director Cindy Christensen, APCHA Operations Manager DATE: October 3, 2013 RE: Redevelopment of 110 West Main Street (Hotel Aspen) ISSUE: The applicant is seeking approval for the redevelopment of the Hotel Aspen property located at 110 West Main Street. BACKGROUND: The proposed project would reconfigure most of the existing lodge units to an average size of 292 square feet, along with the construction of two duplex units (four new free- market residential units). The addition of small lodge units is a goal of the Aspen Area Community Plan as well as a priority of City Council. The project will increase the number of lodge rooms from 45 units to 54 units, as well as provide 4 new free-market residential units, organized as two duplexes. The Hotel Aspen currently contains a Category 2 two-bedroom deed- restricted unit, mitigating for 2.25 FTE’s. The redevelopment of the project will eliminate the existing two-bedroom unit. The redevelopment is proposed to include three affordable housing units – 1 studio and 2 one-bedroom units, providing mitigation for 4.75 FTE’s; therefore, the new units would provide mitigation for an additional 2.50 FTE’s. DISCUSSION: APCHA’s referral will be based strictly on the required mitigation for the redevelopment. Mitigation for Additional Lodge Rooms: According to Section 26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, of the Land Use Code, sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development are to be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. Employee generation rates are calculated at the rate of .3 employees per lodging bedroom. There are 9 additional lodge rooms that are being proposed. At 100% mitigation, 2.7 FTE’s would need to be mitigated; at the 60% requirement in the Code, 1.44 FTE’s would be the mitigation rate. However, due to the smaller unit configuration, the mitigation percentage is decreased to 10%. By providing the smaller units, the actual mitigation requirement for the 9 additional lodge rooms is .27 FTE’s. 100% Rate 2.7 FTE’s 60% Rate 1.62 FTE’s 10% Rate .27 FTE P85 VII.a Hotel Aspen Land Use Referral Page 2 Mitigation for the Four Residences: According to Section 26.470.050, the affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free market residential net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Similar to the mitigation for the expanded lodge, the free-market net livable area would also be allowed to be mitigated at the 10% rate. The 13,149 square feet of residential net livable area would result in 1,315 square feet of required mitigation for the equivalent of 3.29 FTE’s. This takes into account that for every 400 square feet of new structure, 1 FTE is generated. At 100%, mitigation would be 32.87; at the 30%, mitigation would be 9.86 FTE’s; and at the required 10%, mitigation for the four residential units is 3.29 FTE’s. 100% Rate 32.87 FTE’s 30% Rate 9.86 FTE’s 10% Rate 3.29 FTE’s Replacement of the Existing Two-Bedroom Deed-Restricted Unit: The redevelopment of the property will remove the existing two-bedroom employee unit that was established through the Condominium Declarations for the Hotel Aspen, recorded on February 28, 1985 in Book 482, Page 42. The applicant has stated that the existing unit is a studio unit based on the size; however, the recorded document and existing floor plans reviewed by the Community Development Department and the APCHA Board showed the unit as a two-bedroom unit. The APCHA Board has agreed that the existing unit should be classified as a Category 2 two-bedroom unit. Proposed Affordable Housing Units: The proposal is to add three on-site mitigation units – one studio and two one-bedroom units – for a total of 4.75 FTE’s (1.25 FTE for the Studio and 1.75 per each One-Bedroom). The studio is proposed at 401 square feet net livable and the one bedroom units at 603 and 642 square feet net livable. All of the units are proposed at the Category 2 level. The current minimum square footages for newly deed restricted units according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines for a Category 1 and 2 studio is 400 square feet and 600 square feet for a one-bedroom. Total Mitigation: Under the Land Use Code, the total mitigation required for the redevelopment of the Hotel Aspen property is 5.81 FTE’s. The three additional units provide mitigation for 4.75 FTE’s; however, the elimination of the existing two-bedroom unit at 2.25 FTE’s leaves the proposed mitigation at a deficit of 1.06 FTE’s. If mitigation were required at 100%, the development would create a mitigation requirement of 37.82 (includes the loss of the existing two-bedroom unit). P86 VII.a Hotel Aspen Land Use Referral Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Based on the Land Use Code and the mitigation requirement of 10%, the APCHA Board is recommending approval of the redevelopment of the Hotel Aspen property; however, the applicant shows a deficit amount of 1.06 FTE’s. The APCHA Board recommends that the deficit be satisfied by the purchase of Affordable Housing Credits at Category 2 or by providing additional on-site housing. The APCHA Board is recommending against the deficit being satisfied by a fee-in-lieu. P87 VII.a Date: January 17, 2013 Project: 110 W Main City of Aspen Engineering Department DRC Comments These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project packet submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting. Drainage: General note: The design for the site must meet the Urban Runoff Management Plan Requirements. Staff was not able to determine whether or not the site will meet these requirements. A full review will be completed when adequate information is provided. A compliant drainage plan must be submitted with a building permit application. This includes detaining and providing water quality for the entire site. If the site chooses fee- in-lieu of detention (FIL), it can only be applied to existing impervious areas. All new impervious areas will need to discharge at historic rates. Staff was unable to determine whether or not the site is able to meet all the Drainage Principals: 1.Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. 2.Use the entire site when planning for stormwater quality treatment. 3.Avoid unnecessary impervious area. 4.Reduce runoff rates and volumes to more closely match natural conditions. 5.Integrate stormwater quality management and flood control. 6.Develop stormwater quality facilities that enhance the site, the community, and the environment. 7.Use a treatment train approach. 8.Design sustainable facilities that can be safely maintained. 9. Design and maintain facilities with public safety in mind. Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter: General note: All sidewalk, curb and gutter must meet the Engineering Standards as outlined in Title 21. A number of issues should be examined. This includes the following: 1. Curb and Gutter: a. Curb and gutter along Main Street should be replaced. b. Curb and gutter along Garmisch Street may require replacement. c. Curb and gutter along Bleeker Street may require replacement. 2. Sidewalks: a. In general, the sidewalks are in good condition. The maximum tolerance for vertical displacement is ¾ inch. Damaged sidewalks exceeding this tolerance should be replaced. P88 VII.a b. The sidewalk parallel to Bleeker Street should be extended to the property line. 3. Sidewalk Ramps: a. The ramp parallel to Garmisch Street located at the northeast corner of the property should be realigned to match the ramp located across Bleeker Street. b. A ramp should be added at the southeast corner of the property to enable access across Main Street. c. All ramps should be upgraded to meet current standards. By way of example, detectable warning pads should be added to the ramps. Construction Management – Engineering is concerned about the Construction Impacts of this site. The plan shall describe mitigation for: parking, staging/encroachments, and truck traffic. Note that the current code does not allow for any encroachments during the on-seasons (November 1 – April 15 and June 1 – Labor Day). Excavation Stabilization – Due to the proximity of the neighboring property and the excavation of the building the City will require an excavation stabilization plan prior to building permit submittal. Fee in Lieu –This project is considered a Major project and can opt to pay the Fee in Lieu for a portion of the detention requirements. Please refer to Section 2.12.140 of the Municipal Code. P89 VII.a From:Stan Clauson To:Patrick Rawley Subject:FW: Hotel Aspen - Enlarged Trash/Recycling/Utility Plan Date:Friday, September 27, 2013 3:02:50 PM Attachments:22013-00_HotelAspen_TrashPlan20130221.pdf     Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES INC   From: Ashley Perl [mailto:Ashley.Perl@cityofaspen.com] Sent: 27 February 2013 14:45 To: Amy Guthrie Cc: Stan Clauson Subject: FW: Hotel Aspen - Enlarged Trash/Recycling/Utility Plan   Hi Amy, I just spoke  to Stan regarding the  trash area for  the  Hotel Aspen. Even  though  the  proposed  trash area is  smaller than what  is  required in  the  code, I  believe  we can  make it  work  given  that one  of two  conditions is  met. Those  conditions are as follows:                 Option  1 – The  transformer is  either  not required or is  located somewhere  else on the property, not inside  the  trash enclosure                 Option  2 – The  transformer remains  where  it  is  but the  Hotel Aspen  agrees to not use  a trash compactor  (a permanent  structure) and instead  uses a  2  yard trash bin (moveable), leaving more  room for  recycle bins. The  reason  for  this, as I explained  to Stan, is  that a  lodge  like the  Hotel Aspen  should  have, at the minimum, four  recycle bins. As  it’s currently drawn, there is  only space  for  two  bins. Please  let me  know if you  need  more  information. Thank You,   Ashley (970) 429-1798 From: Stan Clauson [mailto:stan@scaplanning.com ] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 2:54 PM To: Ashley Perl Cc: Patrick Rawley; Kim Weil (kweil@billposs.com ) Subject: FW: Hotel Aspen - Enlarged Trash/Recycling/Utility Plan   Hi Ashley—   Could you  please review  this drawing as part of  a  request  for a  somewhat  reduced trash enclosure area.  This  request  is  based on the  intended  re-use  of  an existing trash compactor  by  the  Hotel Aspen  and its  associated  proposed  residential  development.  I’d  be  happy  to meet with you  at your earliest  convenience, if you  think that would  be  helpful.  In  the  end, we would  like to provide confirmation to Amy Guthrie as to the  acceptability  of  the  proposed  trash area.  We are showing  a possible  transformer location  as well, although at this stage  of  the  planning process, there is  no confirmation that an additional  transformer will  be  required.   P90 VII.a Thanks, Stan   Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES INC   From: Patrick Rawley Sent: 21 February 2013 14:29 To: Stan Clauson Subject: FW: Hotel Aspen - Enlarged Trash/Recycling/Utility Plan       From: Sean Houghton [mailto:shoughton@billposs.com] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 14:28 To: Patrick Rawley Cc: Kim Weil Subject: Hotel Aspen - Enlarged Trash/Recycling/Utility Plan   Patrick,   Attached is  a  plan showing  how  the  various required (or  possibly  required) components  would  fit into the  trash enclosure.   Best, Sean     SEAN J. HOUGHTON ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING 605 East  Main Street  Aspen, CO  81611  970/ 925-4755  www.billposs.com                CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE  | The  information  contained  in  this  e-mail is confidential and shall  not  be  shared  by a  third  party  except  as necessary to  perform your  work.  If you  have  received this  e-mail in  error, please notify the sender  and delete  this  e-mail.   Please note my new cityofaspen.com email address and update your records accordingly. My old ci.aspen.co.us address will be expiring soon. P91 VII.a P92 VII.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9 2013 Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Nora Berko, Willis Pember, Jay Maytin, Sallie Golden and Patrick Sagal. Jamie McLeod and Jane Hills were absent. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Sallie moved to approve the minutes of December 12th, second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. Willis said he will recuse himself on 110 W. Main— Hotel Aspen as he has a strong personal relationship with the owner. Traffic light CDOT— referral comments Tyler Christoff, Engineer Trish Aragon, City Engineer Amy said the code requires referral comments anytime CDOT desires to do a public improvement plan. All four corner traffic signals at Mill and Main need to be replaced. It is a CDOT funded project. Your comments should be around the style and placement of the poles. Costs are a major concern to the city and CDOT. Tyler said the poles that exist have been damaged by vehicles and they are undersized. CDOT needs to meet their standards. There are some aesthetic concerns. One proposal could be fluted similar to the pole at Galena and Main. That pole was installed in 2001 or 2002 and it was a city project. At that time it was determined that we could use a non-standard type pole. Jay asked if the traffic lights had to be over top the lanes. Tyler said with the width of Main Street 60 to 70 feet they would have to be over the roadway. Either pole would have the same amount of signage and signals. Jay said he supports the fluted pole design because the vertical stanchion is smaller and would have less mass. 1 P93 VII.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2013 Willis recused himself. 110 W. Main Street— Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design, Demolition, Public Amenity— Public Hearing Proof of publication— Exhibit I Amy gave an overview of the project. This property is in the Main Street historic District and the property is 110 W. Main, Hotel Aspen. The property stretches from Main Street to Bleeker Street and encompasses what used to be an open alley. It has multiple zone districts overlaying the property. There is unresolved issues as to which zone district will apply. It has mixed use zoning on the Main Street side and R-6 on the residential side, West End side. It has a lodge preservation overlay. It is considered a PUD process and those boards can define the appropriate heights and setbacks for this project. The goal is to help the applicant develop something appropriate. It is a small lodge and the city has a lot of policies in place to encourage small lodges. Most of the property will be demolished and replaced except the lobby portion that you enter now and the portion of the building right behind the pool. There are 47 lodge units now and the end result will be 53. They are small size units under 300 square feet. The site will also have three affordable housing units and on the Bleeker Street side there is residential development proposed in the form of two duplexes. All the new development will have parking underneath. The alley runs into the side of the Hotel Aspen property and turns toward Bleeker Street. HPC's role is to review this according to the design guidelines: Commercial design guidelines and small lodge guidelines. The primary things to talk about are the height of the residential buildings along Bleeker Street. It is proposed to be 32 feet to essentially a flat roof. It is abutting a residential zone district which has a 25 foot height limit and we think that the residential buildings proposed which have three usable floors are a little out of scale. This block has three Victorians adjacent to the Hotel Aspen and we think some reduction in height is appropriate. We are also worried about the footprint on the buildings on the ground. They don't have quite the setbacks from the property line that is normal for the neighborhood and they don't have the distance between the buildings that is in the neighborhood. There is the concern that it is too much along the frontage. Another issue is the head in parking along Garmisch St. It is actually off the project site but relevant to the project. Staff is recommending to re-establish 8 P94 VII.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2013 the curb line and have parallel parking and trees etc. to improve the character on Garmisch and reduce some of the car/pedestrian conflicts. The project will accommodate some parking underground. There is a large tree on Bleeker Street and Parks is inclined to allow the removal of it. The alley has considerable utilities underground and there is concern how the applicant can excavate for a garage and build on top of it. The Fire Department and Building Dept. have concerns about the amount of separation between the buildings. Stan Clauson, Clauson Associates Stan said in the Aspen Area Community Plan it addresses having lodges with units of different sizes. With the zoning lodges that have rooms that are smaller than 300 square feet average get a package of benefits under the zoning code. There are four zones here, R-6, MU, LP overlay with a PUD. The total lodge development is 20,041 square feet and the average size of the lodge rooms is 292 square feet. The owners believe that there is a strong market for this and they have had a good reception for the small rooms. That size lodge room allows for 60% to be residential development which would be 10,249 square feet. In this particular case we are proposing to use 9,900 square feet. The subject site is 27,000 square feet, almost half a block. The townhouse height exceeds the 32 foot limit by 10 inches due to 3 stories. It is hard to do 3 stories in any less than that. There would be 14,056 square feet of affordable housing. The hotel is 28 feet in height. The existing lodge units are going to be reconfigured and restored to their original condition which had balconies. The balconies were subsequently enclosed making the units larger and that enclosure would be taken back and balconies restored to their original condition. The units would increase from 45 to 53 units. Stan said the height of 32 feet is not consistent with the R-6 which is 25 feet but would be carried through as part of the PUD. The affordable housing is being increased by 1,200 square feet. 2,600 square feet would be for the pool and bar which is accessible to the public. Stan did a power point identifying the different buildings and design. Stan said Poss and Associates did the design and the site plan was done in their office. Some of the significant changes are the residential units along Bleeker, two townhome structures. There would be considerable improvement to the entry and new landscaping all along the public ways. There would be enhanced sidewalks. There are no new curb cuts being proposed. All the new parking would be sub-grade. There is head in parking and on the other side of the street head 9 P95 VII.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2013 in parking for half of the block then parallel for the continuation. This street is quite wide. The height of the building at Main Street is 23 feet rising up to 29.5 and that height is set back 24 feet from the front fagade. The next section of building is at 28 feet and the highest point are the town houses at 32 feet. The townhouses do not have a full third floor and it is stepped back quite a bit. The parapet wall on the front is at 23 feet. The townhouses step back 10.5 feet on the alley side and 3 .5 feet on the front fagade. The middle elements are also stepped back 23 feet. 18% of the parcel is public amenity and a large part is where the buildings step back. The canopy will enhance the entry of the hotel but then we lose public amenity space which brings us to 13%. The monitory value difference can be put into improvements which would include Main Street, Garmisch and along Bleeker. We would also propose landscape islands incorporated with the head in parking. There would be 15 new sub-grade spaces including two handicapped spaces. The requirement for the new development is 9 spaces. There is an excess of six spaces yet on the other hand there is a huge parking deficiency with the whole project. We would give up three spaces for the islands to soften the head in parking but we point out Garmisch Street has the widest right-of-way of all the north/south street and it was formerally called Center Street and it is the dividing line for east and west. Garmisch has a lot of head in parking on both sides of Main Street. Going to parallel parking would be the loss of seven or eight parking spaces. Amy said staff's concern are the Bleeker Street townhomes which are taller and wider than the neighborhood allows. Jay asked about the square footage of the town homes. Stan said they are around 12, 000 square feet. Kim Weil said the rooms are around 265 to 325 square feet. The rooms that face the pool are larger. There are eight of those. 100 square feet was added when they enclosed the balcony. We are proposing to open up the balcony again and that would make them about 325 square feet. Patrick said with the parallel parking 7 or so spaces would be lost. Kim Weil mentioned that parking is a concern on this site as most people drive here and the number of parking spaces is a big deal to a lodge like this. 10 P96 VII.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2013 Stan said in general the landscaping on Main Street is rather dark with tall trees and very little at the fence line. There are various kinds of evergreens and aspens that intersperse with the cotton wood trees. The general idea would be to have a landscape plan that puts more interest on the ground plane. Sallie asked where does the application go from here. Amy said HPC needs to look at mass and scale of the site plan and it could be reduced or increased as they go through the process. Right now they don't have enough open space as required and what should they do about it. Currently there is 18% open space and it would be reduced to 13%. Staff's proposal is to re-establish the curb and have all parallel parking which makes them lose 7 spaces but with their plan they would lose three spaces and we are only talking about four spaces basically. Maybe there is a middle ground and instead of having the islands they could have significant usable open space. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing comment section of the agenda item was closed. Issues: Height of residential units on Bleeker Setbacks inadequate Public amenity The reduction and cash-in-lieu Demolition Parking and existing vegetation Nora applauded the owner for having a small lodge and small rooms. I also like the idea of finding more green space in the back. The townhomes are huge and the houses in that area are small and we need to see that brought down and a little more broken up and smaller. Jay said he feels the height of the townhomes can be handled on that corner. The alley gives some breakup. They are losing public amenity because they are having an awning up high. With the push to keep this a small lodge in the historic district I am willing to overlook the 5% open space amenity. It 11 P97 VII.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2013 is nice that the round space on the corner is being kept. I feel the parking should remain as is and I am in support of the project as drawn. Sallie also said the small lodges are needed and she would take parking over open space any time. People are going to drive and need a place to park. The public amenity in the West End is parking. On the height and setbacks of the townhomes it could be reduced a little and I want this project to go through. Get the scale to appear a little smaller. Patrick said he likes the general setup of the project. Possibly look at half parking, half parallel or angled parking. The setbacks and heights should be relooked at. It is a great project and I hope it goes through. Ann said the guidelines for small lodges say they need to fit into the neighborhoods and convey the character and scale of the neighborhood. I don't have enough information about the context. We need a site plan. I need to understand more about what that neighborhood is. The alley is broken up to the east and then becomes very strong to the West. Heights and setbacks need to be looked at. I would also like to see an alternative to the parking. Parallel parking gives a protective barrier between the sidewalk and the street. Pull in parking is more intimidating. From Main Street to the Red Brick is an important circulation route. If you look at the small lodge guidelines there are more things that need to be restudied to adhere to those guidelines. Sallie said it would be good to have a sketch-up or 3D. Ann also suggested a site visit. Stan said in the context of the other small lodges in the area when you look at the Molly Gibson, the Annabelle Inn I think this project is very consistent with the other lodges but has its own unique detailing. It maintains traditional roof forms and materials. The curved entrance is one of the most distinctive features. We will be happy to work on the parking and we are eager to move this on. We can use the city flyover for the next meeting. MOTION: Ann made the motion to continue 110 W. Main Street until March 13th; second by Patrick. Motion carries 3-2. Sallie, no; Jay, no; Patrick, yes; Nora, yes; Ann, yes. 12 P98 VII.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2013 Jay said this is the kind of development that we want to help along if you look at the big picture. It has an amazing effect on the city of keeping small lodges. The room amenities with windows floor to ceiling are going to be so much better. Sometimes you have to give a little on the financial engine to get what we need. This could go through with a restudy. Ann said this is an important location and in the Main Street Historic District. There are too many things that need restudied and everything is integral to each other. Nora said her concern is not the lodge it is the residential side. I am worried about that height on a small block and near one of the most used parks in town. My concern is the compatibility in the R-6 zone. Resolution regarding conflicts of interest Debbie Quinn, Attorney said Planning & Zoning has adopted the same resolution. MOTION: Jay moved to adopt resolution #2, 2013 as written; second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. Amy inquired about a special hearing for the Hotel Aspen. Amended motion on 110 W. Main — Hotel Aspen: Ann move to amend the motion to have a special HPC meeting on the Hotel Aspen February 20th; second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 13 P99 VII.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 13, 2013 Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Willis Pember, Jay Maytin, Jamie McLeod, Sallie Golden and Patrick Sagal. Nora Berko and Jane Hills were absent. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Jay moved to approve the minutes of January 9t" and 23rd second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. Willis will recuse himself on 110 W. Main Street 110 W. Main Street, Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design, Demolition, Public Amenity— Cont'd Public Hearing Amy said staff feels that the revisions do not address the concern in a meaningful way and the main concerns are the free market units that face Bleeker Street. This is an unusual property because it stretches from Main Street to Bleeker Street and encompasses an old alley and has multiple layers of zoning and part of it is in the historic district. All along our concerns are the four units and their relationship to the neighborhood. The applicant has provided more accurate information about the size of the neighboring buildings which is helpful. They have also increased the public amenity space with outdoor dining which doesn't exist now and they have revised the head in parking along Garmisch Street. The height, footprint and massing of these buildings is not sympathetic to the adjacent structures. We still think more work is needed. There are a few minor issues that need to be worked out that would affect the massing of the project. The affordable housing units proposed are undersized and that would change their shape. One of them doesn't have proper access from the street and that might change the site plan and the Fire Department has concerns about fire fighting between the buildings. We feel these issues should be resolved at the HPC level. Amy said we need to know that the affordable housing units are an acceptable dimension. The fair housing issue is that the units need to be approached from a public street and not through the alley. 1 P100 VII.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 13, 2013 Stan Clauson, Clauson and Associates Kim Weil, Poss & Associates Michael Brown, Applicant Stan did a power point on the revisions made to the project. The lodge increased from 53 to 54 units. The average lodge unit size is 292 square feet. The amount of affordable housing has been increased 1456 square feet to 1829 square feet and all the units are conforming to the affordable housing guidelines. We reduced the height of the free market units to 32 feet which is difficult to do with a three story element. The code is not clear that it prohibits access from the alley and I am not sure this is an issue for the HPC. Regarding the fire fighting area between the units that is something that can be easily addressed through materials. All of these things will be addressed through the Building Department at the appropriate time. The sewer main line will have to be relocated for the underground parking. The other key change is the increase in the public amenity space. A third of the block is parallel parking with the loss of spaces and if that is what the Engineering Department prefers this would be our plan. We would remove a section of the fence which allows visible access for outside dining and access to the public amenity space. By doing this we increased the public amenity space by 400 square feet which brings it back up to 15%. The trash facility off the alley will have a trash compaction. We are requesting a reduction of 5 linear feet. The code is clear if a trash compaction is used it can be the basis for a reduction in the overall size. The free market units have been reduced to 32 feet which is a significant reduction for a three story building and the desire to still allow for ceiling heights for a three story. This is a small moderately priced lodge. Stan went over the different heights of buildings within the neighborhood. At 30 feet we are consistent with the overall heights of the area. Under the small lodge character there is a section 5.9 which talks about the 45% angle. The front fagade is 23 feet high, 28 feet on the hotel facility and 32 on the free market. The 32 feet is set back 145 feet. Along Bleeker the 32 foot element is setback 10.5 feet. In summary we have 54 lodging units. Andy Wisnosky said the project is bordering the transition of town. We want to keep the context in relationship to the other buildings around. Andy did a power point on the context of the project with other buildings in that area of town. We are relating to the other buildings on the street with mass and scale and a more modern mass. It is our contention that we are not emulating Victorian architecture. 2 P101 VII.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 13, 2013 Jay said you can drive a car through the alley. Jamie inquired about the reduction in the trash area. Stan said the land use code says you can request a reduction in the size of the trash area if you have a trash compactor. Kim Weil said the trash area is 15 x 10. Amy commented that the reduction in the trash area has not been approved by the Environmental Health Department. They are asking them to meet the minimum size. As far as the affordable housing the units are smaller about 100 square feet than the minimum required. Units cannot be accessed from the alley. Debbie said the state also has requirements and standards for accessibility which are referenced in our building code. We are not certain the Building Department would accept an access from this alley. Kim said one unit has an elevator. Ann said it is difficult when we have so many contradictions to move forward. Jay said the applicant has detailed drawings. Amy said the comment from the housing authority is that the referral agency has not signed off. The planning office is concerned about the free market units. Patrick said he also feels the issues should be resolved at HPC. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. Julie Ann Steele 121 Bleeker Street. We are an 1888 house and we are 31 feet tall. Our setback is much greater than the units that they are selling on Bleeker. We are being surrounded by townhomes and blocking our view of Aspen Mountain and Smuggler. We are being swallowed up by this three story building. I realize they have to sell the townhouses to make this 3 P102 VII.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 13, 2013 project viable but it will devalue our property. We have been here since 1985 and this is our third house in Aspen. Chairperson, Ann Mullins closed the public comment section of the agenda item. Ann said the primary issue is the potential change in mass and form of the project depending how the sewer, trash and affordable housing are resolved. Are we comfortable here knowing that it might shift around. Patrick said the height issue is trying to keep the hotel and free market units compatible and similar. The fact is that the commercial and residential are separate. I would find it more in keeping if the free market units were compatible with the neighborhood. Jay asked if we could give an approval with the condition that any site plan changes trigger the restudy of the entire project. Debbie said with the reading of the code it talks about conceptual that is binding on location and form of all the envelopes of all the structures including height scale massing and proportions. If there is a chance any of those might change in one respect it is a question whether you have sufficient information to agree with the locations proposed and second if you approve it as is and the applicant has to change it the applicant can come back and have it changed but HPC can't change it. If the applicant can't do what he asked for he would have to come back for a different approval. We have had a situation where there was an approval of something that was contrary to the building code by another department that has created significant problems and I would advise you not to approve residence on an alley until you have an answer because it could create problems for the City in the future. Jamie said we have five issues that are of a concern and I would suggest we move forward and continue this until we get comments from the other departments. The mass and scale of the free market on the back the transitional one if it did relate to the neighborhood a little bit more like stepping down it might be a little more amendable to HPC. Ann said she would like to see the mass broken up a little or brought down on the free market units. 4 P103 VII.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 13, 2013 MOTION: Ann moved to continue 110 W. Main until March 13th; second by Patrick. Jay thanked the applicant for bringing the roof down on the residential. Jay pointed out that we are preserving the streetscape on the Main Street side. The idea of the cafe is great. On the parking I think it is strange having two different kinds of parking on one street. I feel the project is great and wish there weren't so many unanswered questions. Sallie said this looks like it will be continued and we need the answers resolved at the next meeting. On the Bleeker Street side there is too much mass and it should be stepped back a little. The parking plan is a good resolution. Motion carried 4-1. Jay voted no. 208 E. Main Street, Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Special Review and Variances — Public hearing Debbie said the photograph and addresses are not attached to the public notice. Michael Giordano, owner said he did the publication and will bring them in tomorrow for the record. The board agreed to continue without the addresses and photographs. Exhibit I - affidavit of public notice Exhibit II — 5 new elevations Amy said 208 E. Main Street is a 3,000 square foot lot that was part of an historic lot split. It is a landmarked building in the historic district and there is a Victorian miner's cottage on the front of the property with a small addition in the back and a shed on the alley. The proposal is to demolish a portion of the non-historic addition at the back of the property, excavate a basement and lift the shed and place it on the new basement and build a new residential unit at the back of the site. There just is not a lot of room to work with on this lot. The applicant has the right to a 1,500 square foot residential unit and that is what they are trying to achieve. The design guidelines say that an addition to a gabled roof building should not be a flat roof and that is 5 P104 VII.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 13 2013 what is on the table. In this particular situation staff can get behind the flat roof because it does a lot to limit the profile of the new construction popping up above the historic building. It will have some presence on the alley. At this point a gabled roof would not benefit anything but the flat roof does conflict with the guidelines. The new construction does not have the separation from the historic resource. The guidelines call for a connector to separate new from old and that isn't happening. The new and old are basically touching each other both the historic house and shed. Staff is concerned that they are crowded. The applicant is requesting to pick up the shed and put it back down in the approximate location. Staff has no concerns with that. The setback variances along the west side of the property there is already an encroachment by the existing construction and that will be made worse by the two story element. The new elevation has a jog which reducers the setback somewhat but HPC still is being asked to grant a portion of it allowing the new project to come very close to the lot line which shares the adjacent Victorian home. Regarding the utility and trash the normal length is 15 feet parallel to the alley. In this case it has been rotated. The Environmental Health Dept. is OK with the plan here. You are asking to grant an exception but it has the endorsement of the Health Dept. The applicant is requesting not to pay the cash in lieu. There is no room for parking. Staff is recommending continuance. There is a deck proposed on top of the addition which has an enclosed staircase. Staff is concerned about the relationship of the stair to the historic house. The minimum setback is five feet. HPC has the power to waive the entire setback but then you create another set of problems. Amy said more than half the property is occupied by one story historic resources. This is a mixed use zone district and incentives are important and I would recommend HPC waive the fee. Sarah Upton represented the applicant. It is essentially a zero lot line condition. Sarah talked about the proposed stair. Possibly we could do a stair enclosure with a high percentage of a glass enclosure. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public comment section of the agenda item. Exhibit III — letter from Jake Vickery read by Della Pegolotti Fire protection and maintenance issues exist and the lot split was approved by HPC. Jake owns the structure next door and is opposed to the variance. 6 P105 VII.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 13, 2013 Mary Hayes lives at 209 E. Bleeker and her concern is the trash. Amy said this will be an improvement and they are being asked to build a wild proof container surrounding the trash bins etc. Chairperson, Ann Mullins closed the public comment section of the agenda item. Ann identified the issues: Side yard variance west side Separation of the shed to the historic building Flat roof Enclosed stair case and deck Utility and trash which has been approved by the Environmental Health Dept. Parking variance and fee waiver. Jay said he supports the cash-in-lieu on the parking and you wouldn't be able to see a connector. I do not support the roof deck enclosure but support the side yard setback. The property is extremely constrictive and I feel this is a good solution and it accentuates the historic house in the front and saves the little cool shed in the back. Patrick said he appreciates saving the historic resource. Possibly the shed could be moved off site and move the addition back so that there could be a connector. The two story needs restudied. Sallie said she agrees with everything Jay mentioned. Sallie said she is in favor of incentives and supports the cash-in -lieu waiver. Willis said he is in favor of the on-site relocation of the shed. Regarding the separation it seems a little crowded in the back. There will be a lot of issues to resolve with the separation and what the Fire Department requires. Jamie said the new addition is a two story addition all the way around which is somewhat of a concern. Typically the addition is somewhat subordinate. I would not increase the variance on the west side and keep the three feet. Ann said she feels there is too much crammed on this lot. The cabin is jammed into the house and I don't feel you need a connector. The cabin 7 P106 VII.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 13 2013 needs some more breathing room. The flat roof is fine. I am in favor of waiving the cash-in-lieu. Overall it is too large on the site. Amy said you could sacrifice the shed and create the breathing room. There is an issue when you are on the lot line how the spaces are going to be maintained. Motion: Patrick moved to continue 110 W. Main Street to March 20th per staff's recommendation. Restudy of the staircase, deck, west wall two story aspect and the stepping down into the historic resource. Restudy the massing in its relationship to the shed. Restudy the west side yard setback. Motion second by Jamie. Jay asked the board if they are willing to have the applicant demolish the shed. Willis said it is a great little shed. Michael said they embraced the shed and we didn't' cantilever over the shed. The connector to the shed is basically a doorway. Vote: Jamie, yes; Willis, yes; Patrick, yes; Ann, yes; Sallie, yes; Jay, no. Motion carried 5-1. 204 S. Galena, Substantial Amendment to Major Development— Public Hearing Justin Barker, planner Exhibit I— elevations Justin said this project received final approval in December which allowed for the demolition of the existing building and replacing it with a new commercial building that will occupy the entire lot and a portion of the second story. The original proposal did not propose an increase in the net leasable. Over the past few months there have been more specific tenants that have stepped forward and so the program has increased in size. It is adding about 5,000 square feet of retail space in the basement as well as 1,700 square feet addition to the restaurant on the second floor which will be achieved by moving the west wall of the restaurant toward Galena Street and also adding some restrooms to the restaurant. The only exterior changes are on the second story of the restaurant. There is an elevator overrun. The firewall is not necessary. One of the conditions from final is that there 8 P107 VII.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 13, 2013 Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Nora Berko, Willis Pember, Patrick Sagal and Jay Maytin. Excused were Jane Hills, Sallie Golden and Jamie McLeod Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Justin Barker, Planner Willis will recuse himself on 110 W. Main and 612 W. Main 110 W. Main — Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design, Demolition, Public Amenity Amy said property is 27,000 square feet and expands from Main Street to Bleeker Street. It is zoned mixed use on the front half of the property and R6 on the rear half and lodge preservation overlay. As the development goes through the entire property will be mixed use. It is partially in the historic district. After HPC they go to P&Z and council for a PUD review. The front 1/3 of the property most of the existing development is remaining. The only real change is a canopy element over the front which is appropriate. In the middle third they are adding an additional story for lodge units but within the 28 foot height limit. Staff's comments have been focused on the residential development along Bleeker in the back. The rear has four new units. The 4 units are 32 feet high and they have been pushed apart a little to make them have a residential feel. Amy said perhaps the flat roof is not in keeping with the neighborhood. There are three Victorians next to this site. At the edge of the property we still would like to see some revision to the mass even if it made the buildings taller. At the last hearing we had a lot of discussion about the different departments and those issues have been addressed and at this time HPC doesn't have to be concerned with them. They are reducing their public amenity by 830 square feet and they are talking about improvements along the Garmisch parking area. They are also proposing an outside dining area. Staff recommends continuation. Stan Clauson Associates and Poss Architecture and Planning —Kim Weil Stan said council said protecting small lodges is important and a goal. You have a project before you to enhance its existing lodge development. This commission is charged with Historic Main Street that extends to Bleeker 1 P108 VII.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 13, 2013 Street. You have a project before you to enhance its existing lodge development and create 54 lodge units that are among the smallest in the city. Normally you wouldn't have any charge on Bleeker Street. This is a LP overlay with a PUD. This project needs some spirit of compromise to move it forward. The outstanding issues from the last meeting sewer line, size of units, accessibility, trash, affordable housing and size of units, all have been resolved. What we have done to emphasize the separation is increase the distance between the buildings. Engineering has asked that we go to parallel parking on a portion of the street. We have tried to create architectural quality and is a compliment to the neighborhood. The roof design changed and front massing has more identity between the units. We have moved the entrances slightly and provided open railings which reduce the visual mass and height of the walls. We reduced the amount of stone and provided more wood siding to give a residential feel. Kim Weil said they also reduced the amount of fenestration that faces the street. We also removed columns to open up the corner and kept the mass toward the center. There is nothing that precludes a flat roof in the West End anywhere. Materials, patterns and textures are consistent and a grade above the palates and textures that are found in that area. We feel this enhances the residential element. Kim Weil said the roof lines have been adjusted in an attempt to modulate the 4 units. The landscape plan offers dining off Main Street. Stan said in all we need to focus on compromise and jurisdiction. We are getting 54 units out of this project and with careful capitalization can move forward. Roof gabling would add overall height and massing. Nora said she feels we are getting close. The eastern building shifted 3 1/2 feet east. On Bleeker you did not move toward the north or the alley. Only the eastern building was moved. Kim said there is ten feet apart on the buildings and then it is cantilevered over. 2 P109 VII.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 13, 2013 Nora said our charge is still to preserve scale and mass in the neighborhood and is there room for compromise to have the buildings can come down four feet. It is big on that block. Stan said it is two stories on all sides and the third floor provides the square footage that makes for the development to work. You can't have a six foot high third story. We are considerable less than the amount of free market development associated with a lodge preservation project of this type. Patrick asked about a garden level for the four units. Kim said the ramping doesn't allow us to go lower etc. Stan said if you were walking along the sidewalk you would only see a two story. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public comment portion of the agenda item. Ed Walkabee, owner of 121 W. Bleeker. Our house is next to the proposed structure. The West End is to be preserved and we need to do the best we can to do that. All of the three houses are 1888 vintage and our setbacks are the same with large yards. We paid 4.2 million and put in 675 thousand. Our house stands out and it is a showcase. The mass we are dealing with is a tremendous width and square and 32 feet high. The square shape does not fit the West End. Next door the historic houses have a height of 24 or 25 feet. I object to what the new structures will look like. The commission's charge is to preserve the historic feeling of Aspen. Julie Ann Steele — Exhibit II — e-mail. The height should fall under the R-6 guidelines as two story residences. The proposal is not in keeping with the historic buildings. Our living area height is 24 to 25 feet and the height to the ridge is 31 feet. Aaron Brown said he and his brother Michael own the Hotel Aspen and Molly Gibson. We always knew this was going to be a compromise. There is the issue of preserving the lodge and the architecture of the free market units. We have 45 rooms with affordable housing. We wanted more affordable rooms. This lodge will last another 30 years and this is what we thought the city wanted, smaller and more affordable rooms. We have underground parking and 9 more rooms and rebuilding 30 rooms and has a 3 P110 VII.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 13, 2013 new public amenity, has affordable house and it is paying all its fees. We feel this is a great balance and compromise between the city's policy and our desire to build these lodge rooms. We are delivering the 54 rooms and consistent with the city and we are being pushed back on the free market. Without the third story there is no development. It doesn't work economically as we don't have the funds for these rooms. We need the free market in order to make the project work. Ann closed the public comment portion of the agenda item. Height mass scale Trash, sewer has been approved by city staff Public amenity Cash-in-lieu demolition Jay said they are close to the same square footage if there were two single family houses. Nora said she is stuck and understands the small lodge issue and the economics of it. My charge is preservation of the West End and this feels incompatible. We have to respect the integrity of the West end and at the same time applaud small lodges. Jay said we are in this because of the Main Street District and small lodges. If the two lots were sold there could be something else built that could be worse. This corner can handle these buildings because Garmisch Street is very wide and can handle it. We will end up with a great little lodge in the Historic Main Street District. The building is being preserved and they are preserving what is there and bringing it up to current energy codes etc. I can support the project. I would ask you to consider ten feet off Bleeker Street just because of the front setbacks on the 1800 Victorians next door. Patrick said we are close. Mass and scale should be changed a little bit. If they took the square footage away of the restaurant and moved rooms into that and kept the residential and changed that around a little bit that might work. To me it is the revision of a roof forms so it appears residential than commercial. 4 P111 VII.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 13 2013 Ann said she hasn't seen that much change in the massing and it is superficial. It is primarily a residential area except for Main Street. We need to be preserving residential. Stan said the buildings have changed. The Hotel Aspen owners have tried to make this into something that is acceptable. Aspen can be considered the West End but it is also home to lodges and tourism and we always have needed to maintain some kind of balance. Lodge preservation was enacted based on the concept of having small lodges that have adjacency to residential districts need to be allowed reasonable development. We are being quite consistent and the neighbor did move next to the lodge with expansion potential. We need to think of Aspen and protect lodging facilities. Your charge is to protect the Main Street Historic District and it just happens that it extends into Bleeker Street. If these owners were not able to do the kind of lodge expansion they could do a lodge contraction and build single family development or sell the property which would allow for flat roofs. The issue seems to be revolving around gable roofs. Aaron Brown said everyone makes good points. If you want us to go and make changes there is no road map from this meeting of what those changes should be for an approval because everyone has different concerns. There is nothing said from the HPC about going higher which staff mentioned. Stan said this needs more approvals down the road. Ann said what she is hearing from the board is that it is too big. MOTION: Ann moved to continue until April 24th Motion fails for lack of a second. MOTION: Jay made the motion to approve l 10 W. Main. Motion fails for lack of a second. Jay said all the discussion is on these two houses and nothing on the lodge. The lodge is going to be beautiful. Preserving this lodge is where we should be focusing. This commission should believe in the Main Street Historic District. The renditions of this project have changed for the better. There is a park across the street and a school nearby. There is also a doctor's office directly across the street and we have a chance to help this proj ect. 5 P112 VII.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 13, 2013 MOTION: Jay made the motion to approve the project as proposed, approving height, mass and scale, demolition, cash in lieu and the representation that the fire, utilities etc. is as represented. Motion fails for lack of a second. MOTION: Patrick move to continue the application and restudy the roof form only. Motion fails for lack of a second. MOTION: Ann moved to continue 110 W. Main to April 24th to restudy height, scale, mass and proportion; motion second by Patrick. Motion carried 3-1. Vote: Patrick, yes; Jay, no; Nora, yes; Ann, yes. 605 E. Bleeker— Conceptual Major Development and Setback Variances — Public Hearing Debbie said the public notice is in order and the applicant can proceed. Affidavit of posting Exhibit I Willis was seated. Justin said currently on the site there is an historic miners cottage along with a non-historic 1999 rear two story addition between the two. The applicant would like to remodel that rear addition and the connecting element as well as renovation the interior of the historic building and adding a front porch to the historic building. The non-historic addition had received variance approvals for the side and rear yard setbacks. The proposal is looking to reuse the same foundations from that rear addition so they need the variances re-approved for this project. Staff is recommending those be reapproved. On the rear addition the massing is similar to what exists and the dimensions will be the same. They are proposing a gabled roof. The height would increase by 2'3" inches for the new addition but within the height limitations for the district. On the connection element the dimensions are less than the ten feet minimum that is required by the guidelines. This is mainly due to a glass enclosed staircase that juts off the addition and down on top of the connector. Staff feels that this is still achieving the intent of the guideline. Also for the connector there is a private patio proposed on top of the connecting element and most of the mass will be on the west side and hidden from view from the street but there is a portion that will be visible. Staff is recommending that the size of the patio be reduced so that it is completely hidden. The connector should only be used as access to the 6 P113 VII.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 24 2013 Vice-chair, Jamie McLeod called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jay Maytin, Jane Hills, Sallie Golden. Absent were Patrick Sagal, Nora Berko, Willis Pember and Ann Mullins. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Justin Barker, Planner 110 W. Main St, Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design, Demolition, Public Amenity — Continued public hearing Stan Clausen Kim Weil Amy said HPC is being asked to demolish some of the existing building and staff approves of the proposed demolition. One of the components is public amenity and projects need to meet 25% of the site which is land that is used for outside seating or open to the sky. If they can't comply they can pay cash-in-lieu. This project does not meet the 25%. They are improving the situation with outside seating for the restaurant and some public amenity along Garmisch Street. Staff is in favor of the parking proposal. On the larger issue of the design review staff has supported the hotel aspect of the project all along. The only area where we continue to have discussion are the four free market units along Bleeker Street. At the last meeting the concern was the overall form of the building. Staff suggested adding some more gabled pitch forms would tie the project in with the neighborhood. The applicant has accomplished that by putting gabled roofs on the two end units and retained some flat roofs on some of the interior units that has less effect on the neighbors. We did ask for one final restudy and they tweaked the design and brought the gabled roof forward and closer to Bleeker Street. The height on the flat units are proposed at 32 feet and staff is suggesting that be tightened up as much as possible because HPC is being asked to grant an exception. Staff still feels strongly about the height of the flat roofs. Stan Clauson, Clauson and Associates: 1 P114 VII.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 24 2013 Stan did a presentation showing how the project fits in well with the neighborhood. Since the last meeting we incorporated the gabled roofs into the residential units. We also met twice with staff to discuss the gabled roof and we extended the gable over the third floor bathroom. The height change is problematic. We have made a number of changes as suggested by staff: We reduced the height from 3 2.10 to 30 feet; changed the parking configuration to include parallel parking and we added significant public amenity space and we increased the separation between the buildings. We completely reworked the fagade element and finally we changed to gabled roofs. We have provided access improvements for the affordable housing to Garmisch Street. Kim Weil, Poss and Associates said they made fagade changes to soften the look. The main change is the gabled roofs. Stan said there are 32 foot heights on the flat roof units in the interior. The exterior units measure 27.6 feet in height. Kim said the lower level is 8.8 in height, 10.7 at the living room level and 8 feet at the master bedroom. We have done a lot of town homes and these heights are what you need in order for them to sell. Stan said the lodge preservation zone district has a number of incentives for small lodge developments and the units are under 300 square feet. The free markets make it possible to do the redevelopment of the lodge. The code allows for the free market incentives. Overall we are seeing the redevelopment of an existing lodge and 54 lodge units, amenity on Main Street and Garmisch and residential units. Amy clarified that they will meet the public amenity requirement but it is not all on the private land. Vice-chair Jamie McLeod opened the public hearing. Ed Wolkenmuth said we live in an 1888 house on Bleeker. I fully support what I see on Main Street. Looking down Bleeker there are a lot of Victorians. The massing in the R -6 zoning is unbearable and overwhelming. If you are on Garmisch things look normal but if you turn the corner and look down Bleeker this massing is tremendous. The owners need 18 million from the sale of the four condos and in order to get that you 2 P115 VII.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 24, 2013 need the mass and heights. The team has tried their best to obtain the feel needed. An idea would be to consider two single family home with less mass and the height would come down. You could get six million for each of the single family homes. They would be short 4 million and you could have equity funding with two nice homes that fit on Bleeker. Julie Ann Steele said her concern is that the gables have increased the height to 37 feet. Our gable height is 27 feet and the mass 24 feet. We came here because of the massing issue. Why can't they get other financing to make it smaller. This is a huge issue and this is the R-6 zone. Vice-chair Jamie McLeod closed the public comment portion of the agenda item. Amy said the Bleeker Street side is not in the historic district. Commissioner comments: Jay said he feels the flat roof works better. The new design brings the height to 37 feet. I feel this is a good project. If you had two single family homes you would end up with the same massing. Stan said we responded to staff's comment and pulled the gable further more. If you don't feel that is an advantage in terms of the designs feel free to revert to the previous one. As an applicant we want to move forward. Aaron Brown said our first preference was to have flat roofs and then we gabled the end units and kept the middles flat and the third choice is gabled roofs. Amy said at the last meeting it was suggested to look at the pitched roofs. Sallie said she feels it doesn't make any difference with pricing if the height is 10 or 10.6 feet. Sallie said she is in favor of the middle floor being at ten feet. Jane said she would like to see this project move forward on behalf of the small lodges. I read all the meeting minutes and like preference one. In terms of height I am ok and it is a fabulous design. The applicant has done a remarkable job coming here four times and staff has also done a good job 3 P116 VII.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 24 2013 trying to get this project approved and that is why they came in with the gabled roof but I don't think they are a good idea. Sallie said she also wants this project approved tonight. Aaron Brown said the March 13' flat roof was at 32 feet. Stan said he can't comments on the value of the units and council doesn't take up the value discussion but they do take up the discussion of floor area because that is what is in the code. Small lodges with less than 300 square feet deserves a support subsidy in terms of free market subsidy. Stan pointed out that there is 30 feet between this project and the neighbor's house and this project meets the small lodge criterion. Debbie said if the board does not like what is being restudied and likes a prior submission you can make that motion. Jamie said it looks like we need to approve demolition, public amenity as drawn and talk about the roof forms and mass and scale of the three elevations in front of us. MOTION: Sallie moved to approve demolition, public amenity space and approve the March 13th design with a four foot height variance for the 32 foot roofs. Motion second by Jane. Jay said the gabled roof does speak better to the neighborhood but on the other hand it is bigger. Sallie said the flat roof is less massive and architecturally it is what the clients prefer. Jamie said the flat roofs read like a modern building instead of trying to pretend to be a gabled roof. Roll call vote: Jay, yes; Jamie, yes; Sallie, yes; Jane, yes. 305 S. Mill St. Minor Review and View Plan Review— Continued public hearing—Above the Salt Jay recused himself 4 P117 VII.a Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 1 LJ Erspamer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Tygre, Walterscheid, Myrin, and Gibbs present. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan and Sara Adams. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Erspamer met with Steve Skadron but did not get a definite date of when P&Z can get a work session with Council. Mr. Myrin asked what the next step is. Mr. Erspamer said the next step is to bug Mr. Skadron again about getting a date for a work session to meet with Council to go over the role of P&Z in government. Mr. Myrin asked staff for a meeting date in January for P&Z to review the lessons learned from the past year and put together a top 10 list of potential code changes. Mr. Myrin also asked about the community development update stating the last one he has is from July. He asked if one will come out before the end of the year and Staff replied yes. Mr. Myrin also said that he has repeatedly brought up that Staff ask the applicants to submit everything electronically. He said the current process is that they submit on paper and the Clerk’s office scans everything. He asked how the P&Z packets get electronically. Ms. Manning replied that the Clerk’s office scans the packet to the web. He asked if the Council packets are submitted internally or electronically by the applicant. Ms. Phelan, Community Development, replied that not everything is submitted electronically. Mr. Myrin said he has asked the same question for at least a decade or more and voiced his frustration that there is no idea of a timeline for things getting to P&Z. Ms. Phelan said that he is getting his packet electronically. He responded that they are getting a packed electronically done by City staff on City time, not a change in code to request an applicant to submit things digitally. Ms. Phelan asked him why he is concerned with how a digital packet gets to him. He said that creating the paper in the first place does not make any sense. Mr. Erspamer commented that he thinks the packet is available electronically to the P&Z and to the public. Mr. Erspamer said he is not sure what the status of having the applicant submit digitally and Ms. Phelan responded that Staff is still working on it. Ms. Tygre commented that despite the so called pacing of construction it seems that downtown is over- run with construction. She said she can’t walk from her home to City Hall without going through at least 2-3 construction sites. She asked how this happened or if this is considered an acceptable amount of construction to be occurring at the same time downtown. Ms. Phelan said that there is no pacing program for issuance of building permits. She said the only pacing is through the growth management quota system. Mr. Erspamer said he thought that during the building permit process a phasing system for construction is created. Mr. Erspamer asked Trish Aragon with the Engineering Department if she would like to make a comment. Ms. Aragon said it is not so much about the pacing but the construction mitigation encroachments and use of the streets. She said that during this time of year they allow the use of this space but will be shut down within a week or so. Ms. Tygre said she was under the delusion that there was an active construction pacing system. Mr. Gibbs said that they did talk about it as part of the AACP and it was a big deal and people did not want to. Ms. Tygre said she was operating under a misconception. She also commented that there was a letter in the Daily News where the writer commented that none of the new RFTA stations have any type of solar energy efficiency. She asked when P&Z saw the various plans for the Rubey Park re-do did any of those include solar. Mr. Erspamer asked if Ms. Aragon was familiar with this. She responded that she was not part of any of the Rubey Park meetings. She also commented that Engineering’s use of smaller flashing light signs have difficulty getting the solar to work. P118 VII.a Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 2 The panel needs to be so big to run the lights due to Shadow Mountain and that it gets so cold in the winter it zaps the battery. Mr. Erspamer said he spoke to a person involved with a solar farm in Rifle and he said that there is a 35 percent less efficiency in this valley because of the mountains. Ms. Tygre said the solar at Rubey Park is something that should at least be investigated. Mr. Myrin asked how that comment gets from P&Z to the people that need to hear it versus just going into the trash. Mr. Erspamer said he would suggest going to a Council meeting and bringing it up during the public comment period. Mr. Myrin said that Ms. Tygre’s comment to P&Z just goes in the trash. Mr. Erspamer replied that it goes into the minutes and comes back to us. Mr. Gibbs commented that it then goes in the trash. Mr. Myrin asked if there is a different route they can take. Mr. Erspamer said that from his experience it is great to listen to what people have to say at P&Z but if they want any action taken the best idea is to go directly to Council as an individual. Mr. Erspamer said that Ms. Aragon got him interested in safety on Main Street and he wanted to thank her for putting the flashing lights on 8th Street. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan said that there is not anything scheduled for December 3rd. She said that the lessons learned meeting could be scheduled for the 3rd. There is an agenda item to schedule for December 17th. Mr. Erspamer asked the commissioners if they would be here for the meeting all said yes except Mr. Myrin who replied that “everything goes in the trash; I’m not sure why I’m here”. Mr. Erspamer said he appreciates it. Mr. Erspamer said he would not be present for a December 3rd meeting. Mr. Walterscheid mentioned he saw the advertisement seeking 4 new members. Ms. Manning stated the ad will run until November 22nd then the interviews will be scheduled. Mr. Erspamer said that if anyone knows anyone interested to encourage them to apply. Ms. Phelan said the December 3rd meeting will be canceled. PUBLIC COMMENTS: No public comment. Mr. Erspamer closed the public comment. MINUTES Mr. Gibbs made a motion to approve the September 17, 2013 minutes, seconded by Mr. Walterscheid. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Walterscheid made a motion to approve the October 15, 2013 minutes, seconded by Mr. Gibbs. All in favor, Motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST No conflicts. 110 West Main, Hotel Aspen-Consolidated PUD Sara Adams, Community Development Planner, said that the reviews on the table are a consolidated PUD review, subdivision review, and rezoning. This hearing was continued from October 15, 2013. There was a site visit today; Mr. Erspamer, Mr. Myrin and Ms. Tygre were in attendance as well as the Applicant and Staff. The proposal includes redeveloping the lodge, increasing the number of lodge units, decreasing the average size of the lodge units, and adding free market residential and affordable housing units to the project. Ms. Adams noted that the Applicant does request a decision from P&Z tonight rather than a continuation. P119 VII.a Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 3 The project was conceptually approved by the HPC. They looked at the design of the project but did not analyze the specific numbers for floor area, free market unit size and things like that, but looked more at the mass and scale and compatibility with Main Street and the neighborhood. They did not get into the PUD specifics that are asked to be established through the P&Z process. Ms. Adams noted that she emailed out the HPC minutes that were requested at the October 15th meeting. These were added to the record as exhibit H. One of the questions from the last meeting that Ms. Adams tried to address in the staff memo is what P&Z’s purview is. There are some obvious overlapping design issues that HPC addressed that are also part of the PUD review criteria. It is entirely within P&Z’s purview to address the review criteria that are included in the packet. Those include compatibility with the neighborhood, dimensional requirements. She also noted that P&Z can make a recommendation to Council that is contrary to what HPC approved. Ms. Adams noted that page 4 of the packet lists the requested variances including the allowable dimension, the requested dimension and the difference. Community Development is concerned with the size of the free market residential component because it is significantly more than what is allowed by the underlying zoning regarding the unit size. They also think that the overall maximum cumulative floor area for the whole property is also significantly over what is allowed in the underlying zone district. They are concerned that the free market residential portion of the project is not compatible with the neighborhood, which is one of the first review criterion for the PUD, 26.445.050a1.d. Staff finds that this review criterion is not met (page 21-22 of the packet). She also pointed out that the Main Street portion of the property is in the Main Street Historic District which is where the lodging part of the project is primarily located and the Bleeker Street portion of the project where the free market residential buildings are. Along the Bleeker Street block there is the Hotel Aspen and three more residences that are all historic landmarks. The PUD review criterion 26.445.050b1d, on page 24 of the packet, requires a finding that the proposed dimensional requirements are compatible with both natural and manmade characteristics of the property and the surrounding areas including historic resources. Staff finds that the free market residential portions of the proposed project are not compatible with the adjacent historic landmarks and what the Applicant is asking for is just too big. Staff does recommend that the Applicant continue to develop the free market residential units to better relate to the adjacent landmarks. Moving on to page 29 of the packet she noted the PUD review criteria addressed architectural character. She summarized the review standard to “be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources”. Ms. Adams noted that this is where staff got a little stuck. They believe that the lodging portion meets this criterion and is compatible with the Main Street Historic District. She said the mass and scale and the proposed architecture works with what is happening within the block along Main Street. She noted that their concern is with the free market portion and the proposed size of the units and the mass. She stated that a third of the overall floor area is proposed in the form of the four free market residential units. She said that they find this concerning and the review criteria above is not met. They think that the large unit size and the floor area create challenges to fit in with the Bleeker Street side of the neighborhood. She noted that Staff and HPC really struggled with whether the amount of floor area fit into the context without compromising the lodge redevelopment and having adverse impacts on the neighborhood. She stated that the redevelopment of the lodge is a good thing but how do they deal with the free market residential component that is necessary for the project. She said it really came down to the fact that the review criteria cited are not met in the PUD section of the code. P120 VII.a Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 4 Ms. Adams stated that the Applicant is also requesting a Subdivision recommendation from City Council. She said that staff believes that the Subdivision review criteria are generally met with the exception of compatibility. They are also supportive of the rezoning request. She stated that they find that the review criteria are met for a rezoning. She noted that the beginning of the staff memo explains what the LP overlay zone district means for this property and how the Mixed Use zone district and the R6 zone district did or did not play into this property and why Staff thinks that Mixed Use be the underlying zone district for the entire property. She stated that the dimensional requirements will be established through the PUD review and that any dimensional requirements in R6 will not play a factor in the property. The allowed uses in R6 do not allow this type of development and do not allow multi-family residential and does not allow lodge. The LP overlay does allow this. She stated that they find the rezoning to be appropriate to have the underlying be Mixed Use and leave the LP overlay and the Historic District overlay in place. She stated that she has included a draft resolution in the packet which approves the project with some of the conditions including parallel parking in the City right of way, detached sidewalks and such. To conclude, Ms. Adams stated that Staff finds that the review criterion are not met and recommend a continuation to restudy the free market residential component and the maximum cumulative FAR to bring it closer to the relationship of what is happening in the surrounding neighborhood. However, she stated if the Applicant is unwilling to engage with P&Z in this review, Staff recommends that a denial be forwarded to City Council at this time. She said that Staff finds that the review standards are not met. The next steps for the project are City Council for consolidated PUD, Subdivision and Rezoning then go back to P&Z for Growth Management review then back to HPC for final commercial design review and final HP review. Ms. Adams concluded her presentation. Mr. Erspamer stated that he has a point of order before questions. He asked Ms. Adams when she wanted Ms. Aragon to speak or to just answer questions. Ms. Adams stated the Ms. Aragon is here to answer questions. Mr. Erspamer opened the floor for Commissioner questions to staff. Mr. Gibbs asked that because of the Lodge overlays the Applicant could build multi-family without doing any kind of rezoning. Ms. Adams stated that the rezoning relates to adopting a PUD and according to the code right now having a PUD requires the rezoning. Mr. Gibbs asked if they did not have a PUD and no rezoning, is it possible for a project like this to be built here because of the lodge overlay. Mr. Clauson responded that the LP zone district requires a PUD no matter what and there is no possibility of any action being taken on the property without a PUD. Mr. Erspamer asked Ms. Adams what her opinion is. She stated that what she interpreted Mr. Gibbs asking is if free market residential multi- family housing is allowed in the LP overlay, and she stated that it is. She said that it does require the adoption of a PUD to set the dimensional standards and there is no way around the PUD. Mr. Gibbs asked why the PUD wasn’t put in place when the lodge overlay was made. Ms. Adams stated that they typically do that with this type of situation. The rezoning requires a PUD placed onto the property and the existing condition is the PUD until they come in for a redevelopment. Mr. Gibbs said that the LP is the PUD and Ms. Adams stated that the existing condition is essentially the PUD. They do not require everyone to go through a PUD process just to establish an existing condition when we do a blanket rezoning. Mr. Gibbs said it sounds a little bit slack because they are fundamentally different and do have what would lead to some differences in uses, and just assuming that this is now a PUD is maybe not the most strict. Mr. Gibbs also asked how many people are on HPC and Ms. Adams replied seven and an alternate. Mr. Gibbs brought up the difference in opinions from HPC members from one meeting to the next and there was no real consensus. He noted that four people voted for the final resolution and Ms. Adams stated that it was unanimous. Mr. Gibbs questioned HPC’s authority outside a historic district and why they have authority over the Bleeker Street part of the property. He P121 VII.a Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 5 wondered why they have such a big role to play when it is not a historic district. Ms. Adams replied that the front half of the project is reviewed by HPC and when it was talked about at the Staff level they went through the pros and cons of cutting the property in half and having HPC review one half of the building and P&Z review the other half and it didn’t make any sense. They had HPC conduct the commercial design review and the major development. Mr. Gibbs stated that he thinks they are mixing things up with what the plan is and then saying no now because the existing condition is divided. In his mind he stated that there are two different projects and that for the future it should be thought about in how projects are regarded when the existing conditions would indicate two different approaches towards development. He stated that it seems the jump was made to what was proposed so quickly that P&Z did not have the chance to look at what was already on the ground. Ms. Tygre asked if the project was in a Lodge zone and wanted to do a PUD why would the property be rezoned, or not. Ms. Adams stated that a PUD requires rezoning and that is what the code states. Ms. Tygre asked if a lodge project in a lodge zone wanted to do a PUD how could it be rezoned to what it currently is. Ms. Adams said it would stay lodging and the adoption of the PUD is essentially the adoption of zoning. Ms. Phelan said that the Lodge zone district has dimensional standards for the development of a lodge and the only reason a PUD would be pulled in is if they were asking for variations from the underlying zoning. She stated that the problem with this property and the LP overlay is the R6 zoning does not give dimensional standards to multi-family development. Ms. Tygre said she understands that but asked that rezoning should not be required if it is the same type of use and want to rezone to the same thing. Ms. Phelan stated that if the piece of property is in the Lodge Zone district and someone is proposing to build a lodge they would not need to go through a PUD if they are meeting the dimensional standards. Ms. Tygre asked what rezoning a lodge in a lodge district would have to apply for if they wanted variations. Ms. Phelan stated that it would be to get the PUD overlay on the property because there is no overlay on it right now. Ms. Phelan stated they would have to request to get a PUD designation placed on the property and that triggers a rezoning of the property to designate the overlay. Ms. Tygre asked what it would be rezoned to then. Ms. Phelan stated it would be Lodge with a PUD overlay. Mr. Myrin mentioned that Staff went back and forth on how to divide up the property and asked if they considered restoring the alley and making it a traditional West End frontage along Bleeker and a traditional infill project along Main like two separate projects. Ms. Adams stated that was not what was proposed so it was not what Staff was discussing. She stated that they reviewed the project the Applicant came in with. Mr. Myrin said it reminded him of the Forrest Service parcel where a piece was transferred for a single family home to fund redevelopment of another parcel. He asked how that was done. Ms. Quinn, Assistant City Attorney, said that was a different issue since it was Federal Government property. Mr. Erspamer asked if Staff could define compatibility in a specific context and how it applies to this application. He stated that Staff said it is compatible with architecture but not with mass and scale. Ms. Adams stated that when she is talking about compatibility she is referring to the context of the neighborhood, what are the heights and forms, what is the style and concepts that are in the PUD review criteria. Mr. Erspamer stated he is looking for a dictionary definition. Mr. Erspamer said Ms. Adams talked about how the free market units are determined by the size of the lodge units and if they have 300 square feet or less, they get a certain amount of free market housing they can build. Ms. Adams stated it is free market floor area. Mr. Erspamer asked what the free market area they are allowed to build is. Ms. Adams stated it is on page four of the packet, table one, maximum free market multi-family floor area, allowable in mixed use LP zone district takes you to the Lodge Zone district which says it looks at the average net livable lodge unit size and a percentage of the total net livable P122 VII.a Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 6 area for lodge and affordable housing can be the maximum residential floor area. Mr. Brown, the Applicant, interrupted and stated that Ms. Adams should make the distinction between the net and gross. Ms. Adams said that from the table there is 10,419 square feet of floor area for free market development or 60% of total net livable area. For lodge units which is 17,365 square feet, and is allowed. The maximum allowable free market residential floor area is 10,419 and the Applicant is proposing 11,000 square feet or 581 square feet over. Mr. Erspamer asked about line one for maximum cumulative floor area and the Applicant is 9,500 square feet over allowable. He noted that is well over what is allowed in that zoning and asked where they could put that. He stated if they are allowed to go over the 2,000 square foot where would they put that extra square footage. He asked if they can put it anywhere or if they have to stay within the 2,000 or 2,500. Ms. Adams stated there are a couple different things that are happening including a floor area number and a net livable number. The net livable cap is the 2,000, and the floor area is a separate bucket so the maximum cumulative floor area the Applicant is requesting is 36,500 square feet and they are allowed 27,000. The net livable is where the unit size cap comes in. Ms. Phelan stated if the Applicant was meeting the underlying floor area allowance of item one they could make smaller units to meet the 2,000 square foot cap. Mr. Erspamer stated the duplexes have a flat roof and that HPC went back and forth between the gabled and flat. Mr. Erspamer said he had a question in the Resolution, page 12 section 2, and this goes back to the HPC “180 days shall commence upon the granting of final commercial design and final major development approvals” but what if they changed that. If P&Z votes for something and HPC, at final, changes what P&Z voted for, is it appropriate since P&Z is just a recommending body. He asked if HPC can oppose or change their decision. Ms. Adams stated that HPC final design review will just deal with materials and fenestration. She said that when Council adopts their final PUD plan for this project she believes that HPC will be bound by that. Mr. Erspamer stated he had another question on page 13 “the applicant shall condominiumize the units after substantial completion of the project” and asked how substantial completion is defined. Ms. Adams said that this is boiler plate language and Mr. Erspamer asked that it is typically done before the CO. Ms. Phelan said typically the building needs to be built enough to be surveyed. Mr. Erspamer stated that the formula for parking stated they are allowed 15 spaces for the hotel when actually seven of the spaces are for free market and affordable housing. Ms. Adams said on page 25, the code allows a project to maintain a deficit of parking and right now they don’t have any parking so they only have to mitigate for what additional uses they are adding to the property. She summarized that the proposed development requires a total of 11 ½ parking spaces and the Applicant is proposing 15. She said half a space is required for each new lodge unit and one space is required for affordable housing and free market residential units. Mr. Erspamer asked since the Applicant has to come back to P&Z for GMQS why can’t they decide that tonight and alleviate another step. Ms. Adams said that they need to have certain approvals before they can apply for Growth Management on either August 15 or February 15. Mr. Erspamer noted that on page 25 Staff says that “overall Staff finds the proposed open space as appropriate for the proposed PUD” and asked what does overall mean. Ms. Adams said that HPC granted a waiver of the public amenity space and they want to respect HPC’s condition and are in support of it. Mr. Erspamer asked Ms. Aragon on page 25, 3a “the probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses” how the probable number of cars per P123 VII.a Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 7 hotel is determined. Ms. Aragon replied that is the Community Development department. Ms. Adams stated the code addresses the number of parking spaces that are needed for this type of project. She stated the code does not have any calculation for probable number of cars but they relate back to the number of required parking spaces. She stated that this is in the right of way and City owned property and will not be parking spaces that are signed or solely used for the hotel. Mr. Erspamer stated that Ms. Aragon said that for safety reasons they want parallel parking instead of head in parking. He asked where she got this criteria from. Ms. Aragon said that when she talks about the right of way she is just not talking about the road itself but the road, the parking, curb and gutter, landscape strip and the sidewalk area. She stated that what the City is trying to do with this public space is to ensure that all citizens and visitors can safely walk, bike and have safe access to transit as part of their daily life. She stated that they are looking at the streets and instead of saying the vehicle has priority over the other uses, all uses are on the same playing field. She stated that what Engineering prefers for parking configuration is parallel parking in the areas close to the core. She said the reason is that 40 percent of our accidents are attributed to head in parking. It is unsafe for the vehicle as well as bikes. She stated that this particular intersection is a prime candidate for a signal. Mr. Erspamer noted that the packet states the neighboring parking is parallel but he noted that across is head in. Ms. Aragon said that does not mean they will not try to pursue the orthopedic building when they apply for redevelopment. Mr. Erspamer stated that a person that stays in a 300 square foot unit is going to be a lower demographic and stated they would be more likely to drive into Aspen rather than fly. He said that they would be here with a car and where would they park. Ms. Aragon said it is her understanding that Staff has spoken with the parking department and they were ok with converting to parallel and the neighborhood has enough parking to handle the change from head in to parallel. Mr. Erspamer said that there are a lot of things mentioned in the DRC such as sanitation and asked if it was in the resolution. Ms. Adams replied that it is. Mr. Erspamer said that page 41 exhibit D asked that the trash bins be increased due to the size of the development. He asked the reason why for the 5 foot increase. Ms. Adams stated that the DRC was before HPC in January and when they were going through the commercial design process the Applicant worked with the Environmental Health department and resolved the questions they had about the trash enclosures. She stated that Environmental Health is supportive of what is proposed. Mr. Erspamer asked if a TDM is planned to be completed as part of the project. Ms. Adams said that there is no requirement for a TDM plan. Mr. Erspamer said that “APCHA board is recommending against the deficit being satisfied by fee in lieu”. Ms. Adams said the housing portion of this project needs to be handled at Growth Management review which will happen latter. Ms. Quinn read the definition of compatible from Merriam-Webster “Able to exist together without trouble or conflict, going together well, or capable of existing together in harmony”. Mr. Gibbs noted that the table on page 4 where it talks about cumulative floor area and what is allowed by Special Review, he asked if that is a different review than what P&Z is doing. Ms. Adams stated it is. She said if the Applicant did not request a PUD review they could still request more floor area through Special Review. Mr. Gibbs stated that the PUD makes the Special Review moot. Mr. Walterscheid said that there are four units that are over and asked if the Applicant could have done more units to get the net livable down. Ms. Adams replied absolutely. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there is anything that would prohibit them to go to six or eight units. Ms. Adams replied no, they could add P124 VII.a Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 8 more units to meet the unit size cap without having an issue. She stated that the Applicant is requesting a slight variance in the free market floor area so that would not change unless they wanted it to change. Mr. Walterscheid asked if the City is going towards parallel parking for properties that are being developed in the core and if it will be a requirement moving forward. Ms. Aragon replied yes, in particular for high volume areas and intersections close to Main Street. Mr. Myrin noted that 40% of accidents attributed to head in parking stands out in his mind and asked if that is within the City. Ms. Aragon stated yes. Mr. Erspamer asked where the accidents were and if they were on the sidewalk. Ms. Aragon said it was from backing out, small fender benders and includes all modes of transportation. Mr. Erspamer asked if she knew what percentage of accidents occurred at the Hotel Aspen. She said she has not pulled the data on that and is not sure. They had a consultant study, over a three year period, the types of accidents that occurred. The recommendation was converting head in to parallel parking. Mr. Erspamer stated that the type of driver at the Hotel Aspen would not be getting in and out of their car as much as the type of driver at Carl’s. Ms. Aragon agreed with this. Mr. Erspamer asked the Applicant if they had any questions for Ms. Aragon before she left. Mr. Clauson stated that they are prepared to accept whatever the City chooses to do with its property. He said there is an issue with the conversion of head in parking to parallel parking where you lose approximately six parking spaces per block. In this particular instance it is not only parking for the Hotel but the adjacent park. He stated that after he heard the recommendation for parallel parking they provided a compromise with the front two thirds remaining head in parking and the back would be converted to parallel parking. Mr. Brown said that one thing that will help is across the street at Aspen Orthopedics if the City entered into some type of agreement that all of those spaces are for guests of the clinic only. The doctors all come in early and take all the spots adjacent to the Hotel and their guests use their dedicated spots that are in the City’s right of way. He stated it would be helpful if these spots were signed for the hotel. Mr. Clauson indicated the signage could include 15 minute drop off zones and Mr. Brown interjected or dedicated. He said they are currently spending thousands of dollars a year distributing passes to their guests so they can park during their stay. Mr. Clauson said that the issue with Carl’s is that the parking is on the opposite side of the street from them and turning vehicles are in conflict with vehicles backing out. He said at the hotel there would be plenty of room for a vehicle to stop and wait for someone who is pulling out of a parking space. He said it is a little better a condition on the hotel side of the street than on the opposite. Mr. Brown said it was at least 50 times better. He also mentioned the gas station opposite Carl’s and the increased traffic due to it. Mr. Clauson said there is an advantage to having a split parking condition so that the crosswalks would align. He said they would appreciate some dedication of parking spaces as being part of the recommendation. Mr. Walterscheid asked if P&Z has the ability to make that recommendation. Ms. Adams responded absolutely. She stated that the parking department would be ok assigning a loading zone but did not want one space dedicated to the hotel. Mr. Erspamer turned over the floor to Mr. Clauson and his presentation. Mr. Clauson said that the statement in the Staff recommendation, second paragraph states “The Applicant has indicated a desire to proceed to City Council and to not engage with P&Z in this review” sounds a bit arrogant and they are most definitely engaging with P&Z but have some very significant requirements to move forward. He stated that the project was first pre-applied March 29, 2012 and spent a very long time at HPC where they worked through issues of compatibility at great length. He stated that they initially hoped to make the August 15th Growth Management deadline and now are P125 VII.a Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 9 hoping to make the February 15th application. He stated that they have had a very disappointing memo from Staff. Mr. Clauson reminded the board that the Aspen Area Community Plan strongly recommends a formulation of a strategy to improve the lodging base and bring new lodging forward. He stated that this has not happened. Mr. Brown stated that there is a lot of rhetoric between what Staff says, what Council says and what everyone in the community is saying about helping small lodges redevelop. He said that this is a project that meets that goal but has received no support from Staff. Mr. Clauson stated that HPC provided conceptual approval for mass, scale, height and proportions of the project. Mr. Clauson said they had extensive meetings with Staff to thoroughly consider the architecture. He stated that Ms. Adams has attempted to make a distinction between the architecture, the scale, height, proportions, mass and the actual numbers that are involved. He said that at every turn HPC knew the numbers that were involved and knew what it would produce, and at the end of the day they approved it after extensive deliberation. Mr. Clauson also stated that Staff requested many modifications to the architecture of the residences, all of which were made. Including at one point providing gabled roofs and then deciding they did not want them. He stated it is in part an appeal to the fairness of P&Z and the process in general as they continue to move forward. Mr. Clauson said that Staff is recommending a denial by the P&Z based on the following PUD criteria, A1- compatibility of the mix of development, dimensional requirements appropriate to character, E1- compatible to existing and future land use B1- compatibility to the visual character of existing and proposed architecture. Mr. Clauson said that these are the three area where Staff has been clear that the Applicant does not meet the criteria in their opinion. He said that these criteria all essentially go to the architecture and the bulk and massing as it was reviewed by the HPC. He stated that they have discussed this problem with Chris Bendon and Chris said that maybe they should have joint meetings, but it is a conundrum and Staff never did request the HPC, in conceptual approval, change the net livable area of the free market units or the overall floor area. Even though there is a suggestion that HPC did not have purview over the quantitative aspect it is impossible to separate them. Mr. Clauson stated the PUD process has a significant amount of double jeopardy between HPC and P&Z. He also stated that they are not only at P&Z for PUD but will be back again for growth management. He said he is surprised that Staff is recommending denial of the project based on the issues already approved by the HPC. He stated that Staff makes it clear they object to the approved architecture rather than to the specific zoning variances requested. He quoted from the Staff memo “the requested floor area increases, net livable and set back reductions may be appropriate with the condition that the overall architecture and massing of the free market multi-family housing is compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent landmarks”. He then asked if the variances are appropriate or not. He asked if the architecture as reviewed by the HPC is appropriate or inappropriate. Mr. Brown stated that it was Staff that asked them to move the building to the lot line on the east side and Mr. Clauson replied that they did. He commented as to whether this was a debate over pitched roofs and the side by side architectural compatibility of modern multi-textured townhomes and Victorians is not clear. He said that HPC weighed in and said the architecture was compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Brown stated that the word compatibility is being used in a convenient way for this memo. He stated that HPC looked at the neighborhood as being a collective area not one adjacent building. He stated that Staff has honed in on the one adjacent building as making it not compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Clauson stated that the concept of an alternative that would have regular R6 development occurring was based in the Staff memo on an imaginary lot split that would not take place. The imaginary lot split had one third of the property allocated towards residential and two thirds towards lodging. He said it is based only on the way it is currently site planned and not necessarily on the way an alternative would P126 VII.a Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 10 occur. The lot that is actually zoned R6 is one half of the lot or 12,000 square feet and would allow for two single family homes with 3,240 square feet of floor area each. The net livable area that results from 3,240 would be 5,600 to 6,000 square feet per unit, based on Mr. Weil’s experience. Alternately, closer to what they are proposing, two duplexes with approximately 3,800 square feet of net livable could be built on the 12,000 square foot lot. He stated that the net livable being requested is not really out of line with what might happen if the property were divided between the Mixed Use zone in the front and the R6 in the back. He said that this is the more realistic dividing line which would create two 6,000 square foot lots with single family homes on them. Mr. Brown stated the important thing to recognize is if you end up with two potential 6,000 square foot homes those unit sizes are considerably larger than what is being proposed. In addition, the amount of lot area available to hotel use would be about half the size of what they are proposing. Mr. Clauson said that the proposed project would maximize the size of the lodge, retain the pool and the deck area, and create significant public space in the form of a restaurant and bar leaving only one third of the total lot available for the residences. He said it could have been half the lot. An alternative would be to restore the 12,000 square foot R6 lot to build two significant single family homes or two duplexes and fashion a smaller hotel with fewer amenities for the remainder of the lot. He stated that the Staff memo raises the possibility of prospective code changes that incentivize larger rooms with walk offs. He said that they find this extremely problematic because they submitted quite some time ago under the existing code that had incentives for lodges with smaller rooms. He stated that was the law of the land and to say that there are now studies to suggest otherwise really denigrates from the code that is in front of them. He said that they started the process two years ago before any changes were contemplated and they do not know where those changes are going to go. He said that the actual code enforced now incentivizes the smaller rooms and the 60 percent residential development is an important part of that development and this is what they are trying to take advantage of to make the development feasible. Mr. Brown stated that those incentives are consistent with what his experience in owning 10 percent of the lodging inventory in the community, and how they see people staying and the various types of guests. Mr. Clauson referenced the Molly Gibson Lodge, also owned by Mr. Brown, and that some of the smaller rooms actually have significantly higher occupancy than the larger rooms. Mr. Brown said that they chose the Molly because the room square footage is more stratified than the Hotel Aspen. He stated that the 291 square foot unit and the 190 square foot units run the highest occupancy of any of the room types. He said that staff is trying to “move the goalpost” and say the small rooms shouldn’t get the incentives when in fact that is code. He said that he has been hearing all types of things Staff has been attempting to do for lodges to help this application yet he hasn’t seen the benefit of any of those. He said if Staff wants to use hypotheticals in the code there is a lot that they would offer as well. Mr. Clauson then referred to the studies commissioned by the City, he thinks the key is higher quality lodging inventory with better amenities and that is precisely what this project is trying to bring about. The room sizes could be called a red herring but he wouldn’t change the way he looks at the code because of recent studies and the uncertain outcome that the study might result in. Mr. Brown stated that one significant point the studies indicate is that people coming here don’t want 50 year old hotels. He stated that is the future of the old lodges in Aspen unless somebody makes an effort to see them redeveloped into what the people visiting here would like to stay in. He said that is what the crux of what the AACP is saying, smaller but new rooms. Mr. Clauson quoted from one of the studies “predictability in the development process, the unpredictable and political nature of the development process creates additional risk for developers and investors which increases development cost and the feasibility gaps for development. While conceptual P127 VII.a Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 11 development is not binding, projects have received conceptual approval and later been denied after considerable time and expense based on broad conceptions, considerations of the general idea of the project was approved at conceptual stage. If the City wishes to maintain or expand the bed base it will need to identify locations where that is appropriate and support projects proposed in those areas.” He stated that is why they find the memo so disappointing. To address a few other considerations, Mr. Clauson stated that the area under the canopy and the parking enhancements, whatever they are, will improve the experience of the open spaces considerably. He did state that the area under the canopy cannot be considered open space anymore because of the definition of open space. Mr. Clauson said that compatibility with the neighborhood when considered as blocks is clearly not incompatible. He points out that the lodge is a large massing there are also large massings on Main Street. He said that this does not seem to be the issue but more so the residential compatibility, which does not seem out of line from a massing standpoint. He also indicated the front yard setback which generally maintains an alignment with neighborhood buildings. He stated that the code now introduced a build to line trying to get buildings to come forward to meet the street. Mr. Clauson said that it becomes difficult to characterize the West End when you look at the various building types. He stated it is not exclusively a Victorian neighborhood but there are many residential forms including chalet style and some that cannot be easily characterized, mine shaft architecture and a variety of styles and periods. He stated that the contemporary design of the proposed project is as compatible as anything else if not more so because it really is in itself a beautiful design. He noted that height wise there are some things that are lower but on the other hand they are generally in line with height. He pointed out design motifs that were taken from various buildings that are replicated in the contemporary design. He said that they are taking some historical precedence and drawing them into contemporary architecture in a way that is quite compatible. Mr. Brown stated that this was in an effort to satisfy Staffs request to be more compatible. He said he thought they achieved this with Staff as well as their main concern of the gabled roofs, which they also opined to. Mr. Clauson stated that the requested PUD variations, and there is no getting away from the PUD, is somewhat confusing with the four applicable zone districts; Mixed Use, R6, Lodge zone district and LP overlay. He stated that when they initially met with Amy Simon they were uncertain how to handle it. He stated that the rezoning needs to happen and the PUD needs to happen to accommodate this development. He reiterated the four variations, cumulative floor area, maximum floor area for free market, unit size and side yard setback. He stated that they are actually requesting 36,500 proposed cumulatively which is an eight percent increase over the maximum allowable per zone district but perfectly allowable within the PUD. Mr. Brown said the important thing to emphasize is what is being delivered for the overage in FAR and how much square footage it actually is. He stated it is brand new additional hotel rooms that are truly affordable in this community. Mr. Clauson said that the maximum floor area for free market is based on the 60 percent allowance and it is 500 square feet over and was actually encouraged by Staff in order to provide some float in case in the final analysis of floor area there was some extra. He stated they could actually forgo that but Staff believed at the time and told them to include it. Mr. Brown asked to give some context on the 60 percent and how it is calculated in gross and it is quite penal in how it is written. He stated that the current code penalizes the Applicant for adding nice amenity space because it does not give the free market based on the amenity space added to the facility but only the rooms. The way the code is currently written encourages you to build a box of rooms with a small front desk and does not speak to the kind of hotels this community wants long term. P128 VII.a Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 12 Mr. Clauson said that the 60 percent is calculated based on the inside area of the rooms and also affordable housing, but only that. The other portions of the lodge are not counted. Floor area for residential is based on 60 percent of the inside area of the rooms and the inside area of the affordable housing. Floor area is the outside area. Mr. Brown stated it is about a 15 percent loss. Mr. Clauson stated there are two free market units proposed with 3,750 net livable and has already spoke to what could happen if there was free market development on half the lot. Allowable in the mixed use zone district is 2,000 to 2,500 with a TDR. The cost of placing a TDR on this would be prohibitive and negates the possibility. He brought up the question if they could build six or eight units under 2,000 square feet, which is yes but in terms of compatibility would you prefer four townhouses looking like townhouse and what happens in the West End, or eight units in an apartment block. He stated the answer seems so simple and easy to come to, no you would not want to see this. He stated that town houses are the appropriate and compatible use. Mr. Brown stated would you rather see for the community two 6,000 square foot houses. Mr. Clauson said that the unit size supports the redevelopment and without adequate unit size the lodge is not going to happen. Side yard setback has been discussed and encouraged by Staff in order to separate the buildings more and is facilitated by the width of the right of way and does not seem to be a significant issue. Mr. Weil stated that they could find the three inches for the minor front yard setback. Mr. Clauson stated that this is an important lodge project that will benefit the City and refurbish a very tired building. He stated that there is an approval resolution in the packet and would appreciate very much P&Z considering and respectfully request they consider passing an approval Resolution. He stated if P&Z feels the need to have a condition that City Council should review issues related to those things Staff has brought up to add it. It is not that they do not want to engage with P&Z but they need to move forward or will miss the opportunity to be timely and come back to P&Z for Growth Management. Mr. Brown stated that they are coming up on the two year anniversary of what looks like not even 50 percent the way through and to be quite honest with P&Z the amount of dollars they expended are extraordinary. He stated it is 50 percent more that the total budget when they set on to do the project and are not even half way through. Mr. Erspamer asked Staff to respond to the Applicants statements. Ms. Phelan stated that the HPC review did not look at great detail at the dimensions of the unit sizes and it is not their purview. She said that some of the detailed numbers that were provided in the packet were not provided to HPC. Ms. Adams explained the quote in the memo saying why variations may be appropriate, page 8. She stated what she was trying to express is that Staff is supportive of this project development and are trying to balance everything that is being asked for and support lodge redevelopment. Ms. Adams said she was trying to say that variations may be appropriate and that is the purpose of the PUD. They also wanted to take into account the neighborhood and the impact on this area of town and ensure that the variations being asked for are the right ones. She stated she was not trying to be contradictory but that Staff recognizes variations are needing to happen on this project and what are the correct numbers so they work with the rest of the neighborhood and this project. Ms. Adams stated the reason she included the sentence about the lodging study was just for background. She said it is not included in the Staff recommendation and is not a review criterion but to provide background to P&Z to let them know what is happening in the community. P129 VII.a Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 13 Ms. Phelan said that we live in a community that analyzes every project to a great degree and Staff’s recommendation has been that they feel the lodge project fits the context of the location and neighborhood and it would be remiss on their part if they didn’t look at how the project as a whole fits into the neighborhood and community. She stated that Staff’s honest recommendation is they have been concerned with the free market component of the project in size and some of the dimensional variances requested. Mr. Erspamer asked for questions for Applicant and Staff. Mr. Myrin stated that the size and dimensional requirements of the free market seem to be the only sticking points for Staff and asked if that is something they can resolve. Mr. Brown replied that they find the development is consistent with the code that 60 percent of the net livable floor area can be allocated towards free market. He stated that if you are supportive of the lodge but not the free market you don’t agree with the incentives that were put in place to facilitate the PUD. He said that saying you support lodges, which is what they are hearing, and then actually supporting them is not what is happening. He said it is “let’s get the hotel that we want and make sure it is not financially feasible for the Applicant because we don’t care”. Mr. Erspamer said the packet talks about snow on page 31 “the Applicant represents that snow shedding and storage will be accommodated in a safe and appropriate manner”. He stated that these are flat roofs and the snow would be accumulated somewhere and would the snow be moved somewhere. Mr. Weil stated that the new building codes allow for tremendous amount of snow to pile up. He said that older buildings have to be shoveled because the roofs are not stressed for 4-6 feet of snow. He said that these roofs will be stressed for that amount of snow. Mr. Erspamer opened the public comments. Steve Garcia from Victorians of Bleeker said that he stated his comments at the last meeting but was not privy to the packet that went out after the site visit. He asked if there was a recommendation that came out from the last meeting. Ms. Adams stated that the recommendation was to continue and if the Applicant wanted a decision it was a recommendation of denial. Mr. Erspamer closed the public comments. Mr. Erspamer opened the board comments. Mr. Myrin commented that using the free market residential to fund the remodel has made this a very long process. He said that is what the code is currently using to do it, but it is not something he necessarily agrees with because it doesn’t work for generation after generation. Mr. Myrin said he agrees with the AACP recommendation and they have been trying to implement some of them but is having challenges implementing them. Mr. Myrin said he welcomes the decision from the Applicant to turn over the public right of way to the Engineering Department for whatever they want to do with it. He supports turning that over to Engineering as well as the Parking Departments decision for a 15 minute loading zone. He asked if it was off of Main or Garmisch. Ms. Adams replied Garmisch. Mr. Brown said he doubt’s it’s off of Main because of the bus lane. Mr. Erspamer asked how many spaces and Ms. Adams said one. Mr. Myrin said he leans to Ms. Aragon’s parallel parking recommendation. Mr. Myrin said that he agrees with Staffs position and it is pretty consistent with the rest of his decisions over the years. He stated he agrees with the affordable housing recommendation even though it is not part of the decision tonight. He stated that he wishes that it was not relied upon free market to fund lodging but that is the reality and it is not sustainable. Mr. Myrin said he is more frustrated with it on P130 VII.a Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 14 our part because the code allows it and we haven’t figured out a way in the code to separate the two to create a sustainable future. He stated he is willing to meet on December 3rd to speed things along. Ms. Tygre said that she agrees with a lot of what Mr. Myrin said and that the board is disturbed with the necessity of free market to fund a hotel because all it does is get the building built and does not sustain the hotel over the long term. She stated there are a lot of philosophical problems that have been raised by the Applicant and are valid. She said she does not like to see the Applicants getting bounced between HPC and P&Z but there is a code requirement that says P&Z is charged with evaluating the proposal based on the criteria that Staff has outlined in Exhibit A. She stated that those criteria include dimensions and P&Z can’t disregard it just because HPC has already reviewed it because the code specifically says they do. She stated that she is basing what she is saying on the analysis of the criteria in Exhibit A and she agrees with Staff. She thanked the Applicant and Staff for having the site visit. Ms. Tygre stated that she would like to reassure the Applicant that no one on the commission has a problem with the hotel but it is the free market residential. She stated that these are two different properties even though they are under the same ownership and part of the Hotel is on the Bleeker side of the property. She said it is almost like two completely different neighborhoods and that what Staff has tried to do is say that the hotel portion is compatible with the hotel side, Main Street which has hotels and commercial properties. She stated that the Bleeker side is more residential and has a different type of use and architecture. She said that she disagrees with them on the zoning because you need to look at what R6 allows in the residential portion but she is not redesigning the plan. She stated that the packet indicated the way the Applicant has chosen to address these issues and given this application and criteria she has to agree with Staff. She stated she would be willing to meet with the Applicant on December 3rd. She said it would be really nice to have an exceptional project in this location. Mr. Walterscheid commented that with an R6 zone there could be four different houses here and built to much larger than what the Applicant has asked for. He stated he earlier asked about the multiple divisions because there could be eight condos here. He said he has no problem with the size of the back end. He stated that this is the way people are coming up with money to fund a project. He said the room sizes are completely appropriate for what they are asking for. He said that being 300 square feet is a good three star hotel room size and is exactly the demographic the Applicant is searching for. Mr. Walterscheid said there are probably ways around the free market numbers to make it work and he does not have a problem with the way it was presented. He said that P&Z could go back and forth and probably kill the project. He said the last hotel that was back for four meetings died. He said it is insane to get an approval in Aspen and the process drives the cost up. He stated that he would vote for recommendation and send to Council because they will debate it again and then come back to P&Z for Growth Management. Mr. Erspamer asked if he would move it forward with any conditions. Mr. Walterscheid replied that they get some form of designated parking. He said the parking would go back to Engineering and there is a repetitive cycle where things like parking get filtered through a microscope and it is at times comical as to what is focused on. Mr. Gibbs stated he agrees with Ms. Tygre’s comments. He stated he has a hard time with the mass on Bleeker Street and that it seems inappropriate. He stated he understands the reasons for it but does not think the development is compatible with the neighborhood. He would not vote for rezoning and it should stay at R6. Mr. Gibbs said he has a problem injecting Multi Use into the R6 zone district. He said there is a very uniform boundary between Multi Use and R6 and there is some value to maintaining order and logical organization of the City. He said the rezoning makes perfect sense for this project but is not appropriate. P131 VII.a Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 15 Mr. Erspamer commented that he has a concern with the Victorian next to the proposed multifamily buildings and asked if they could put a row of lilacs along the property line to hide the development. He said that the sizes of the buildings are compatible with the Victorians at Bleeker but not to the Victorian next to the development. Mr. Erspamer stated that the sizes of the units are perfect for what P&Z believed in when doing the AACP. He stated it will bring a broader demographic to the community and will build a better cliental through the years. He said that they will have more cars and park in the neighborhood. He stated he is concerned with the parking and noted that angle parking is safer. He said he would like to take out the parallel parking and put angle parking in and would like to see it as a condition of the approval or denial. He said he was not supportive until he heard the Applicants discussion. He said it was a nightmare process but does not want to approve it just to send it to Council. He said that Mr. Walterscheid made some good points. He brought up the point of if they made eight units instead of four they would be to code. Ms. Phelan said that for unit size yes but they are still asking for more floor area than what the free market units allow. Ms. Phelan said that the Applicant is still asking for more by 581 square feet. Mr. Clauson said that it was a recommendation from Staff that they incorporate the additional square footage and it is an issue of trust. He stated that when they get a recommendation like that and have a certain conversation with them and it seems like things are going in a certain direction and they are going to be supportive, and then Staff goes to a Staff meeting and whatever they do in that Staff meeting it seems to result in some new negativity being brought forward. Ms. Phelan stated that this is ridiculous and Mr. Clausen said it is true. Ms. Phelan said that they have an obligation to review projects and compare them to standards which is what they have done. She stated that they have never said they will fully support this project and have, as a Staff, provided a recommendation. She said that everyone has a process for how they do things and she apologized that the Applicant does not like their process. Ms. Adams stated that as far as the numbers go when speaking with Kim and Patrick, she said to ask for what they need. She said they did not want to go back and amend the PUD once it is approved. Ms. Tygre said she thought they were to vote on the application that is before them and not try to redesign it here and now. Ms. Tygre said that the overage of 581 square feet is a criteria that is either acceptable or not acceptable but they are not going to redesign the project here. Mr. Myrin commented that is why he proposes the December 3rd meeting. Mr. Gibbs said that the 27,000 is the actual allowable and the 36,000 is a variance on the number which they should only go for which is 33,700 via special review and they are already giving them more, if you go for the special review allowance and a variance above it. Mr. Gibbs said if it was 27,000 and the net livable to floor area ratio was about the same as they proposed that would allow a net livable of 12,000 and .6 of that would be 7,707. So instead of 11,000 square feet they would have 7,700 allowed. He said they are compounding allowances on top of variances and getting to the big numbers where if everyone stuck to 27,000 as the actual number then all the other numbers get much smaller. He said the numbers are all built upon variances and special review allowances. Mr. Gibbs said that getting down to the basics and what is the actual requirement of the code, it is 27,000 square feet of cumulative floor area and assuming the net livable ratio is about the same then it would be 12,845 square feet of net livable instead of 17,365. Mr. Gibbs said he understands the justifications but for lack of a better word it’s a bad application because it relies on a continuously escalating series of numbers. He stated that he does not agree with the 36,500 and he does not agree with the special review. He said there is no way to accept this application unless you go with the special review and a variance above that. Mr. Gibbs stated that he thinks there is too much going on and too much requested. He stated that this project is a good example of where they have all kinds of subjective requirements they have to consider and for P132 VII.a Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 16 him it comes down to he does not think the back half of the project should be as big as it is because it is in a R6 district. Mr. Walterscheid said he is curious why you wouldn’t want to go from 27,000 to 33,750 with an existing lodge. He asked Mr. Gibbs what would be his judging factors for a project like this to get it to 33,750. Mr. Gibbs said it would reduce the net livable for the multi family. He said it would have an impact that he thinks is important. He said he goes by the neighborhood all the time and thinks it is too much. Mr. Walterscheid said if the free market floor area was limited to 10,000 square feet there are essentially four lots in the back and if they did four separate Victorian looking homes they would have 25,000 square feet of FAR. He stated that each unit would be well above 3,750. Mr. Myrin moved to continue the meeting till 7:15 seconded by Mr. Walterscheid. All in favor, motion approved. Ms. Adams clarified that in the R6 district they would only have the ability to do two single family homes with a 12,000 square foot lot. She said it would be a traditional lot split of 6,000 and 6,000 and there can only be a single family of 3,000 square foot with a historic lot. Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. Clauson to rebut. Mr. Clauson stated that this is a project where the code allows for 60 percent and the provision in the code that require a certain density of hotel rooms and provisions that require affordable housing all come together to create a project that is beneficial to the community and not incompatible. He said that HPC, even though they were not charged with reviewing the numbers did have them in front of them. He said that they think this is a good project and a beneficial one. He stated that if P&Z could move the Resolution with conditions that would be helpful. He stated that they could not redesign the project by December 3rd even if it were economically feasible. He stated if the board felt there was some reduction in floor area that they wanted to quantify or some other comment they wanted to make to move it forward to Council to please include it. Mr. Weil stated that when he was going over the floor area numbers with Ms. Adams it wasn’t so much that Staff requested that they put float in but more of a mutual recognition that as the process moves forward and goes to building permit with zoning, those people are not part of this process. He stated he would like to say that the floor area definition of code is objective but it really isn’t. He said there are plenty of areas that are subjective and how they are interpreted. He stated that they intend to build the project that is drawn here but are not sure how the people who review floor area at the building permit are going to interpret certain parts of the building code and the floor area definitions. He stated they need a little bit to make sure they can build the project they intend to build. Mr. Erspamer asked for a motion and conditions. Mr. Myrin made a motion to approve Resolution 21 as written, seconded by Ms. Tygre. Mr. Erspamer made a condition to remove the parallel parking and replace it with angled parking. Seconded by Mr. Walterscheid and Mr. Myrin accepted as a motion. Ms. Tygre did not accept it. Voice vote: Mr. Walterscheid aye, Mr. Gibbs nay, Mr. Myrin nay, Ms. Tygre nay, Mr. Erspamer aye. Motion failed. Mr. Erspamer said he is close to approving this but with the mass and scale and the ambiguity of the number in the code but would probably end up voting for denial at this time. Roll call motion to approve as written. P133 VII.a Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 17 Mr. Erspamer no, Mr. Gibbs no, Ms. Tygre no, Mr. Myrin no, Mr. Walterscheid yes. Motion failed Mr. Walterscheid made a motion to pass Resolution 21 with the amendment that the FAR for free market be further vetted by City Council. Mr. Erspamer seconded. Mr. Walterscheid said he would be in recommendation of everything else with Council further discussing the free market. Mr. Myrin said he thinks it is the obligation of P&Z to further discuss this and he is not comfortable dedicating just one meeting and then handing it off to Council. He stated he thinks it is the responsibility of P&Z to address it. Ms. Tygre said she is going back to evaluating a project based on the criteria that is in the code and it does not mean that to be determined later square footage is appropriate. She stated that P&Z is abdicating their responsibility by passing it on to Council. Mr. Erspamer said he would be in favor of reducing it but it cannot be concluded at this meeting. Roll call: Mr. Erspamer yes, Mr. Gibbs no, Ms. Tygre no, Mr. Myrin no, Mr. Walterscheid yes. Motion failed. Mr. Myrin made a motion to deny Resolution 21 as written. Seconded by Ms. Tygre. Mr. Walterscheid asked if it still goes to Council with a motion to deny. The answer is yes. He said it is not a motion to continue but to send it to Council to watch it die. Mr. Erspamer said Council can do whatever they want to it. Mr. Walterscheid said he just made a recommendation to send it to Council but have them look at the free market and instead of that it is going to be sent to council by denying it. Ms. Tygre said they are sending it to Council saying that P&Z feels it should be denied. Mr. Myrin recalled his motion and made a motion to continue. The Applicant could not agree to this. Mr. Brown stated that two of the board members stated that they were prejudicial to the project because the free market funds the hotel. Ms. Tygre interjected that that is not what they said at all and objects to his characterization of that. Mr. Walterscheid said to Ms. Tygre that is exactly what was said. Mr. Erspamer called for order. Mr. Brown stated that what he heard from the members of P&Z is that they fundamentally disagreed with how the code is written in that free market funds a new lodge redevelopment. That is the basis for the AACP and the LP overlay and his application. He stated that from his perspective how can they continue and please the board given that is the reality of the development. He stated that they need the free market to pay for the hotel. He stated that even though they don’t like it and don’t agree with it that is the harsh reality. He said there has been discussion that the board does disagree with the code but that is the set of guidelines they are playing by and were adopted by Council to facilitate the redevelopment. He stated that the alternative discussed is to build homes and end up with half the size hotel. He said that maybe they don’t even rebuild the hotel and leave it as a 50 year old hotel and build new homes. Ms. Tygre stated that every comment she has made she was basing her decision on the criteria in the land use code. Mr. Gibbs made a motion to extend the meeting for five more minutes seconded by Ms. Tygre. All in favor, motion passed. Mr. Erspamer made a motion to deny Resolution 21. Mr. Myrin stated that if P&Z denies it the Applicant just starts over and asks the same question to Council. Mr. Walterscheid asked if this body does not want this to happen period. Mr. Gibbs said he thinks that is exaggerating and is not making any judgment, subjective or otherwise, based on whether he thinks it is a good idea to have hotels or any of that sort of thing. He stated he is looking at what the Applicant proposed and what the code says and his interpretation of what the code says. Mr. Myrin made a motion to deny Resolution 21 as written, seconded by Ms. Tygre. P134 VII.a Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 18 Roll call Mr. Myrin wanted to express how frustrated he is that they have only had one meeting on this and the Applicant has pinned it on P&Z by saying they don’t have time for a second meeting. Mr. Erspamer corrected that the Applicant stated that they were not prepared for a meeting on December 3rd. Mr. Clauson stated that Staff decided it would only be their presentation at the last meeting and the Applicant would have been ready to have a substantive discussion at the prior meeting. Ms. Phelan stated that based on the Applicants request they have continued scheduling this meeting from July to October. She stated that when the Applicant implied that it was completely Staff’s fault she stated it was not just Staff’s scheduling issues that has dragged the process out. Mr. Brown stated he wanted to respond to Mr. Myrin’s statement about not wanting to come back. He stated that he has been a part of several meetings where they thought they met what Staff wanted and then Staff goes back and has a meeting with the entire Staff and they get a different message. He stated that they have attempted to work with individual Staff members at times and they go into a meeting and come out with a different message and he called it “moving the goalpost”. He stated it is very difficult for them to come back and forth thinking they will get anywhere. Mr. Erspamer made a motion to deny application Resolution 21. Seconded by Ms. Tygre Mr. Erspamer yes, Mr. Gibbs yes, Ms. Tygre yes, Mr. Myrin abstain, Mr. Walterscheid no. Motion passed 3 to 1 with 1 abstention. Mr. Walterscheid made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Myrin. All in favor, motion passed. Linda Manning P135 VII.a Final PUD, Subdivision, and Rezoning Hotel Aspen A lodge preservation project, featuring small room lodging and free-market residential units. 18 June 2013 Location:110 West Main Street, Aspen, CO (PID#273512461800) S T An application for Final PUD, Subdivision, and Rezoning for the redevelopment of an existinglodgewithintheMainStreetHistoricDistrictandtheSmallLodgeCharacterArea. Represented By: STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES INC landscape architecture.planning.resort design 412 North Mill Street Aspen,Colorado 81611 t.970/925-2323 f-970/92o-1628 info @scaplanning.com www.scaplanning.com P136 VII.a TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Overview and Code Response Attachment 2 - Land Use Application Attachment 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form Attachment 4-Vicinity Map & Property Description Attachment 5 - Existing Conditions Survey Attachment 6 -Architectural Plans & Renderings Attachment 7 - Draft Plat of Hotel Aspen Attachment 8 - Proof of Ownership Attachment 9 - Letter of Authorization Attachment 10- Previous Approvals Attachment 11 - Property Owners within 300' Attachment 12- Pre-Application Conference Summary Hotel Aspen (PID#273512461800) Final PUD Subdivision and Rezoning 18 June 2013 P137 VII.a PROJECT OVERVIEW This application is submitted for Final Planned Unit Development, Subdivision, and Rezoning for the redevelopment of the existing Hotel Aspen as a small lodge preservation project with associated residential development. This application is completed in conformance with the pre-application conference summary dated 15 May 2013. Major Development (Conceptual), Commercial Design Conceptual), and Demolition Approval for the Property was granted by Resolution #14, Series of 2012. The subject site is a 27,000 sq. ft. parcel spanning from Main Street to Bleeker Street, and bordering Garmisch Street. The property lies partially within the Main Street Historic District, straddles the Mixed Use (MU) and Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone districts, and has a Lodge Preservation Overlay LP) impacting the entire parcel. It is understood that the LP Overlay Zoning District will determine the permitted uses and the maximum net livable of the free-market multi-family residential of the Property with a PUD overlay for other parameters which will be generally based on the MU and R-6 zone districts. Approximately 15,000 sq. ft. of the Property lies in the MU zone district and 12,000 sq. ft. lie in the R-6 zone district. The proposed project,which utilizes the design presented at the 13 March 2013 HPC hearing, would reconfigure most of the existing lodge units such that the units will average 292 sq. ft. in size. Multi-family residential is proposed for the rear of the property along Bleeker Street. This multi-family residential is provided in the land use code as an incentive for small lodge redevelopment. The proposed design is compatible with the Main Street Historic District and neighboring properties. The addition of small lodge units to the inventory of lodging units for the City of Aspen is a stated goal of the Aspen Area Community Plan as well as a priority of the City Council, and will address an important gap in the lodging inventory for the City. The proposed project includes an increase in the number of lodge units provided from 45 units to 54 units and proposes four (4) new free-market residential units, organized as two duplexes. Through the PUD process, the applicant requests variances of maximum cumulative floor area and side yard setbacks along Garmisch Street for the residential units. Replacement of the existing affordable housing studio unit and mitigation for the additional lodge and residential development is proposed through the provision of three on-site affordable housing units. The proposed affordable housing units will be fully compliant with Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines and are intended to house employees of the lodge. Through the redevelopment of the property, public amenity space will be slightly reduced, but enhanced with a sidewalk seating area along Main Street. Currently, 4,856 sq. ft. of public open space exists,which represents 18% of the parcel size. While the City of Aspen Land Use Code requires that the currently existing public amenity space be maintained, or mitigation in the form of an acceptable public amenity or cash-in-lieu be provided. The Applicant proposes to provide 4,030 sq. ft. of public amenity space which represents 15% of the parcel. Sidewalk improvements and other pedestrian enhancements along Garmisch and Main Street as well as improvements to the head-in public parking area along Garmisch Street are proposed to mitigate for the slight reduction in open space. A cafe/patio area accessible to the public will also be provided off of Main Street, adjacent to the lobby area, which will provide a unique and useful public gathering area for this portion of Main Street. The landscape plan will provide for attractive and inviting spaces for guests and area residents to enjoy. The landscape plan incorporates recently-planted street trees,while providing Hotel Aspen (PID#273512461800) Page 1 Final PUD,Subdivision and Rezoning 18 June 2013 P138 VII.a additional plant materials to soften and screen the development from the neighboring residential uses. It will also provide an attractive feature plaza for the Main Street Historic District. Sidewalks and public spaces will be improved and integrated into the existing network. In response to a request from City Engineering, parking along one-half of the block face along Garmisch Street has been changed from head-in to parallel parking. The Applicants have worked to design a project that meets the City goals with respect to small lodge development with smaller rooms and a more economical cost basis. However, in spite of some of the incentives offered to promote this type of development, creating an economically viable project is very challenging. Accordingly, the Applicants will be requesting of the City Council additional relief from certain fees and exactions under the Council's purview. Hotel Aspen (PID#273512461800) Page 2 Final PUD,Subdivision and Rezoning 18 June 2013 P139 VII.a MAIN STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN OBJECTIVES AND GUIDELINES Design Obiectives 1.Preserve the integrity of the historic district. The primary period of significance for Main Street is the mining era in Aspen. The primary objective is to preserve this character while accommodating compatible development and change. Individual buildings from later periods may also be of historic significance. They should be preserved and their context should be respected in future development. The proposed development will represent compatible development and positive change to the District. The character of the existing building, located immediately off of Main Street,which is located within the District,will remain largely intact. This continuity of design vernacular will help preserve the existing contextual flavor of the neighborhood. 2.Maintain traditional building widths. People constructed many buildings that were similar in width to nearby structures,and generally in proportion to the lot size. This helped to establish a relatively uniform scale for the neighborhood and,when these buildings were evenly spaced along a block,a sense of rhythm resulted. In such a case,the perceived width of a new building should appear similar in size to that of historic buildings in the area in order to help maintain this sense of visual continuity. The proposed development will respect the traditional building widths and spacing found along the block. The sense of rhythm will be maintained and site improvements, such as improved landscaping and pedestrian paths,will enhance this sense of visual continuity in the District. 3.Maintain the range of traditional building and roof forms. A similarity of building forms also contributes to a sense of visual continuity along Main Street. In order to maintain this feature,a new building should have basic roof and building forms that are similar to those seen traditionally. Overall facade proportions also should be in harmony with the context. The roof and building forms of the proposed development located in the District will be very similar to the existing roof and building forms. Fagade proportions will remain similar to existing conditions and will be in harmony with the neighborhood. 4.Maintain the character of traditional materials. The predominant use of wood siding is another important feature in the district. Building materials of new structures and additions to existing structures should contribute to this visual continuity of the neighborhood by reflecting the scale and texture of traditional materials. While new materials may be considered,they should appear similar to those seen traditionally to establish a sense of visual continuity. The building materials of the redeveloped structure located in the District will contribute to the visual continuity of the neighborhood by reflecting the scale and texture of traditional materials. Wood siding will be employed as well as perforated metal,stone, and metal clad windows. 5.Incorporate architectural details that are in character with the district. Entries are clearly defined on most structures in the neighborhood. Porches,porticos,and stoops are elements that typically define entries. These features add a one-story element to the fronts of buildings, helping to establish a uniform sense of human scale along the block. They are essential elements of the neighborhood that should be maintained. Other architectural details also contribute to the sense of character of the street,adding visual interest for pedestrians. Their continued use is strongly encouraged. Hotel Aspen (PID#273512461800) Page 3 Final PUD,Subdivision and Rezoning 18 June 2013 P140 VII.a The portions of the proposed development that are located within the District will incorporate architectural details that are in character with the district. Porches and porticos have been incorporated into the design and define the entries into the development as well as enforce a uniform sense of human scale along the block. 6.Maintain the characteristics of traditional windows and doors. The similarity of window and door size and location contributes to a sense of visual continuity along the street. In order to maintain this sense of visual continuity,a new building should maintain the basic window and door proportions and placement patterns seen traditionally in the district. The proposed redevelopment will provide windows and door in sizes and locations similar to what currently exists. Final Review Design Guidelines Building Design&Articulation Entries are clearly defined on most structures in the neighborhood. Porches,porticos,and stoops are elements that typically define entries. These features add a one-story element to the fronts of buildings, helping to establish a uniform sense of human scale along the block. They are essential elements of the neighborhood that should be maintained. Other architectural details also contribute to the character of the street,adding visual interest for pedestrians. Their continued use is strongly encouraged. The proposed redevelopment utilizes clearly defined entries that feature porches, porticos, and stoop elements. These entries will help establish a human scale of the structures. The varied use of materials and the variation of form of the buildings will also contribute to the character of the street. Architectural features The Main Street District has developed into a mixture of commercial and residential forms. This project will feature both commercial and residential uses and forms. The residential structures will be complimentary but unique to the form of the hotel. The Main Street District is composed of varying architectural styles reflecting the development phases of Aspen. The many elements of the existing architecture will remain in the redeveloped hotel. Certain embellishments have been made to update and freshen the highly recognizable fagade. The free-market units will be structures of their own time, utilizing a complimentary material palette, variation of massing, and generous setbacks that will honor the pedestrian nature of the district. The historic mining era is responsible for the majority of small miner's cottages and larger high-style homes,although considerable infill has occurred due to the ski industry. The original development of the hotel occurred during the early years of Aspen as a resort destination. Infill buildings include samples of Chalet style and Rustic style buildings. The hotel was developed in the international style that was common for motor lodges in the middle of the 201h Century. Modern design elements will be Hotel Aspen (PID#273512461800) Page 4 Final PUD,Subdivision and Rezoning 18 June 2013 P141 VII.a continued in the redevelopment of the hotel and the development of the free- market units. Residential buildings are primarily vernacular designs,with highlights of Queen Anne buildings. The residential buildings typify "mountain contemporary" design drawing on other modern design elements that can be found in Aspen's West End. 7.16 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the Victorian era residences seen traditionally on Main Street. These include windows,doors,and porches. The windows, doors, and porches will be of similar size and shape to those found in residences traditionally seen on Main Street. Overall,details should be modest in character. The proposed details of the redevelopment will be modest in character and will complement existing forms and details found in the immediate vicinity. 7.17 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. The proposed redevelopment is a building of its own time and does not directly imitate older historic styles, though the architecture will be compatible with historic forms. Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are especially discouraged. No complex or ornately detailed revival styles are proposed as a part of the redevelopment. Windows&Doors The similarity of window and door size and location contributes to a sense of visual continuity along the street. In order to maintain this sense of visual continuity,a new building should maintain the basic window and door proportions and placement patterns seen traditionally in the district. 7.18 The retail entrance should be at the sidewalk level. All entrances shall be ADA compliant. All entrances will be ADA compliant. On sloping sites the retail frontage should be as close to a level entrance as possible. The site is not sloping and all commercial spaces are located immediately at the entrance. No retail frontage is proposed with this application. 7.19 Incorporate an airlock entry into the plan for all new structures. An airlock entry that projects forward of the primary fagade at the sidewalk edge is inappropriate. No airlock entries will project forward of the primary facade. Hotel Aspen (PID#273512461800) Page 5 Final PUD,Subdivision and Rezoning 18 June 2013 P142 VII.a Adding temporary entries during the winter season detracts from the character of the historic district. Temporary entries will not be used during the winter season. Using a temporary vinyl or fabric "airlock" to provide protection from winter weather is not permitted. Temporary vinyl or fabric airlocks will not be utilized. Architectural Materials The existing palette of building materials within the Main Street Historic District is an essential part of the sense of evolution of the area and its current character. Primarily wood and masonry define the majority of the area and express both human scale,structure,detail and a sense of historical continuity. These materials have been used in recent lodge development within the area. The predominant use of wood siding is another important feature in the district. Building materials of new structures and additions to existing structures should contribute to this visual continuity of the neighborhood by reflecting the scale and texture of traditional materials. While new materials may be considered,they should appear similar to those seen traditionally to establish a sense of visual continuity. Materials Historically,masonry and wood buildings characterized the district. The redevelopment will utilize wood and masonry materials. Stucco and manufactured logs are seen among the infill buildings from the early ski-era. No stucco or manufactured logs are proposed to be utilized. 7.20 Use building materials that are similar to those used historically. When selecting materials, reflect the simple and modest character of historic materials and their placement. The materials that are proposed to be used will reflect the simple and modest character of historic materials, and will be utilized in a consistent manner. The color palette of the materials is earth tone and will be complimentary to existing materials. Roofing Materials 7.21 Use roofing materials that are similar in appearance to those seen historically. Roofing materials will similar in appearance to those seen historically. Paving&Landscaping Certain settings and buildings within the city are associated with the quality of design and materials in paving and/or landscaping. It is important that this be recognized and retained where it exists,is of historic relevance,or otherwise successful. The site and setting of all development shall be enhanced by design of both paving and landscaping within any proposal. Proposed enhancements within the public right of way shall form part of a comprehensive improvement proposal for the street or area,and approval will be required. Hotel Aspen (PID#273512461800) Page 6 Final PUD,Subdivision and Rezoning 18 June 2013 P143 VII.a Landscape design features Some historic houses still retain their front yard original fence patterns that create a distinct residential character. These fences are low and transparent in nature. Though the residential portion is not located in the historic district, fencing that is low and transparent in nature and which echoes original fence patterns can be incorporated into the final design of the residential structures. Landscaping is dominated by shade trees along the right-of-way,although lilacs are common plantings adjacent to houses. The proposed landscaping will be primarily shade trees planted along the right-of-way with other appropriate plantings utilized in planting strips and in planters adjacent to the hotel and residential structures. 7.22 Landscaping and paving should have the following characteristics: Enhance the street scene Landscaping treatments have been proposed that will enhance the street scene. Landscaping will be integrated into the head-in parking area along Garmisch; new sidewalks will be incorporate along both Garmisch and Main Street, and a publically accessible cafe/patio area adjacent to the pool accessible from Main Street. Integrate the development with its setting Various pedestrian amenity enhancements, such as the planting islands adjacent to the head-in parking along Garmisch, the publically accessible cafe/patio off of Main Street, and realigned sidewalks that will correspond to the sidewalk condition on adjacent corners will ensure that the development will be integrated into its setting. Reflect the quality of the architectural materials The highest quality of materials will be utilized in the redevelopment and this quality will complement and enhance the neighborhood. 7.23 Landscaping should create a buffer between the street and sidewalk. The proposed landscaping will provide a buffer between the street and sidewalk. Landscaping has been proposed adjacent and in some cases extending into the parking area which will provide appropriate shading and a pleasant pedestrian experience. Hotel Aspen (PID#273512461800) Page 7 Final PUD,Subdivision and Rezoning 18 June 2013 P144 VII.a LAND USE CODE RESPONSES Sec.26.412.060.Commercial design standards The following design standards,in addition to the commercial,lodging,and historic district design objectives and guidelines,shall apply to commercial,lodging,and mixed-use development: A.Public amenity space. Creative,well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting,and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-of- way or private property within commercial areas. Currently, the Hotel Aspen contains 4,857 sq. ft. of public amenity space. This represents 18% of the parcel. The proposed redevelopment will provided 4,030 sq. ft. of public amenity space. This represents 15%of the parcel. This amount was approved as part of the Conceptual HPC approval. To meet the existing amount of public amenity space, which is the effective requirement for the redevelopment, the Applicant will provide enhanced pedestrian amenities along Garmisch Street and a sidewalk dining location off of Main Street. These enhancements include the development of a pedestrian amenity plaza at the corner of Main and Garmisch Streets, the removal of a portion of pavement attaching the Main Street sidewalk to the street, and the provision of landscape islands within the public parking along Garmisch Street. 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 utility,trash,and recycle service area shall be accommodated along the alley meeting the minimum standards established by Section 26.575.060,Utility/trash/recycle service areas,unless otherwise established according to said Section. Utility, trash, and recycle service areas will be provided located off of the alley which will meet the minimum standards established. 2.All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property and along the alley. 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. All utility service pedestals are located within the property boundary and along the alley. There are no encroachments into the alley. Although no encroachments are contemplated, any required encroachments will be properly licensed. 3.Delivery service areas shall be incorporated along the alley. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. Delivery service areas have been incorporated within the building and are accessible from the alley. Shared facilities are neither appropriate nor possible for the site. 4.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. Hotel Aspen (PID#273512461800) Page 8 Final PUD,Subdivision and Rezoning 18 June 2013 P145 VII.a Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, will be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment will also be located as far away from the street as practical. 5.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. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting will 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. These features will not be visible from the public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. The newly constructed buildings will reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. Sec.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. Signage will be integrated with the building to the maximum extent possible. Signs will not block design details of the building on which they are placed. The proposed signage will be in compliance with the City's sign code. 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. No retail is proposed for the proposed development. Windows will be provided which reveal the inside activity of the lobby area. 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. The proposed development will not employ any dynamic lighting methods. Certain important building elements will be illuminated to provide an interesting effect. Significant light trespass will be avoided, as well as illuminating the entire building. The proposed development will be fully compliant with the City's Outdoor lighting code. 26.415.070.Development involving designated historic property. No building or structure shall be erected,constructed,enlarged,altered,repaired,relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted Hotel Aspen (PID#273512461800) Page 9 Final PUD,Subdivision and Rezoning 18 June 2013 P146 VII.a to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a development order. The proposed development does not involve a designated historic property Sec.26.415.070. Development involving designated historic property or property within a historic district. D.Certificate of appropriateness for major development. 1.The review and decision on the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness for major development shall begin with a determination by the Community Development Director that the proposed project constitutes a major development. A major development includes one or more of the following activities: b)Alterations to more than three(3)elements of a building fagade including its windows,doors,roof planes or materials,exterior wall material,dormers,porches,exterior staircase,balcony or ornamental trim; and/or The commercial uses of the Property are located within the Main Street Historic District. Alterations will be made to more than three (3) elements of the building facade including windows, doors, roof planes, and materials. Final drawings of all proposed structures,which provide an accurate representation of all major building materials, have been included with this application. Sec.26.445.040. General Provisions The following provisions shall apply to all property designated with a PUD Overlay on the Official Zone District Map unless otherwise provided pursuant to an adopted final PUD development plan for the property. A.Uses: The land uses permitted in a PUD shall be limited to those allowed in the underlying zone district in which the property is located. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a zero lot line or row house configuration,but multi-family dwelling units shall only be allowed when permitted by the underlying zone district. The proposed small lodge and free-market duplex development are uses permitted in the underlying Mixed-Use (MU) and R-6 zone districts. No detached residential uses are proposed. Residential units are provided in a row house configuration. B.Density: Unless otherwise established pursuant to a final PUD Development Plan,the maximum aggregate density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district,considering the inclusions and exclusions of Lot Area,as defined and the mandatory density reduction for steep slopes as described below. The PUD Development Plan will determine maximum aggregate density. However, the proposed lodging units and 4 residential units are consistent with the density requirements of the underlying zone districts. C.Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall be established with the adoption of a final PUD development plan. The underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimension for each provision. The final development plan shall clearly define all dimensional requirements for each lot within the PUD. In the absence of a final development plan,a single detached or duplex residential dwelling,if listed as a permitted use in the underlying zoning,may be developed in conformance with the provisions of the underlying Zone District. The proposed development will utilize the dimensional requirements to be determined and memorialized in the final PUD Development Plan. The final development plan will clearly define all dimensional requirements within the PUD. As part of the PUD process a variance is requested for floor area and maximum height. Cumulative floor area is Hotel Aspen (PID#273512461800)Page 10 Final PUD,Subdivision and Rezoning 18 June 2013 P147 VII.a proposed to be 38,512 sq. ft. Allowable cumulative floor area in the MU zone district is 33,750 sq. ft. Maximum height of the proposed building is 32 feet. Maximum height in the MU zone district is 32 feet. Sec.26.445.050. Review standards: conceptual,final,consolidated,and minor PUD A development application for conceptual,final,consolidated,conceptual and final or minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD review,certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. A.General requirements. 1.The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. The proposed development is consistent with the newly adopted Aspen Area Community Plan, particular by providing for "entry-level" lodging which will encourage a diverse lodging inventory in the City. Residential development potential was added to the land use code specifically to encourage the preservation of lodging properties. 2.The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. The proposed development will be consistent with the character of the existing land uses in the surrounding area. Currently, the site is utilized as a lodge and this use will continue. Neighboring properties are also used for lodges, namely the Molly Gibson and the Annabel Inn. The free-market residential, located to the rear of the property,will complement and enhance the residential neighborhood found along Bleeker Street. 3.The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. The proposed development will not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area and will provide an attractive addition to the architectural character of the neighborhood. Existing streetscape improvements will be enhanced and new attractive landscaping will serve to improve the visual interest of the neighborhood. 4.The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments,is exempt from GMQS or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to or in combination with,final PUD development plan review. It is anticipated that GMQS allotments will be available to accommodate the proposed development and the applicant will apply for the necessary allotments prior to the final PUD development plan review. B.Establishment of dimensional requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions,Section 26.445.040,above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying Zone District shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements,compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: 1.The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a)The character of and compatibility with,existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. Hotel Aspen (PID#273512461800)Page 11 Final PUD,Subdivision and Rezoning 18 June 2013 P148 VII.a b)Natural or man-made hazards. c)Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways,shade and significant vegetation and landforms. d)Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise,traffic,transit,pedestrian circulation,parking and historical resources. The dimensional requirements for the proposed final PUD Development Plan will be appropriate and compatible with the character of existing and expected land uses in the surrounding area. There are no known natural or man-made hazards attributable to the property or the surrounding area. The proposed development is appropriate for the existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area with regards to shade, significant vegetation, and landforms. The site does not contain steep slopes or waterways. The dimensional requirements are compatible with existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and surrounding area. The additional parking required with the expansion of the lodge and addition of free-market residential has been accommodated entirely within a subgrade parking structure. Pedestrian circulation will be improved with the addition of new pedestrian paths and the enhancement of the existing pedestrian infrastructure. The architecture of the proposed development is compatible and meets the Main Street Historic District design guidelines. 2.The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale,massing,and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. The proposed dimensional requirements permit and the proposed development provides a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and the surrounding area. 3.The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a)The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any nonresidential land uses. b)The varying time periods of use,whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c)The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities,including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d)The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the City. The existing deficit of parking may be maintained, as permitted by the Land Use Code. The required parking for the additional lodge and new free-market residential will be met entirely onsite in a subgrade parking structure. 4.The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically,the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a)There is not sufficient water pressure,drainage capabilities or other utilities to service the proposed development. b)There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection,snow removal,and road maintenance to the proposed development. The maximum allowable density can be accommodated within the PUD. There is sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, and other utilities to service the proposed development. There are adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. Hotel Aspen (PID#273512461800)Page 12 Final PUD,Subdivision and Rezoning 18 June 2013 P149 VII.a 5.The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically,the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a)The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mudflow,rock falls,or avalanche dangers. b)The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed,due to runoff, drainage,soil erosion,and consequent water pollution. c)The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d)The design and location of any proposed structure,road,driveway,or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. The maximum allowable density can be accommodated within the PUD. The land is suitable for the proposed development. Ground instability or the possibilities of mudflow, rock fall, or avalanche dangers are minimal and are actually less than the some portions of the City of Aspen Townsite. 6.The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically,the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a)The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP)or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b)The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site,as identified in Subparagraphs 4 and 5,above,those areas can be avoided or those characteristics mitigated. c)The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with and complimentary to,the surrounding existing and expected development pattern,land uses and characteristics. Notes: a)Lot"sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher or lower rate than specified in the underlying Zone District as long as,on average,the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density provisions of the respective Zone District or as otherwise established as the maximum allowable density pursuant to a final PUD Development Plan. b)The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are required to be reflected in the final PUD development plans. The proposed maximum allowable density will be sufficient for the proposed development and an increase is not required. C. Site design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces,is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces,and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1.Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique,provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 2.Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. 3.Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets,contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate,and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. 4.Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. 5.Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. Hotel Aspen (PID#273512461800)Page 13 Final PUD,Subdivision and Rezoning 18 June 2013 P150 VII.a 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. 7.For nonresidential land uses,spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. The proposed development meets the standards for site design,will enhance public spaces, is complementary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. D.Landscape plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the City,with surrounding parcels and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1.The landscape plan exhibits a well-designated treatment of exterior spaces,preserves existing significant vegetation,and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2.Significant existing natural and man-made site features,which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape,are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3.The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. The landscape plan will be compatible with the visual character of the City,with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The landscape plan utilizes well-designed treatments for the exterior spaces, respects existing street trees, and utilizes a variety of plant species suitable for Aspen's climate. The landscape plan will create an attractive site feature for guests, residents, and neighbors. E.Architectural character. 1.Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City,appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property,represent a character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2.Incorporate,to the extent practical,natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access,shade and vegetation and by use of non-or less-intensive mechanical systems. 3.Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow,ice,and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. The architectural character is compatible with and will enhance the visual character of the City. The proposed architecture tastefully relates to existing architecture found in the neighborhood and represents an exciting and unique character that is appropriate for a lodge property. The proposed architecture meets the Main Street Historic District design guidelines. The architecture, to the extent practical, utilizes solar access, shade, and vegetation and uses less-intensive mechanical systems. Snow storage and shedding will be accommodated and dealt with in a safe and appropriate manner. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both Public Safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1.All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features,structures,and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2.All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features,buildings,landscape Hotel Aspen (PID#273512461800)Page 14 Final PUD,Subdivision and Rezoning 18 June 2013 P151 VII.a elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. The lighting employed in the proposed development will be appropriate and consider public safety and aesthetic concerns. Direct glare and hazardous interference will be avoided and site features and access ways will be lighted in a site appropriate manner. The exterior lighting will meet the outdoor lighting standards. G.Common park,open space,or recreation area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD,the following criteria shall be met: 1.The proposed amount,location and design of the common park,open space or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development,considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property,provides visual relief to the property's built form and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2.A proportionate,undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity(not for a number of years)to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3.There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces,recreation areas and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential,commercial or industrial development. No common park, open space, or recreation area has been included in the proposed development. H.Utilities and public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1.Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2.Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities,public facilities,or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. The proposed development will not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and the public will not incur an unjustified financial burden. Any adverse impacts on the public infrastructure will be mitigated. The Applicants have been in contact with various City utility providers and have discussed necessary updates. 1.Access and circulation. (Only standards 1 &2 apply to minor PUD applications) The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible,does not unduly burden the surrounding road network,provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities,and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1.Each lot,structure or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street directly or through an approved private road,a pedestrian way or other area dedicated to public or private use. 2.The proposed development,vehicular access points,and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. 3.Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use,improvements of or connections to,the bicycle and pedestrian trail system and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. Hotel Aspen (PID#273512461800)Page 15 Final PUD,Subdivision and Rezoning 18 June 2013 P152 VII.a 4.The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails,pedestrian and bicycle paths and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. 5.Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. 6.Security gates,guard posts or other entryway expressions for the PUD or for lots within the PUD,are minimized to the extent practical. The proposed development has been designed with great attention to accessibility. The proposed development will not burden the surrounding road network, and provides adequate pedestrian facilities. The proposed development does not employ security gates. Each structure, including the buildings containing the affordable housing units,will have direct access to the public street either by contiguity or through an area dedicated to public or private use. Vehicle access and parking will not create traffic congestion. The recommendations of the AACP and the portions of adopted specific plans, such as the Main Street Historic District guidelines,will be implemented in an appropriate manner. No streets will be located within the proposed PUD and no security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions will be utilized. Sec.26.470 Growth Management Quota System(GMQS). A.Purpose: The intent of growth management is to provide for orderly development and redevelopment of the City while providing mitigation from the impacts said development and redevelopment creates. Different types of development are categorized below,as well as the necessary review process and review standards for the proposed development. A proposal may fall into multiple categories and therefore have multiple processes and standards to adhere to and meet. B. General requirements: All development applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve,approve with conditions or deny an application for growth management review based on the following generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of development: 1.Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development,pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D.Applications for multi-year development allotment,pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet this standard. The applicant will be applying for Major Growth Management review following final PUD and Commercial Design Review approval. Applicants intend to meet the August 15th GMQS deadline. 2.The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. The proposed development is consistent with the newly adopted Aspen Area Community Plan, particular by providing for "entry-level" lodging which will encourage a diverse lodging inventory in the City. 3.The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. The proposed dimensional requirements and limitations will be in conformance with a PUD created under the LP Overlay District. Hotel Aspen (PID#273512461800)Page 16 Final PUD,Subdivision and Rezoning 18 June 2013 P153 VII.a 4.The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval,the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval,as applicable. The proposed development will be consistent with the HPC Conceptual approval, Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval, and Conceptual Major Development approval pursuant to Resolution #14, Series of 2012. 5.Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter,sixty percent(60%)of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development,according to Subsection 26.470.100.A,Employee generation rates,are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4,Affordable housing,at a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation,pursuant to Chapter 26.540,such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate. (Ord.No. 6—2010,§2) The proposed project contemplates lodge development with an average room size of 292 sq.ft. The Property currently contains 45 units. Based on an average of 300 sq. ft. or smaller units being added, mitigation would be required at the rate of 10% of additional employees generated. Employee generation rates are provided in Sec. 26.470.100 and are calculated at the rate of 0.3 employees per lodging bedroom. The existing development contains 444 sq. ft. of affordable housing net livable. This affordable housing is required to be replaced. The addition of nine (9) new lodge units, with an average size of 292 sq. ft. in size would generate 2.7employees or Full Time Equivalents (FTEs), mitigated at a rate of 10%. This would require mitigation of 0.27 FTEs. 6.Affordable housing net livable area,for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade,whichever is higher,shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent 30%)of the additional free-market residential net livable area,for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade,whichever is higher. Similar to the mitigation for the expanded lodge, the free-market net livable area would be mitigated at a rate of 10%of net livable. The 13,149 sq.ft. of residential net livable area would result in 1,315 sq. ft. of required mitigation or the equivalent of 3.29 FTEs. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4,Affordable housing,and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines,as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement("voluntary units")may be deed-restricted at any level of affordability,including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation,pursuant to Chapter 26.540,such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate,utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100 Employee/Square Footage Conversion. (Ord.No.6—2010,§2) Affordable housing provided on site will fully mitigate all new development. In addition to one studio unit intended to replace an existing affordable studio unit currently on site, two (2) one-bedroom Category 2 affordable housing units will be Hotel Aspen (PID#273512461800)Page 17 Final PUD,Subdivision and Rezoning 18 June 2013 P154 VII.a provided. These affordable housing units will mitigate 3.5 FTEs. Existing development requires the mitigation of a total of 3.56 FTEs for the combined residential and lodging development. A cash-in-lieu payment is requested to be made for the remaining .06 FTEs. 7.The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure,or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes,but is not limited to,water supply,sewage treatment,energy and communication utilities, drainage control,fire and police protection,solid waste disposal,parking and road and transit services. (Ord.No. 14,2007,§1) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure as it is a redevelopment of an existing lodge. Sufficient water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services will be designed for and/or accommodated. Modifications to the sanitary sewer system have been discussed and will be incorporated into the redevelopment of the Property. Sec.26.470.070.4. Development of Affordable Housing 4.Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved,approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a.The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. The proposed units will be fully compliant with the Guidelines.of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. b.Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council,pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one(1)full unit,a cash-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation requirement is one(1)or more units,a cash-in-lieu payment shall require City Council approval,pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval of the Community Development Department Director,pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. Ord.No.6—2010,§4) The project will provide fully compliant affordable housing units onsite which will fully mitigate for the existing affordable housing, the expansion of lodge units, and the additional of free-market residential. c.Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent(50%)or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade,whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special Review,Pursuant to Chapter 26.430. (Ord. No. 14—2011,§3) Hotel Aspen (PID#273512461800)Page 18 Final PUD,Subdivision and Rezoning 18 June 2013 P155 VII.a The project will provide fully compliant fully above-grade affordable housing units. d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers,subject to the aforementioned qualifications,with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority,as amended. The proposed units may be rental units,including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization,if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. The affordable housing units associated with this lodge development will be rental units for employees associated with the lodge operation, thus contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. Sec.26.470.080. Major Planning and Zoning Commission applications The following types of development shall be approved,approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission,pursuant to Section 26.470.060,Procedures for review,above and the criteria for each type of development described below. Except as noted,all growth management applications shall comply with the general requirements of Section26.470.050 above. Except as noted,all Planning and Zoning Commission growth management approvals shall be deducted from the respective annual development allotments and development ceiling levels. 2.New free-market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use project. The development of new free-market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use project shall be approved,approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the general requirements outlined in Section 26.470.050 above. 3.Lodge development. The expansion of an existing lodge or the development of a new lodge shall be approved,approved with conditions,or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a.If the project contains a minimum of one(1)lodge unit per five hundred(500)square feet of lot area,the following affordable housing mitigation standards shall apply: 1)Affordable housing net livable area equaling a percentage,as defined in the unit size table below,of the additional free-market residential net livable area shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. 2)A percentage,as defined in the table below,of the employees generated by the additional lodge,timeshare lodge,exempt timeshare units and associated commercial development, according to Paragraph 26.470.100.A.1,Employee generation,shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. As the development proposes an average of 300 sq. ft. or smaller units being added, mitigation would be required at the rate of 10% of additional employees generated. Employee generation rates are provided in Sec..26.470.100 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code and are calculated at the rate of 0.3 employees per lodging bedroom. Hotel Aspen (PID#273512461800)Page 19 Final PUD,Subdivision and Rezoning 18 June 2013 P156 VII.a Sec.26.470.100. Calculations A.Employee generation and mitigation. Whenever employee housing or cash-in-lieu is required to mitigate for employees generated by a commercial or lodging development,there shall be an analysis and credit for employee generation of the existing project,prior to redevelopment,and an employee generation analysis of the proposed development. The employee mitigation requirement shall be based upon the incremental employee generation difference between the existing development and the proposed development. The Property currently contains 45 units. Based on an average of 300 sq. ft. or smaller units being added, mitigation would be required at the rate of 10% of additional employees generated. Per employee generation rates provided in Sec. 26.470.100 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code,employee generation is calculated at the rate of 0.3 employees per lodging bedroom. The existing development contains 444 sq. ft. of affordable housing net livable,which would be the equivalent of a Category 2 studio. This affordable housing which would mitigate 1.25 employees is required to be replaced. The addition of nine (9) new lodge units, with an average size of 292 sq. ft. in size would generate 2.7employees or Full Time Equivalents (FTEs), mitigated at a rate of 10%. This would require mitigation of 0.27 FTEs. Similarly, the free- market net livable area would be mitigated at a rate of 10%of net livable. The 13,149 sq. ft. of residential net livable area would result in 1,315 sq. ft. of required mitigation or the equivalent of 3.29 FTEs. Total affordable housing mitigation required is 3.56 FTEs. The proposed studio unit replaces the existing amount of onsite affordable housing currently found on the site. The two (2) one bedroom units would house the equivalent of 3.5 FTEs. The remaining .06 FTEs are proposed to be paid for via a cash-in-lieu payment. Sec.26.515.030. Required number of off-street parking spaces Off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each use according to the schedule,below. Whenever the off- street parking is subject to establishment by adoption of a planned unit development final development plan, that review shall be pursuant to Chapter 26.445,Planned unit development. Whenever the parking requirement shall be established through a special review,the standards and procedures set forth at Section 26.515.040,Special review standards, below,shall apply. Whenever the parking requirement may be provided via a payment-in-lieu the standards and procedures set forth at Section 26.515.050,Cash-in-lieu for mobility enhancements,below,shall apply. An existing deficit of parking may be maintained when a property is redeveloped. The existing 45 lodge units have no onsite parking, and this represents a deficit of 22.5 spaces. A unique condition exists with considerable head-in public parking currently provided along Garmisch Street. The four (4) new free-market residential units would require one space per unit or four (4) spaces. The eight (8) new lodging units would require four (4) spaces. The proposed plans call for thirteen (13) + two (2) handicapped spaces,which will more than meet the required parking for new development. The parking garage will therefore reduce the demand for public parking along Garmisch Street. 26.575.020.Calculations and Measurements A. Purpose. This section sets forth methods for measuring floor area,height,setbacks,and other dimensional aspects of development and describes certain allowances, requirements and other prescriptions for a range of structural components,such as porches,balconies,garages,chimneys, mechanical equipment,projections into setbacks,etc. Hotel Aspen (PID#273512461800)Page 20 Final PUD,Subdivision and Rezoning 18 June 2013 P157 VII.a The proposed development will utilize the dimensional requirements established in the final PUD Development Plan. The final development plan will clearly define all dimensional requirements within the PUD. The Site Plan made a part of this application represents the final PUD Development Plan. 26.610. Impact Fees Parks Development Fee- Parks Development Fees are estimated to be: Residential Expansion: 9,900 sq.ft.x$5.45=$53,955.00 Hotel expansion: 20,313 sq. ft. (proposed) - 18,993 sq. ft. (existing) = 1,320 sq. ft. x $5.45 = 7,194.00 Estimated total Parks Development Fee-$61,149.00 TDM/Air Quality Fee- TDM/Air Quality Fees are estimated to be: Residential Expansion: 9,990 sq.ft.x$0.61 =$6,093.90 Hotel Expansion: 20,313 sq.ft. (proposed) - 18,993 sq.ft. (existing) = 1,320 sq.ft.x$0.61 =$805.20 Estimated total parks development fee-$6,898.20 While the Land Use Code does not specifically provide any fee waiver provisions for affordable lodging incentives, the Applicant may request the City Council to waive Parks Development and TDM/Air Quality Fees as an economic development incentive. As the redevelopment of the Hotel Aspen will be providing affordable lodging, a type of lodging development called for in the new Aspen Area Community Plan and supported by the City Council, the City Council may wish to subsidize the construction of the project. This waiver would be similar to a waiver that the City Council can provide for the development of affordable housing or other essential public facilities. School Land Dedication Fee- The School Land Dedication fee is estimated to be: Residential Floor Area Students Generated 9,990 sq. ft. first 1,200 sq. ft.x .000064)077 next 900 sq. ft.x .000404) 364 next 1,400 sq. ft.x .000031) 0434 Above 3,500 sq. ft. 0 Total Student Generation 1.1774 Hotel Aspen (PID#273512461800)Page 21 Final PUD,Subdivision and Rezoning 18 June 2013 P158 VII.a Land Dedication Calculation 896 sq. ft.x 1.1774 = 1,054.95 sq. ft. Cash-In-Lieu payment is calculated by taking the market value of the land per square foot multiplied by the total square feet of land to be dedicated multiplied by 33%. Therefore: 6,075,000/27,000 sq. ft.x 1,054.95 sq.ft. x .33 = $78,330 This calculation utilizes an estimated price per square foot of the land at$225. This may be in excess of actual land valuation and would require verification. Because of the condominiumized nature of the property, it was not possible to get a land value appraisal through the Pitkin County Assessor's Office, as would normally occur. 26.710.040.Medium-Density Residential(R-6) A.Purpose. The purpose of the Medium-Density Residential(R-6)Zone District is to provide areas for long- term residential purposes with customary accessory uses. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the Medium-Density Residential(R-6)Zone District are generally limited to the original Aspen Townsite,contain relatively dense settlements of predominantly detached and duplex residences,and are within walking distance of the center of the City. The Property straddles the Mixed-Use (MU) and Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone districts with a Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) impacting the entire parcel. The LP Overlay Zoning District dictates the permitted uses of the Property and provides for a PUD development plan. This plan will generally utilize the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district as the basis for the dimensional requirements. The LP Overlay will dictate the maximum floor area for the free-market residential. 26.710.180.Mixed-Use(MU). A.Purpose. The purpose of the Mixed-Use(MU)Zone District is to provide for a variety of lodging,multi- family,single-family and mixed-use buildings with commercial uses serving the daily or frequent needs of the surrounding neighborhood,to provide a transition between the commercial core and surrounding residential neighborhoods and to provide a variety of building sizes compatible with the character of the Main Street Historic District. The Property straddles the Mixed Use (MU) and Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone districts with a Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) impacting the entire parcel. The LP Overlay Zoning District dictates the permitted uses of the Property and provides for a PUD development plan to be applied to the property. The proposed small lodge and residential development will be consistent with the purpose of the LP overlay zone district. It is also consistent with the MU zone district, which is to provide for a variety of lodging, multi-family, single-family, and mixed use buildings with commercial uses serving the daily or frequent needs of the surrounding neighborhood, to provide a transition between the commercial core and surrounding residential neighborhoods and to provide a variety of building sizes compatible with the character of the Main Street Historic District. Both lodge and free-market multi-family housing are identified as permitted uses in the LP zone district. Hotel Aspen (PID#273512461800)Page 22 Final PUD,Subdivision and Rezoning 18 June 2013 P159 VII.a The proposed PUD will generally follow the dimensional requirements of the Mixed-Use MU) zone district. The Site Plan made a part of this application and which represents the final development plan clearly defines all dimensional requirements within the PUD. As part of the PUD process a variance is requested for floor area of the overall development as well as setbacks from Garmisch Street for the residential structures. Cumulative floor area is proposed to be 38,512 sq. ft. Maximum cumulative floor area in the MU zone district is 33,750 sq. ft. Maximum height of the proposed building is 32.' Maximum height in the MU zone district is 32'. The duplex residential units proposed are 3,133 sq. ft.for two (2) units and 2,640 sq. ft. for the other two (2) units,which is consistent with the R-6 zone district. 26.710.190.Lodge(L) A.Purpose. The purpose of the Lodge(L)Zone District is to encourage construction,renovation and operation of lodges,tourist-oriented multi-family buildings,high occupancy timeshare facilities and ancillary uses compatible with lodging to support and enhance the City's resort economy. Free-market residential units within this Zone District shall be permitted,but not required,to be used as short-term tourist accommodations. The City encourages high-occupancy lodging development in this zone district. Therefore, certain dimensional incentives are provided in this zone district,as well as other development incentives in Chapter 26.470,Growth Management Quota System(GMQS). The Property straddles the Mixed-Use (MU) and Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone districts with a Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) impacting the entire parcel. The LP Overlay Zoning District is proposed to dictate the permitted uses of the Property while the Applicant proposes to apply a PUD specifying the Mixed-Use (MU) and R-6 zone districts as the basis for the dimensional requirements. 26.710.320. Lodge Preservation Overlay(LP)Zone District A.Purpose. The purpose of the Lodge Preservation(LP)Overlay Zone District is to provide for and protect small lodge uses on properties historically used for lodge accommodations,to permit redevelopment of these properties to accommodate lodge and affordable housing uses,to provide uses accessory and normally associated with lodge and affordable housing development,to encourage development which is compatible with the neighborhood and respective of the manner in which the property has historically operated and to provide an incentive for upgrading existing lodges on site or onto adjacent properties. The Property straddles the Mixed-Use (MU) and Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone districts with a Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) impacting the entire parcel. The LP Overlay Zoning District dictates the permitted uses of the Property while the Applicant proposes to apply a PUD generally using the MU zone district as the basis for the dimensional requirements, along with certain PUD variation requests. The proposed small lodge and multi-family residential development are identified as permitted uses in the LP zone district. Hotel Aspen (PID#273512461800)Page 23 Final PUD,Subdivision and Rezoning 18 June 2013 P160 VII.a ATTACHMENT 2—LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: Final PUD Subdivision and Rezoning Location:110 West Main Street,Aspen, CO Indicate street address,lot&block number,legal description. where appropriate) Parcel ID#(REQUIRED) 273512461800 APPLICANT: Name: Hotel Aspen Address: c/o Michael H. Brown, PO Box 5109,Aspen, CO 81612 Phone#: 970-930-1754 REPRESENTATIVE• Narne: Stan Clauson,AICP,ASLA, Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. Address:412 N. Mill Street,Aspen, CO 81611 Phone#:970-925-2323 TYPE OF APPLICATION:(please check all that apply): GMQS Exemption Conceptual PUD Temporary Use GMQS Allotment Final PUD(&PUD Amendment) Text/Map Amendment Special:Review Subdivision Conceptual SPA ESA—8040 Greenline,Stream Subdivision Exemption(includes Final SPA(&SPA Margin,Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane Commercial Design Review Lot Split Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion Residential Design Variance Lot Line Adjustment Other: Conditional.Use EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings,uses,previous approvals,etc.) The subject site is a 27,000 sq.ft. parcel spanning Main Street to Bleeker Street. The property lies partially within the Main Street Historic District, straddles the Mixed Use (MU) and Medium-Density Residential (R-6)zone districts, and has a Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP).The existing lodges contains 45 units which average 372 sq. ft. in size. There are also two deed restricted i PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings,uses,modifications,etc.) The applicant seeks to reconfigure most of the existing lodge units into 54 units so that the units will average 292 sq. ft. in size. Multi-family residential is proposed for the rear of the property. The addition of small lodge units is a stated goal of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Have you attached the following? FEES DUE:$13,495 X Pre-Application Conference Summary X Attachment#1,Signed Fee Agreement X Response to Attachment#3,Dimensional Requirements Form X Response to Attachment#4,Submittal Requirements-Including Written Responses to Review Standards X 3-D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5"X 11"must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text Microsoft Word Format)must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model. P161 VII.a ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Hotel Aspen Final PUD Subdivision and Rezoning Applicant: Hotel Aspen Location: 110 West Main,Aspen , CO Zone District: Mixed-Use (MU), Medium-Density Residential (R-6)with Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) Lot Size: 27,000 sq. ft. Lot Area: 27,000 sq.ft. for the purposes of calculating Floor Area,Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements,and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: 18,454 sq. Proposed: 18,405 sq.ft. Number of residential units: Existing: o Proposed: 4 Number of bedrooms: Existing: o Proposed 16 Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing:23,148 sq. ftAllowable: 33,750 sq. ft.Proposed: 38,512 sq. ft. Principal bldg. height: Existing: 25-30' Allowable: 32'Proposed: 32' Access. bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: On-Site parking: Existing: 0 Required. 8 Proposed: 15 Site coverage: Existing: 82% Required: nta Proposed: 87% Open. Space: Existing: 4,857 sq. ftRequired: 4,857 sq. ft. Proposed: 4,030 sq. ft. Front Setback: Existing: 10' Required: 10' Proposed: 10' Rear Setback: Existing: 30' Required: 5' Proposed: 10' Combined F/R: Existing: 40' Required.- 15'Proposed: 20' Side Setback: Existing: 5'Required: 5' Proposed: 5' Side Setback: Existing: 5'Required: 5' Proposed• 5' Combined Sides: Existing: 10' Required: 10'Proposed: 10' Distance Between Existing 7' Regrired: 10' Proposed: 8'6" Buildings Existing non-conformities or encroachments: None. Variations requested: Cumulative floor area. P162 VII.a ATTACHMENT 4 Hotel Aspen Vicinity nnk Wl- t 4 a; i s, t is x q Ili` N sa, z Fr, x x x ar4 to k `k rt Ilu Now k ..4 Subject Property Hotel Aspen (PID#273512461800) Final PUD,Subdivision and Rezoning 18 June 2013 P163 VII.a Parcel Detail Page 1 of 2 Pitkin County Assessor Parcel Detail Information Assessor Property Search I Assessor Subset OuerX I Assessor Sales Search Clerk&Recorder Reception Search I Treasurer Tax Search Search GIS Map I GIS Help Basic Building Characteristics I Value Summary Parcel Detail I Value Detail I Sales Detail I Residential/Commercial Improvement Detail Owner Detail I Land Detail I Photographs Tax Account Parcel p y 7TYpe 2011 Mill Area Number Number Levy 001 R020975 273512461800 COAREA N 31.653 Primary Owner Name and Address HOTEL ASPEN CONDO ASSOC COMMON AREA 110WMAINST ASPEN, CO 81611 Additional Owner Detail Legal Description Subdivision: HOTEL ASPEN DESC: COMMON AREA Location Physical Address: 11110 W MAIN ST ASPEN Subdivision: HOTEL ASPEN Land Acres: Land Sq Ft: 0 2012 Property Value Summary Actual E Assessed Value http://www.pitkinassessor.org/assessor/parcel.asp?AccountNumber=R020975 13-Sep-12 P164 VII.a Parcel Detail Page 2 of 2 L Land: II OIL CI improvements: 0 7777 Total: E 0 F 0 Sale Date: Sale Price: Additional Sales Detail Basic Building Characteristics Number of Residential 0 Buildings: Number of Comm/Ind 0 Buildings: No Building Records Found Top of Page Assessor Database Search Options Pitkin County Home Page The Pitkin County Assessor's Offices make every effort to collect and maintain accurate data. However, Good Turns Software and the Pitkin County Assessor's Offices are unable to warrant any of the information herein contained. Copyright© 2003 -2012 Good Turns Software. All Rights Reserved. Database &Web Design by Good Turns Software. http://www.pitkinassessor.org/assessor/parcel.asp?AccountNumber=R020975 13-Sep-12 P165 VII.a ATTACHMENT 5 IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT/ TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP OF: THE HOTEL ASPEN - ACON ®® I_/_ IINIUM z A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN BLOCK 58 a CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO I SHEET 1 OF 3 I 111 NEEDSA CHECK ON ASPEN CONTROL PLACEMENT??? 1 M, GRAPHIC SCALE ASPEN CITY MONUMEM Y GARMISH AND FRANOS an R. O. W GPSB 4 yA xjy } 4 : 7zzz I— uaraEtsae w 3x'.' a7 Y_. i' r k, fit$ ,.+.,- A 2r t A ti S w^'& t min- zo n l.. zET as RE An AND - - F jii Pv{ Inc uv o- a + f ypv'4.' ny. Wl w: . 4 DL. Kx 3 w swrF'' h fir' i .\ S f FDUBMrvD J` j - Q tl' w n 1 .;+ h; . N° 45HE y x' F+ FOUND REBM AND CAP L5. 430113 Ilk NOTES VICINITY MAP c 1) DateofSurvey: MAY6- 10, 2C10. PROPEi' TYDESCRIPTION. UPDATED OCTOBER 16, 2012 7 HOTEL A° EN, ACCORDING TO CONDOMINIUM MAP THEREOF RECORDED FEBRUARY 28, 2) Date of Preparation: MAY 2010. 1985 IN cAT BOCK 17 AT PAGE 1 AS RECEPTION NO. 266353 AND AMENDMENT UPDATED OCTOBER 2012. THERETO RECORDED APRIL 21, 1989 IN PLAT BOOK 22 AT PAGE 36 AS RECEPTION NO. 310794 . ND AS DEFINED AND DESCRIBED IN THE CONDOVLNIUM DECLARATION FOR HOTEL P> cEN, A CONDOMINIJM RECORDED FEBRUARY 28, 1985 IN BOOK 482 AT PAGE Basis of Bearing: A bearing of N n X" i 1c nc from the he Southwest ne 43 AS RE ? TION NO. 266352 AND AMENDMENT TOIHE CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION the property, monumented by an ed b concrete and the Southwest corner FOR HO-,,. ASPEN, A CONDOMINIUM RECORDED MARCH 4, 1985 IN BOOK 482 AT PAGE corner of the property, monumented by a found Tri- co rebar and cap. w EE ZTOVr InREe sro 134 AS R ' E PT! 0N NO. 266385 AND SECOND AM EN DMENT TO THE CONDOMINIUM sa\ WOHOTEL ' c 4) Basis of Survey: The Plat of HOTEL ASPEN, according to Condominium Map HorFL E HOTEL DE CLARt ION FOR HOTEL ASPEN, A CDN DO M IN IUM RECORDED APRIL 21, 1989 IN BOOK thereof recorded February 28, 1985 in Plat Book 17 at Page 1 as Reception ss 590 AT P ILE 457 AS RECEPTION NO. 310796. No 266353 and Amendment thereto recorded April 21, 1989 in Plat Book 22 s ufe at Page 36 as Reception No. 310794, various documents of record, and the O a 0SREMRAND Qj CITY AN,' TOWNSITE OF ASPEN found monuments, as shown. VV I COIJNTV OF PITKIN G Vtc s 5) This- survey does not constitute a title search by Sopris Engineering, LLC( Sit) STATE O COLORADO to determine ownership te or easements of record. For all irformation as u regarding ve easements, rights of way and/ or t title le record, m rolled upon the ufc\ above; aid plats described in note 4, and the Title Commitment prepared by ss Stewart Title of Colorado I 41 nc- Aspen Division, File Number 01330- 101, s\ ue effective date of September 19, 2012. Two nos, WOOD FRAME as UfC 6) Basis of elevation: The 2009 City of Aspen Marcin control dat 1m, which is TOTAL AREA 36, 98650. FT. 1 tO based on ar, elevation of 7720. 88'( NAND 1988) on the NGS s- t3' on' S- 159". D szD A- as ue Th¢ established an on site benchmark elevation of 7893 7 0,.[ he Southwest s te Earrer, as shown. rwo T° R Sir uewoND FAA fc OT sa va 7) Contour Interval: One( 1) foot. V" N u. 8) The existing conditions map in no way represents a land survey plat or 1 survey of the shown no- verty vooE T N E NOB \\ ( r WO STORT i W r CM P FOUND REBAR AND GP- TRI{ p Q . BrtC BENCFW9RK EIEV.= I993. 7 M p sag° FeaalNe '` SU_ RV_ EYOR' SCERTIFIC_ ATE_ a I hereby state that this Improvement Survey Plat was prepared by Sopris Engineer' ng, LLC( SE) for the Aspen Hotel and Stewart Title of Colorado, Inc. UTILITY NOTE: furtherrc, ire state that the improvements on the above described parcel on Ir this date OCT 0BfR 16. 2012, except utility connections are entirely within the heendarit ' If the parcel except as shown, that there are no encroachments UNDERGROUND UTILITIES HAVE NOT BEEN LOCATED FOR THIS SURVEY. r2ow` Tm 1 upon the described premises by improvements on an y adjoiningdjoinin g premises, ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE ONLY A POSSIBILITY OF m w except L' indicated, and that there is no apparent evidence or sign of any WHAT MAO BE FOUND IN THE ALLEY CORRIDOR OF IN THE AR L Fouxu ea erne, crossing or burdening any part of said parcel, except as noted. I UTILIZING OTHER SURVEYS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE IN THE AREA. IN COrvcRETE + \ Ed rtherino-, e state that this property is subject to reservations, restrictions, co japan'-, and easements of record or in place. I furthermore state. the relative GENERAL UTILITY NOTES I positiono accuracy of this survey does not exceed 1: 15, 000. 1. The locations of underground utilities have been plotted based on AzPe cm MavuMENr utility maps, construction/ Design plans, other information provided G- 115H AND HOPKINS GPSD by utility companies and actual field locations in some instances. Mark S= eckler L. S. k28643 These utilities, as shown, may not represent actual field conditions. NEEDS A CHECK ON ASPEN CONTROL PLACEMENT??? It Is the responsibility of the contractor to contact all utility companies for field location of utilities prier to construction. SO P R I S_ ENGINEERING —_ LLC CIVIL CONSULTANTS 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 970) 704- 0311 r,: r_ P166 VII.a IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT/ TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP OF: TREE CHART THE HOTEL ASPEN_ - A CONDOMINIUM A A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN BLOCK 58 1 RP N1 R, Rp I' ll 1 11 IUU T 2, R, 1E TRo CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO 11 a. 1 IR 1I, C= 2RTRD 22, R'., RTRIP SHEET 2 OF 3 I I9 X20 TIP '- 3110' g40 10 sl 1E x30 THP fl L' R 30 TRP 41) 15' Y 30' TO 118"% 161110 aCI I0 , I, I A P. I R' X' 6 T- 4911U' Y. 20' TRP UtS.+ y' S I PC, K 1 9111. 9 TA, I Rp SET 3. d' WL L18' x 16 IRO x p U M5 REEAR AND I, l F 11- IG TRP ], 3, 1]" x 3' TRO K a3 v` ED S co fE£' T GRAPHIC SCALE 121 E A 4 TRn 1 3 111 e C VERECI I p 3gpE G5I 13110'% 20 LRP - 1 T C STAIRWELL CIE I%4(K 6] SS_ g" 96 S lac 9 r IGx+ 2 uV 5113 Y3 TR0 O n 1- B @5. J I VtXS Y s z n rq0 I w b U P o r IN FEET) ft IQ G' xrRP Rn x3 = p C/ i6 ` S J- 1 Tee' C 47 11n m J9 > a9S1 r 716N 12 iNP X51 3 O U \ ROOF 2' 48 i ER IFV\ 0 ERngNG '(' Ff\ 1016X1+ IRO 13') 11 T1. CONCREjE r Te9q nLEVER 191ez321R0 I U o r9N c a a sA A1 Ip P p5 E EVE EAPE 4REq i jTIO pE4N, L., ( 9p<. o P4 FA x4, E uVAU W 50 TWO STORY w WOOD FRAME a e9s. 1 i OsyPE T9 OqA SAR cE a m U S- HOTEL PA hp , 9MR LEVEL E4 it 289s. 1 SB q //" A/ Il UK1( PATroN C4PE a1 a AT h y U SS C rI v O Wti e iF O c S 895, 2 SS \ TWO STORY WOOD FRAME 52 oNCRAE wA( K pE SV. z x HOTEL EXISTING CONDITIONS LEGEND L CATS 3 \ NnoN( EP gOAPp GATE T" CATV RED FENCE 894. 8 1899. 9 Yo- 3 53 SS 11 e5 ESTAL n S4 M TELEPHONE PEDESTAL B 3 2Np STORT 1MFR1 j ED ELECTRIC METER e9A.] v Y \/ u1unL£ VEq sT STpBAGE pR spNCRETF ] SB e. tY IiJ ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER 0 C pC J9 g. wAiKW4Y J H' af VERHUa N 8]5 9' L Y ' r 55 SEWER R9SEW ER MANHOLE wuwr TOTAL AREA 26, 9B65O. F. As CURB STOP OSUPPORT d 670 ACY 23 COLUMN WATER VALVE POOL D WATER HYDRANT 1894 71 CAS METER k 3 CONCRETE 5T IA1-- IINOER pplygLy TREE WELL a BOARp FENOE WATER MANHOLE 22 J DRYWELL i' a'--- I CON, 7 TELEFHONE MANHOLE RIVER ROIX /_ HOT A np P cowNIN InP. I T° u TI. m MANHOLE p9A> N 5 "° TWO STORY A 7 _ 4E DRAIN NLET a Ea`' WOOD Fi1AME m 4 a ROAD SIGN 3- Q _ \ 11 11 As HOTEL y 20 f Gp CANTREVER i Q i COA• C X 73J4. 0 4 33 ANDS P4NO SPOT ELEVATION x GPE Oi 8 10 z w FF= 790J. 0 FINISH FLOOR EIfVATION a94. s4 Wp"' C" p 899. 8 OS 58 12 ( AN FEN[ E 1 CONIFERTREE z] PS3s' C FENCE 1 h E.— Rii No , C¢ AF E10' 4 o CAT 1 Z" 05 ' CROSSCONCRETE " PN p DECIDUOUS TREE SITE BENCH— I, Wes_ ... 11E ING 7 T, b 6 s e9393' M] 893. u ' - L RIVER ROC% uN W \ n MNEY 4 n 8951 znosrogr d 59 ANOS[ APE GNLEVER Jy J6' E, B co ETEx 3 RrvERROOK a a' 1 roNcNCU UTILITY NOTE: I\ CROSS PAN 4rypSC4P RIBBON CURB a' cowNgR lTVV. I J UNDERGROUND UTILITIES HAVE NOT BEEN LOCATED FOR THIS SURVEY. 3) RSS. 3e' tr Y j lJ ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE ONLYA POSSIBILITYOF 2 N ER 1 t ei3. n' WHAT MAY BE FOUND IN THE ALLEY CORRIDOR OF BLOCK 58. STREET UTILIZING OTHER SURVEYS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE IN THE AREA. 1 q] eaaw ANOSyA POSSIBLE APPROXIMATE UNDERGROUND UTILITY LEGEND cpN® ETE LO( elA, E A] e93. s c u t= '= UNDERGROUNDTELEPHONE FOUR-^ x• UNDERGROUND CABLE IN Cp31CNETE J w-- I,.— UN DERGROUNO ELECTRIC 4 IRO R, 4R ten— UNDERGROUND SEWER LINE ASnry() tU Act osgPE 7 o - 9— UNDERGROUND GAS LINE NE W \ W \ GENERAL UTILITY NOTES: SOP_ R_ IS_ ENGINEERING_ LL_ C W I. The locations of underground utilities have been platted based on CIVIL CONSULTANTS- utility maps, construction/ design plans, other information provided by utIIItY companies and actual field locations in same instances. 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 These utilities, as shown, may not represent actual field conditions. CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 it is the responsibility of the contractor to contact all utility 970) 704- 0311 companies for field location of utilities prior to construction. P167 VII.a IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT/ TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP OF: THE HOTEL ASPEN - A CONDOMINIUM A PARCEL OF LAND SIT UATED IN BLOCK 58 CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO SHEET 3 OF 3 W 30 W FpuNo TREE CHART AsnHAW )) a W GRAPHIC SUALE p AE I I I- 11P/ r a s; sETNSREsnccAP 31 x] 9s3.' ae' Rf EAR u vussnc av Z u b, TI. :) J x3 TRU GATE 32 IN FEET) 1 ch= 10 rl. a, R U W n° 33 Aorlo IlrtrEx Ra a 1P c lac wr W 34 1p PC 3 JO P! 18' T1r 11) 13X30' 111 E R[ 3. " IRU 1e1 c Ir' nay InND$ GRE 35 x] esi' x- 3' . Ir0 a9110' X10' T1r IRUN %] R94. V 33 f110 ) R'% 1U FENCE 11) H\ G TRD x] 89AZ9' ll YYYaaa / // 11 0 x. r1E 37 y 4ti 16 FT c s iND 3 x7890. 30 o", x] 89A3R IIA/ N/ p LS X301] 3 f E) Z c 3" xl TP. FENCE GATE 3' IP0 3z Ian 4 29 CONCR c ,,. FO vIZ n. rnl x] e x] R9Aer ° ETE ENCLOSED W K STAIRWELL 6 pNO 2$ 6 3 66 ss IIlT a I aN" fEwA 6 PRIFENCE. APUj V , J 1 h"* 38 NCE X73- 9' na np XR9 4N lA3m _ UPPER LEVEL 42 E s.: UPPE f 39 iA 62 w oRY 61 W ° 5 TOTAL AREA 40 CANT R 3 S 26, 986 50. FFf 22 EXISTING CONDITIONS LEGEND 27 wN. 0 WE U CHIMNEY ' D. 620 ACt 0.)' FLo CHASE d- T1j r CAN PEDESTAL b 66 4 J F, eyyS l V 43 ONCRETE IRRON ClIRO L`I TELEPHONE PEDESTAL 26 X] e9a ro ?> - a A FP ROARO ELECTRIC METER h' ,:° g 1 FENCE ITYP) IR 5L CT CTP. ANSFORMFR Sx m SEWERCLEA NOUT 25 P aT/ o a SEW FR MANHOLE W o W k> f 256¢ THREESTORY : hie R9s, 1 z r. - 74. L` C ti WOOD FE c g nano, // xza9sz THREE STORY U 44 1{ i WATER VALVE FENCE GATE 3 BASEM W ENT WOOD FRAME 5' o WATER I- IYDR4NT 3RO5TORY 3 / HOTEL y - CROU PAN GAS METER ELECTRIC MANHOLE Ut E f W5Nk N44fl p. f WATER MANHOLE 0 DRYWELL sET 013p' w. G m P e s 45 3 TELEPHONE MANHOLE e REe ANO _ UtlC j J 4 la p UTILITY MANHOLE E T G3 2p 2' j " n lol O far° y A' ROADSIGN J M. / I R- p 3RpRfo t v f• SAFETY LIGHT e - STaIRWFLL STOiL4, 311O WAF` 9RIplE 9 66 6 x/ soa. D svor ELEVATION z5 e $ B e 3 3 ° UTILITY NOTE: cF 79050 FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION P ERs a_/'' - 7 1I It 4747 f °' UNDERGROUND UTILITIES HAVE NOT BEEN LOCATED FOR THIS SURVEY. All re9'' A ALL ON UTILITIES SHOWN ARE ONLY POSSIBILITY OF CONIFER TIFF 1 g` s lli ( k ay 2, 48 ) R9s. z - a WHAT MAY BE FOUND IN THE ALLEY CORRIDOR OF BLOCK 58. RN wG / . co"',"" ply:, 4 UTILIZING OTHER SURVEYSTHATHAVE BEEN DONE IN THEAREA. DECIDUOUSTREE WI' fW I DSTURY e, $ S A7W. nIEVER G1- 4Rfa ° ` POSSIBLE APPROXIMATE UNDERGROUND UTILITY LEGEND oEa I Cy, ss' 3 uF— u1— UNDERGROUNDTELEPHONE s naos4pf Q PovncY w 50 ue— ue— UNDERGROUND CABLE GRq" I Ut w— UNDERGROUNDELECfRIC quZRLEVEL lC n— n— UNDERGROUND 5EWER LINE 1r_ KUn n UNDERGROUND WATER LINE os 5B< / u ,/ j/ ilo_. f s tie UtC, u9 9— UNDERGROUND GAS LINE 5 utc s s95. Z a GENERAL UTILITY NOTES: SO P R I S ENGINEERING — LLC tie 1. The locations of undergrourd utilities have been plotted based or utility maps, construct on/ design plans, other information provided CIVIL CONSULTANTS by utility companies and actual field locations in some instances. 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 These utilities, as shown, may rot represent actual field cord Rions. It is the responsibility of the contractor to contact all utility CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 companies for field location of utilities prior to construction. 970) 704- 0311 P168 VII.a ATTACHMENT 6 GARMISCH ST. 1 PROPEKY NNE d d d° e I d d IO d I EXISTING HOTEL d EXISTING HOTEL J j FOOTPRINT FOOTPRINT El EXISTING HOTEL a FOOTPRINT I a w o I I a lJJ I I Z L4 d a aa d¢ I a EXISTING HOTEL FOOTPRINT a EXISTING HOTEL FOOTPRINT j a° I l I_ III a I I LA I EXISTING SITE PLAN 1 SCALE 3/ 32= 14)' HOTEL ASPEN 1 10 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 P0 S s SCHEMATIC DESIGN : EXISITNG CONDITIONS SITE PLAN c6u0 5 sE t MA N IT- } AEN 60 o B BI1 10 20 to E A100 7 oxs ass IE1 etoie xes 02m2 P169 VII.a C ---------------------------------------------------------- I 4 n n n n n n u IJ — — — - - JL - - f1 n I IL_ — — — — — — JL — — — — — — JL— — — — — — - jL I II I I II I I I I I II I I I I F — — I I II I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I II 1 I I I I I I I II I I I I I F_ —'- I I II I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I U U U U U LL I I I L — — — — — — — — — — — — - J I I I MECHANICAL I I I I I I I I 00- 711 , sa•- 5 Uz' 29'- a' 1 I I I I I I F J I I t I I I PROPERTY LINE — — — _ — I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I L -- - - - - - - - - - 1 I 6--- EXISTING FLOOR PLAN - LLl HOTEL ASPEN 1 10 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 8161 1 poss SCHEMATIC DESIGN : EXISTING FLOOR PLAN - LOWER LEVEL 0 B 16 32 Al 01 S E Si AIN BiREET ASPf ORA00 ( f 1 8 1 0 0 3 2 d] S S( F) e] 0 0 0 0 RBSO 0 20) 2„„ G, ti" , r 06/ 14/ 13 P170 VII.a o.- s 112 -—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-— 14' 4" 144" 14'- 4" Id' d" 6" 13' 9" 25. 7' O GUEST R4 GUEST ° TERRACE; ROOM ' I I GUEST GUEST GUEST o ROOM ROOM GUEST ROOM GUEST LOBBY/ C ROOM ROOM FRONT DESK 9'- d" u i H GUEST RM GUEST El O TERRACE ROOM y 0 El I I OFFICE El GUEST RM, GUEST TERRACE' ROOM El Q I I I up ROOM ROOM GUEST GUEST ROOM ROOM ROOM I GUEST Rtd GUEST GUEST GUEST TERRACE: ROOM ROOM ROOM ADMIP] ISTRATICN Y y I I I I I i 1 I I VENDING O______ O---------_ 00 __- 0 P O, I r, ION UP AFFORDABLE GUEST HOUSING W ROOM UNIT N I I GUEST POOL 1 69'- I I/ z ROOM TERRACE 21•- 4" B' d I I z I I II w I O GUEST 1 ROOM POOL PROPERTY NNE I II I I I 1 GUEST ROOM I HOT TUB POOL MECH 1 EXISTING FLOOR PLAN — Ll SCALE 1/ 9 I. p HOTEL ASPEN 110 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FOSS so, ER01 1 SiRfET A ETI GTOiO] 15f( f) PX B3O0 ] 0R 5o0 o SCHEMATIC DESIGN EXISTING FLOOR PLAN — LEVEL 1 06/ 14/ 13 A102 P171 VII.a 24 8 I BUSINESS GUEST El a CTR. y c ROOM j Y o GUEST GUEST m GUEST GUEST ROOM ROOM ROOM ROOM GUEST H -_ ROOM DN OP, E- N TO q O LIE O DN El m ROOM Z I m =q x I o I N up LL O 0 r GUEST o ROOM y O m I U 0 I DINING ROOM/ GUEST GUEST yGUEST GUEST LOUNGE ROOM ROOM ROOM ROOM o O GUEST GUEST v DN m GUEST U ROOM ROOM ROOM I uq I I a I CLOS. CLOS. I I iP I up DN GUEST ROOM O I GUEST ROOM O I 0 I I GUEST ROOM I I I I I I DN GUEST j\ PROPER Y LINE _.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ROOM I O I I I GUEST ROOM I I 1 EXISTING FLOOR PLAN — L2 SCALE 1/ 8'= 1-0" HOTEL ASPEN 1 10 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 p0ss q 71E i9 t' y 1 hi kl fi05 EAST d1N SHEET . EX, o R oa , ,,, o a 16 32 S C H E M A T I C DESIGN : EXISTING FLOOR PLAN — LEVEL 2 E„ H, , „ r HH , , o 0201: t,, z" rules. 06/ 14/ 13 A103 P172 VII.a I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 DECK DECK DECK DECK Z_ 51. 11 2 - V- 6 u I I 35'- 9 1/ Z' 4 X" 14 m 4" 14' 4" 14' 4' 14' 4" I I ROOF I GUEST GUEST GUEST GUEST ROOM ROOM ROOM ROOM 0 0 Ll DN ROOF I LLUUII o 0 o I U U I I I I I 3 Z I I I UP I I I I GUEST ROOM I BALCONY I I I I I I I I I I` P R O P E R) Y LINE _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I I I I I I I I i I 11L I 1 EXISTING FLOOR PLAN - L3 SCALE I/ 8"= 1-0' HOTEL ASPEN 110 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 8161 poss 0 B 16 32 C H E M A T ., c -- SIGN : EXISTING FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 3 A104 BOS F ST 41N 5 [ ET SPfX O10 X100 B 8 1 Ii70] 0 ]! 4] 311]) 0) 0/ ZO 0! 0 0 2012 X„” cs w , x 06/ 14/ 13 P173 VII.a GARMISCH ST. PROPOSED STREET PARKING III o „ I I E PROPERTY LANE RS PRO PLA y I POSED Ni PROPOSED PLANTERS r _ CANOPY ABOVEPROPOSED PROPOSED Ir-" I II YARD III N PROPOSED GROUND- LEVEL II, HOTEL FOOTPRINT PROPOSED COLUMNS o! *! PROPOSED GROUND LEVEL S it MARKET HOUSING FOOTPRINT UP I III PROPOSED PROPOSED GROUND- LEVEL YARD HOTEL FOOTPRINT PROPOSED GROUND- LEVEL I HOTEL FOOTPRINT I ' N PROPOSED i Y W GROUND- PROPO W SE I Z LEVEL AHU PROPOSED GROUND- LEVEI ELEVATOR m FOOTPRINT HOTEL FOOTPRINT C PROPOSED r ____________ c I YARD y I tI II II PROPOSED GROUND- LEVEL FREE jI MARKET HOUSING FOOTPRINT I EXISTING POOLTERRACE I i I I Ili I PROPOSED P I YARD PROPOSED GROUND- LEVEL PROPOSED HOTEL FOOTPRINT TRASH/RECYCLING/ tn EXISTING POOL UTILITY _ LIGHT_ WELL_ RYP. 1 I I I I EXISTING? I HOTTUB, L I PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1 SCALE HOTEL ASPEN 1 10 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 8161 1 poss I I 6 fA M.! X 7 STREET A } I n K 0 10 a0 SCHEMATIC DESIGN : PROPOSED CONDITIONS - SITE PLAN Tn Y i ! llFly Tao 1 oa A200 O 2012 06114/ 13[, -.. YF,. w 6 P174 VII.a E----- 1 MEDIA/ 3 MUD FAMILY ROOM t -- Up AREA OF RESCUE ASSISTANCE v gR II MECH O O 0 BATH yl I BATH ti r I UP m - , y_.__ I ..:... GARAGE 15 PARKING SPACES MECH. J O . I jj L' BONUS I BATH E AUNO./ i I aO'- 7' B' d" IB 0" da 0 t o MUD i r i 1 RAMP 27. 0" UP I STORAGE/ELEVATOR MECHANICAL LIGHT WELLS I ABOVE U I e2 F I EL ION it I' I I I nv[ nor vrscu I NIUR r — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - STORAGE I - - BONUS I I I MECH. UP OF EMPLO LOCKERS GE i liii \ HOUSEKEEPING/ LAUNDRY LO K I I BATH MECH BATH MLIN UP Tk BD MEDIA/FAMILY ROOM w muu/ MECHANICAL LJ I I I N s i\ LIGHT W ELL PROPERTY UNE — ( rYP. I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I FLOOR PLAN - LL1 E. nIM- — — — — ---------------------- T IED HOTEL ASPEN 110 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 pons / Ar SCHEMATIC DESIGN : PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LOWER A201 0 B 16 02 8 5 ENS MAIN fEi ' SPIN, LOI. RNXf1 611 LEVEL O: ou 06/ 14/ 13 IT) 910,. X5 4) 55 1{ 1 X) 0/. 30 ] X50 P175 VII.a Y CANOPY ABOVE DG--_-_-_----_ _--__—_—_--__—___--_ :.---— 5 - CANOPY COLUMNS' fYP. I 0.- 9 16'- o1/ T' 5'. 3" I'- d" 9'- 7' 13' 6" 13'- 6" 1J' 6" 13 6' 9.- B" 6'- 1" II'- B" 4- 6.. d'- 7 16.- 0' BDR I t2 GUEST y ENTRY 1 DN I NIA- f TGUEIT GUEST L I GUEST _ GM ROOM 1 ROOM RDOM ' ROOM E* rzl OFFICE a I, BDRM# 1 laz IDd 1- 1- 1, 1oa - a I o i a up DIN W YARD I I a BA BATH BDRM# 3 I ADMIN FRONT DESK I UP E1 rtroN novnc 4 ENTRY 1 BDRM# 2 I l STORAGE OFFI E RESTROOM RESiROOM I m BDR # 1 STUDY O P AHOUSIN. E RWMI j GUEST -_- 1 GUE51 I MEETING STUDIO 1 ROOOM I, YARD G UNIT l lo] I 401 NETSF r i l RESTAURANT e U MTCHE BAR i V I W El 10R BATH O I I a M# m li 1 BDRI 1 BATH(::[ i I I I STUDY o 7D 5'- d" W 9.. 7 D" 5- 0' 23- U' N YARD O A l 11v BDRM# 2 1. r I A: ENTRY D F— AA 1 UP DN ' l _ AFFORDABLE S 115 I HOUSING UNIT 1 BEDROOM 603 NET SF BnTH I tl # UP N eATH BDRM# 3 I ST MECB/ I ul I BDRM# 1 DN I GUM ENTRY YARD a AHU up 1 ROOM HIN116 N METAL SCREENS RYP.) I, PATIO BDRM# 2I. j - BAT J 11 GUEST TRASH/ ROOM n O D RECYCLING/ E- UTILITY T9 c' - RAMP 15' 3" 6'- Z DN l I LIGHT WELL _ _ _ _ _ - _ - ERTYLINE nP., 1 GUEST ROOM I I 118 I I I 6 ___ PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN — L1 HOTEL ASPEN 110 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 posy 1, yI T E ? { ' e + a y SCHEMATIC DESIGN : PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 1 X02 609 EIS' MXIN STREET RSPEX COL 81611 o 5 16 32 T) eTO/ 9¢ s d9ss nl fiY9i6: o ¢ e I o Osmt tayE..,,: cr;. w. n, 06/ 14/ 13 P176 VII.a o CANOPY A VE 2a'- 0 1/]" _ d 4 - 9 T _ _ S' 6" _ 3' b" I]'- 6" m 13- 6" _ 5 0' _ _ 3 4._ _ - 13' 9" OPY4 0fi UM iS R 2____ __ i6.- 9_____ s CAN 10•- O' d9' 9. I G DECK i- T.... m_ 7 F' _ ROOM I N_ I I I 1 ROO M I ROOM ADA GU ES. p- ORAOG-O UMEqDINING LIVING GIST I GUEST G ROOM ROOM I t UP DN I E L_ l I KITCHEN PDR 1 _ I I u L l IA 11— L I DN y 1 o ' R CItJ REMOVE[ n 5, m N alcowM 2 it UP DECK m ROOM... RAM ro GUEST „~ GUEST GUEST 1V ROOM 1 DINING LIVING ROOM cuesr I euESi I Roo KITCHEN L XSKP I I 1 I F ROO m'. -... l. ' ... y I I A ROOM M I 4 ELE TOR 1I GUEST KITCHEN m v J W Roots ' 7 I zldc DECK DINING LIVING ROOM I IDP GUEST m ct AXOUS NGLE 215 a GGUEST ROOM 219 s DN O UNIT a 1 643NET SF KITCHEN UPDR STUDY A I I it UP ON I r i GUEST....ROOM UP 216 I DINING Pa- LIVING DECK GUEST ns6," x I ROOM GUEST 1 220 i ROOM 217 n I ON 9I I t I PROPERTY L114E a I ESTGUUEST s q ROOM 21B I I PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - L2 1 SCALE 1 16'= 1-0" HOTEL ASPEN 110 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 p OVV , 9 d c 4 Ii Via .! i w SCHEMATIC DESIGN : PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 2 A203 0 5 16 32 605 E T MAIN STREET ASPEN. GOLORA00 61611 2011` r. T' xrz : c Piiwr. o.[ 06/ 14/ 13 1 T) 6] O/ 6l5 IT551T 1 6] 0/ 0203050 P177 VII.a r Z• 5 13.- 6. 2P- 5 zz- 3ur y GUEST I I 3A6 GUEST l MASTER aoa MASTER GUEST gVEST! 1 4 ROOM 310 F , 1 MASTER SLEEPING GUEST PECK I f I ROOM MASTER I___. .-'_ GUEST 11I a I BATH _ E6. L _ I 111 O a ROq l, DN Dew [ _ r I h II•... I„_. 1__ 11 i__ I DECK 1 Ill, r u I r 1, DOOM II N DECK MASTER.:. DN MASTER 1 I iG303T I'.... I ROOM ...: o IRO M GUEST O GUEST I I BATH MASTER SLEEPING ROOMI ROOM I - I 1 .. J I 307 I .- ® ~. O O w 313 I II I I 63l f L' I ,,• CLOSE T r l I roll GUEST ELE TOR 31d J i I m r CLOSET: j: MASTER 1 SLEEPING v MASTER TIN BATHH I [ DECK 21- I IY_ 13- 9" 1 I 1 c L A 11 ll 9 1 i GUEST DECK m6 3 Z ROOM 315 m I GUEST 1 L I 4 ElEV. I III ASBiHR MASTER MASTER SEEPING ,.- GUEST SLE I,.. 316 i GUEM ROOM_ ucE GUEST I I 4 DECK 320 ROOM a r 317 j. TIN w i u I i I i\ PROPERTY LINE a GUEST a ROOM I FLOOR PLAN - L3 1 SCALE 1/ B 1 HOTEL ASPEN 110 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 8161 ' DESIGN : PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 3 A204 poss SCHEMA o 2012 06114/ 32 I6 TISBJRO/ 0 AI SL) 59EITf1010 G 20L 2R 050 81811 P178 VII.a RESIDENTIAL LMRS BEYOND ALUMINUM CLAD WINDOW SYSTEM METAL PANEL$ TOMG VERTICAL WOOD RAM SCREENSIDMG ELEVATOR OVERRUN BEYOND NEW STONE VENEER VERTICAL WOOD SIDING METAL SUN SHADE/ SCREEN EXISIING OR TO MATCH EXISTING) a- MY Wftsv c lam GLASS CANOPY PAWED STEEL COLUMN O- m a. PERFORATED METAL RAM SCREEN BLRLDING STGNAGE IA. m a i VERTICAL WOOD GUARDRAIL 2 OTEL- SOUT H MAIN ST. a PERFORATED METAL RAM SCREEN VERTICAL WOOD RAIN SCREEN SIDING METAL PANEL VERTICAL WOOD RARINGKCREENSYSTEM ELEVATOR SHAFT Lo Now4 L4 ST4` i 4! 4!» gl air+Qi t eM i VERTICAL WOOD SIDING ARCHITECTURAL CONCRETE LBEHMD WOOD SCREEN) MVING OR TO MATCH EXLSTING) ELEVATION- HOTEL- NORTH HOTEL ASPEN 110 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 POSS ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING SCHEMATIC DESIGN : PROPOSED ELEVATIONS- HOTEL- 0 r i. u All 101 . r.... rr • r NORTH 8 SOUTH o I= OEUTarT3 A300 rr .,. 11l. 1r/.! r l... P179 VII.a c++ IMwv GLASS GUARORAR. METAL CLAD WNDOW SYSTEM 10.. NIML ra+ 6SLS4ei y IMyo" 1 r l SLIDING METAL HORQOMAL WOOD CLAD DOOR SYSTEM \ RAIN SCREEN SIDING STONE VENEER 2 E IION- RIS IDINC B- SO UIH DECORATIVE METAL SIDING METAL METAL CLAD WINDOW SYSTEM GUARDRAIL HORIZONTAL WOOD VERTICAL WOOD SCREEN RAINSCREENSIDING OVER WINDOW SYSTEM STONE VENEER D l TIO N - RE IIDEN CII- NORIH ILIE KIRII. HOTEL ASPEN 110 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 POSS ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING SCHEMATIC DESIGN : PROPOSED ELEVATIONS- RES. A301 L, t .. L. I. TlI ...,, w,..... a.., NORTH & SOUTH ;:: °, ..: 0& 14/ 13 1„., ll 111.,.. 111.,....•.... P180 VII.a METAL PANEL SITING ELEVATOR OVERRUN IEYOND SLIDING METAL CLAD DOOR SYSTEM GLASS CANOPY METAL SUN SHADHSCREEN VERTICAL WOOD RAIN SCREEN SITING PER METAL RAIN SCREEN METAL SITING PAINTED STEEL COLUMN ALUMINUM CLAD WINDOW SYSTEM SLIDING ALUMINUM CLAD DOOR SYSTEM 4 1. 2Lw+ V SfOTEvENEER—" PERFORATED METALRAN SCREEN VERTICAL WOOD fORNis WASS GUARDRAIL IDNG SIGNAGE tEXISTING OR 10 MATCH EXWWG) METAL CLAD WINDOW SYSTEM RU 2 ELEVATION- EAST GARMISCH ST. Sc- u IT• ra VERTICAL WOOD RAN SCREEN ADRNG METALSONG METAL PANEL SIDING METAL SUN SHADElSCREEN rSUDM METAL ELEVATOR OVERRUN REYOND J CLAD DOOR SYSTEM M — — — — — — ALUMINUM CLAD WINDOW SYSTEM— —° fl In 2- min" 10+ Ai IRL J^ — =° 33• V ER9TI9C1 A L WOOD SIDING L METAL CLAD WINDOW SYSTEM PERFORATED METAL DOOR Sc.. a,..• G OR TO MATCH EWINGi GARAGEDOOR VERTICAL WOOD GUARDRAIL STONE VENEER METAL DOOR TRASH ENCLOSURE ELEVATION- WEST ALLEY St4!: 1/ S 1' Q HOTEL ASPEN 110 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ARCHITECTURE + PLANNfNG SCHEMATIC DESIGN: PROPOSED ELEVATIONS- EAST 83 A3Q2 POSS WEST 7313: : . 06114113 n St93• 619 nnlr Wit 393auu 9, 936 111636/ 936- 114 111! 3!, 939 2610 P181 VII.a ORTHOPAEDIC DESIGN WORKSHOP TYROLEAN LODGE ASSOCIATES LL, GARMISCH ST. FIRST ST. 3 110N- MAIN STREET COMPOSITE MOLLY GIBSON LODGE YELLOW BRICK SCHOOL — r j BLEEKER ST. BASKETBALL COURT MAIN$ T. 2 ELEVATION- GARMISCH STREET COMPOSITE wut:,. ma Fr7i - MOWN_ FIRST ST. GARMISCH ST. 1 ) I tTIQN BLEEKER STREET COMPOSITE HOTEL ASPEN 110 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING SCHEMATIC DESIGN : PROPOSED ELEVATIONS- STREET 8303 POSS a oo SCENES 06) 14113 cots.. ie n„ r P182 VII.a illiq 1 CORNER OF MAIN AND GARMISCH, LOOKING .- VIEW- HOTEL ASPEN 110 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO : ARCHITECTURE POSS P183 VII.a VIEW- BLEEKER. LOOKING SOUTHEAST VIEW- CORNER OF BLEEKER AND GARMISCH, LOOKING HOTEL ASPEN 110 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 POSS ' ' PLANNING P184 VII.a ii METAL( BRONZE) CLAD CANOPY SCREEN EXAMPLE WINDOW EXAMPLE GLASS GUARDRAIL i y EXAMPLE ALUMINUM CLAD WINDOW EXAMPLE PERFORATED METAL METAL SUN SHADE/ BALCONY SCREEN EXAMPLE SURROUND EXAMPLE 7yyMR' i jj VERTICAL WOOD RAIN 1. 4 STONE VENEER SCREEN& SIDING EXAMPLE M` PIVOTING DOOR EXAMPLE EXAMPLE l A HOTEL. ASPEN 110 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 SCHEMATIC DESIGN : PROPOSED EXT. BUILDING MATERIALS p306 POSS ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING 06! 1413 P185 VII.a CORRAL REs. VNENCL DECK DECK ENCL CIRC. CORM• Rl. CORM• Rte' GARAGE ANN LEGEND lEYfi COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL NON• VHrI { EXEMPT) ( EXEMPT) CltC. ( STAIRS EX.) mom MECN• 3roRAGe 3TORAGR FLOOR AREA CALCULA NS GROSS) LOWER DSF OR OSF OR ` OR OSF 565f 3735E OR S9fF OR OfF OfF-- EXEASPn coMALETIC1Al 941 IF 11 O SF 443 SF ow O fF 493 IF 1 IOWARLE SGVAU1021AG_ E OfF OfF OR ( w 941 4SF EX.) 1 " IF I I 1 1 RESIDEMIAL ._-_ 1. 01 ite FIRST 0. 859 IF O SF O SF—— 1111 I I I I t ) AFFORDARE NOLW*_ Com nercial ato le I./ Y SF 77 fF - Ow 174 IF O Si O fF O SF 1 I OR OR )• 4413FEX) 1 1 I 1 I COR4MERCIAIDECK Totalonl0owoblebuldnDarea fKONO & 416 IF OR IF 46OSf 1- r M3Sf OSF 7331 OSf OSF OSF 1 1 I RESKTET4INLDECK 717 IF OR I OR ) w74IFIX) 1 OfF 1 I 1 I I itookAREACAICULA11 THIRD 1. 710 SF OSF OR I 1 1 1 I I C* CIMTION i 8. 993 SF OR O 1074 iF SB fF o SF ) 4. 39 SFlX. 1 D k O fF M7 l _ ; I I I CW* Irnercid 0S fIJ fYR OR ). SS7 fF EX.) ( r S73 SF i1LE. l I I I 1 I LiMaj LOSM CRCIRATION Non Unita 101A1 F6. 990 SF 0 SF O IF ) 977 IF El4) ) O SF E1L) 0 SF r _ T _ -. r- - r - - F • I I I rl 1'• COmmerdol Deck( EXEMPT) O SF COAy, LERCLAL. MLCNMACAL Residential Dack IEXEMFT) DSF IOTALFAR 451ABSF T L _ - _ ` - J 1 05F i_- - - - - w J _ _._ RESIOENMtrAECNANICAI - Endosad CYCUhUan Vnencbred Circulation 2. 874 8 SF COMMERCMtfTORAGE Ca", em mechWcd SF Refldenlldµ echonkal 690 SF I I I REfDEWNALf10RAGE` Comw rcld Storage II 7A Rasidenl{ o{ S10raDe OSF j 1 AG GamOe O SF oo i I) wit AtlordabteHoulml; 493 SF tolAlraR z4. 14RSr M T x ROOM COUNT: 1 1 1 ILI 0 I 1 1 LI 20 L. -- - - - - - JJ t? 70 L3 TotAt toOMS 45 04F PLAN- LL1 sow nn. r. rnvb w trr.. ae sr rn4 ul. rl. t S L rnwulrctu rowwl. cui rn 7A13Y r57DY SOrrY L sp DgS App ILLY Im Y IF InwN[ toStn v MC' 1 Mlb rrr.,,,,— unrvn ru. w. eunr flAtl w.. wrtl iJ. V 1. 11—. Hr. rCtnam r•, In. irow f__ : 1.:.: J r.. r uu. r,, V Lie 21IF t. rlw i 3 rl l V Yl LmLmy UcL H_ s=. roww N j jlj - lrrlrwr' I n! tb t) 1 ew. wawnr OV OOin si= 1 imp FLOOR PLAN- L3 FLOOR PLAN- . 2- 4 1CAtE r. pc FLOOR PLAN - L___ 1 3 uµ I r• pd 2 . 0 r• xa `- HOTEL ASPEN 110 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 SCHEMATIC DESIGN : FLOOR AREACALCS- EXISTiNGFAR A400 OSS ARCHITECTURE+ PLANNING GROSS) I, Ka: - 0& 14A3 P p r i r. li eilN 4a. ffil. rJ0161930, its Lrin P186 VII.a NOVEL BOOM OTHER Comm stmonAL AN cOmmacm amum" FLOOR i NU LEASABLE son LEASABLE 0 110 LIVABLE tw" Ll linong me DECK, I- COMMENCUL AlIONA115129AZU212MU A" V elf 0V iv. q 16. 069 SF 0V SUN 101ALS 16. 069 V or TOTAL NET LEASABLE 18, 45A SF NET LEASABLE ILAUSF NO LIVAILL SF rm, tWt Uvftla- AMU 7 I I TOTAL NO LIVABLE NON UNIT TOTAL NET V, 7t& Sf L1 2D L2 2D LS 5 U7 Sf aw SV7V Pon" d••• fir r L4J .••_., w .••••• i I 1 O• i tr•!! 4 FLOOR PLAN- L3 . FLOOR PLAN- Ll i• FLOOR DESIGN : HOTEL ASPEN I 10 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 SCHEMATIC EXISTING 1 POSS 1: PLANNING r P187 VII.a UL 9NUCL COMM. ! F3- e. cAMA COMM D DICK ENCL cur- Cam~' ME CIL STORAGE SFORAGE GARAGE AND r:r 6L9R1fIDM I CpMMEKyAt eI: SIDENitAI NON• UNII fEXEFAPq 1lxE6ffT) CIRC. ( STAIRSEX,) M! C X1° 41 LEGEIIQ FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 05F oaf » ou to4 0--- I 227 IF 7 sf l, _ IOMg 0 IF 2964 Sf I A20 Sf 03F r— COMMERCIAL GROSS) PE" 1. 71SSF 311E OSF 2S2Sf OSF OfF 1- 318 If 1 RESIDEIIIIAL OWAUESOEATf foOTAGE 1, 73E SF OSf OSF OSF T 1- 2803REK.) MY E1L) 4521 Sf I I, Lot SCe. TIRSi 1. 110 55 i S3IF OSF 32 IF 03F OSF I fN IF I AFFORDABLE NOUSIIIG Commacid a6owobb 634 u sup 1. 192 SF. EX). 7 t, 6116yR COF4AfERC1Al0ECK Resldenlld MCONO ` 716DSF 347635 OfF OSF OSF Iota] 010 0& 01Adng0` e0• IF 1, 23Sff S3 IF OSF 22 if OR 1042 Sf f 1 RESIDENMLDECK rob 4SIOSF 2. 6" Sf OSf 461ST 1 Ro SF. l74) 09 r ( 1 i sy iv6 1CULAl10N - - 4, 110fF 1375E OSF ] 06iF OSFEK.) P7443fEX1' 2D723f L . L J I- 1 C sidenl al FAR f0E X13 SF 1 9. 400 SF 0 SF Sf. E%• 1 t227 SF pL) 1 Resldentk7l 9. 90DSF OSF TO7Al 2. 4S4fFEKl11AiQSfEX1 PAVE 11. 426 SEEK.)( 1SFpyf(• 3f7aF, EK.} I TIDSF. EIC( 1298 UN- ENCLOSED COCULAWN Non UNI CommeTCkY Deck( EXEMPT) 0 SF COMMERCNLMECNANKAL Residentbl Dock( EXEMPT) 0 S IOtAIfM 36512 IF R£ SIDFMUI MECCNANICAL Endosed Ckc+ Iotbn L674 SF Unendosed cftdclbn 4 137 SF iwilf 1 COMMERCtALSiORAGE CommertlolMechonlcd a Rosidentol McOhoNc01 O SF r• J _ 706 Sf RFSIDENIIAL STORAGE Corrrnetlol Storope O SF Residentbl Stomps 0 SF At0 fordo bb Nousx+ 0 2072 SF I TOTAL M! R, 6il SF 22 EI( EMfT 1 Ili. El -- 111 fi6l - 1 I LL' J 1 L1 t 2801001 TOTAL 200MS 54 FLOOR PLAN- LLl D RaTmn Taleul YnOdlmm Islela ULIt1+ uo LELMtII T:> z mRtIm61 tlS> 3„ ASE71, OKE+°' 4tl ; ,=+ fV RU4161m LRGll6I6r1 RGlRttmel a. 1et r„ sr wr flRGyyS( py 0sre RIRSL' 41 .-. idEGR16!> Sm l Ltmlt 210ahm SiLGI1WNC c yy rWY r. . r.• v s•. r wi END 5 LSy6mLiN6l LL.JJ1 Mau Tf14Y Q= L" - l COMMIkWA i 10RGl1611Ge '' Y::, Smeess4 r T 141 WAS[ Al6 HIYG M SO11KiL7N X31 - SSmYLK1A1 1 V Ts{ I11Stl01 eseuV FLOOR PLAN- L3 FLOOR PLAN- L2— 2 FLOOR PLAN- Ll_ HOTEL ASPEN 110 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 SCHEMATIC DESIGN : FLOOR AREA CALCS- PROPOSED GROSS) an> r"' - °"'""' A402 FAR POSS ARCHITECTURE+ PLANNING Ir& lest fs 4ii411 &$ PLC catii: l f+• ss P188 VII.a f a a r•..••+•• r°••+• ter+.?+°.+.•. t... rr; l 14 all, IrV Z.:! y+• rr. i Ri.••+.+••. r••••••• i i°° ice ii ii° ii' i• @ hi+ i i° i iSUN, i•° i i° i*? i•° i° ii° i%% i% i°%%%% t•° e° i° ir° i° iii° i°° i° ice•+•°••••°•• rds•• I,•. i err•+•••.•••++ i+•+• i••+•++•+• b••. iri°• i° i° i° 4 i° u° ri° Oi i°. b° Oi°•° i° i i° iii°• b"+ i'+_'•;•+_+°-_ r•+• r•++ iiii.' ti % iii'•'• i° ii'+ iA i° iii; iif V•••'•••••°•° o: P iii° if, l e++ a!' a•.,— T..• i ii° i° i°• i W+ i,;:! I•••• i(: Cfi.°• r•. i• 1. y 1•• 3 i4° i° i° ii° i° 1ts?-+•.• I i r! r i ei Sw ice r''' O 7•:::":.' ', I 5. K, L' 4: 5065 i.°_ i!_—. i i i. w, L• n.• • Qi•.. II Y' iin' yT' i•.+•• r+°+•=° i. i+ iri i+.° r 1w, f • U R.: •+_• •, y pm MN I f f+• rt•-• ta [ fi.. T• 7• rr••`•`• c 1 i 14' I! w 1 C 1: 1'•.>' lili: I r• 3Nuµ 1c , e •• r, r C, u y• fit"! d I + gar NO;. 7+ r s i t• inn° b° i0••° i tJi i•NO sai so t I. P189 VII.a ATTACHMENT 7 HOTEL ASPEN PLAT 110 WEST MAIN STREET AbPerE, COLORADO 81611 CERTIFICATE OF DEDICATION AND OWNERSHIP GAIMISCH Sr. KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT THAT ASPEN HOTEL ASSOCIATES, LLC. A SURVEYOR' S NOTES: MICHIGAN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AS TO 110 WEST MAIN STREET, BEING THE RECORD OWNERS OF CERTAIN LANDS IN THE CITY OF ASPEN, IN PITKIN TBD COUNTY, COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: MAP THEREOF RECORDED SHEET INDEX: HOTEL ASPEN, ACCORDING TO CONDOMINIUM SHEET 1= HOTEL ASPEN PLAT FEBRUARY 28, 1985 IN PLAT BOOK 17 AT PAGE 1 AS RECEPTION N0. 266353 C. AND AMENDMENT THERETO RECORDED APRIL 21, 1989 IN PLAT BOOK 22 AT SHEET 2= LOWER LEVEL PLAN PAGE 36 AS RECEPTION NO. 310794 AND AS DEFINED AND DESCRIBED IN THE CONDOMIN IUM DECLARATION FOR HOTEL ASPEN, A CONDOMINIUM SHEET 3= LEVEL ONE RECORDED FEBRUARY 28, 1985 IN BOOK 482 AT PAGE 43 AS RECEPTION NO. 266352 AND AMENDMENT TO THE CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION FOR HOTEL SHEET 4= LEVEL TWO i ASPEN, A CONDOMINIUM RECORDED MARCH 4, 1985 IN BOOK 482 AT PAGE 134 AS RECEPTION NO. 266385 AND SECOND AMENDMENT TO RDED APRIL SHEET 5= LEVEL THREE IUM DECLARATION FOR HOTEL ASPEN, AC ONDOMINIUM C z 21, 1989 IN BOOK 590 AT PAGE 457 AS RECEPTION NO. 310796. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY W HAS BY THIS HOTEL ASPEN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAT DOES HEREBY HOTEL ASPEN, ACCORDING TO CONDOMINIUM MAP THEREOF RECORDED PUBLISH THIS PLANNED UNIT DEVEL OPMENT PLAT MAP UNDER THE NAME AND FEBRUARY 28, 1985 IN PLAT BOOK 17 AT PAGE I AS RECEPTION N0. 266353 AND STYLE OF" HOTEL ASPEN." AMENDMENT THERETO RECORDED APRIL 21, 1989 IN PLAT BOOK 22 AT PAGE 36 RECEPTION NO. 310794 AND AS DEFINED AND DESCRIBED IN THE CONDOMIN- I ASPEN HOTEL ASSOCIATES, LLC, A MICHIGAN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AS IUM DECLARATION FOR HOTEL ASPEN, A CONDOMINIUM RECORDED FEBRUARY I gy: 28, 1985 IN BOOK 482 AT PAGE 43 AS RECEPTION NO. 266352 AND AMENDMENT TO i MICHAEL H. BROWN, MANAGER THE CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION FOR HOTEL ASPEN, A CONDOMINIUM ASPEN HOTEL ASSOCIATES, LLC. rmaw, aa RECORDED MARCH 4, 1985 IN BOOK 482 AT PAGE 134 AS RECEPTION NO. 266385 CITY ENGINEER' S APPROVAL AND SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION FOR HOTEL I THIS HOTEL ASPEN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAT WAS REVIEWED AND ASPEN, A CONDOMINIUM RECORDED APRIL 21, 1989 IN BOOK 590 AT PAGE 457 AS RECEPTION NO. MINI . APPROVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER THIS DAY OF 201_ SURVEYOR' S CERTIFICATE BY. I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM A PROFESSIONAL CITY ENGINEER LAND SURVEYOR LICENSED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF COLORADO: of v-0? lr p VICINITY MAP THAT THIS HOTEL ASPEN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAT IS TRUE AND 4= CO NITY DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL: CORRECT AND COMPLETE AS LAID OUT, PLATTED AS SHOWN HEREON; THAT V\ tt z vii t i c i i o ' t. THIS HOTEL AS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAT WAS REVIEWED AND THIS PLAT WAS MADE BY ME FROM AN ACCURATE SURVEY OF THE LANDS c T X i• a w p? ITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR THIS r.' y J z, ! APPROVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN, COMMUN t SHOWN HEREON BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION IN OCTOBER OF yam ' l ft y4tl+ ` ti r f DAY OF 201_. 2010 AND ACCURATELY AND SUBSTANTIAL DEPICTS THE LOCATION AND HORI- a ZONTAL AND VERTICAL DIMENSIONS OF THE UNITS, BOUNDARY LINES, UTILI- s l TIES, IMPROVEMENTS, ENCROACHMENTS, AND EASEMENTS IN EVIDENCE OR t COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ME: THAT THIS PLAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF A LAND SURVEY 1frr} KNOWN TO PLAT AS SET FORTH IN C. R. S. TITLE 38 ARTICLE 51- 105, A5 AMENDED AND OF A m a F r ,_\ 1;( t . TITLE 38 ARTICLE 33. 3- 209. SURVEY PRECISION OF 1 ._ s- r t> jl f PITKIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER CERTIFICATE PLAT AS SET FORTH IN C. R. S c tr. ^ j r ? ,` THIS HOTEL ASPEN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAT IS COLORADO AT PARCEL BOUNDARY IS GREATER THAN 1: 10, 000. t t RECORDER OF PITKIN y rC 4. < z, ,?' IN THE OFFICE OF TIC CLERK AND 201 IN PLAT BOOK DAY OF Sly : xis cLspeftt ; rrr. . I K` O' CLOCK M. THIS BY: a von it S '*€'+ P n AT RECEPTION NO. DATED: pls#_ e. :?) Y tt T. ' S}'_' S . a . pn#$ pj z AT PAGE TITLE CERTIFICATE: 11- y'„ G app y,( BY' CLERK AND RECORDER r a r f, at . t ` PITKIN COUNTY STEWART TITLE COMPANY HERBY CERTIFIES THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THE TITLE A- Z3 nary t X, 1' kj TO ALL LAND SHOWN UPON THIS PLAT AND THAT TITLE TO SUCH LANDS ISr - vr' . e p F r f VESTED FREE AND CLEAR OF ALL LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES EXCEPTS"` s i w. I ; t CONSENT OF MORTGAGE HOLDER bye w v N e THE UNDERSIGNED, AS MORTGAGEE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CERTAIN 4i x w+ ' DEEDS OF TRUST DATED 2 AND RECORDED IN THE RECORDS OF THE r " t. I; , r' t. r' .' ti AS RECEPTION NO. BY: as r '` A '' !': ' 4? p p ` t `` +, u , ,,,„ w a r CLERK AND RECORDER OF PITKIN COUNTY STEWART TITLE COMPANY f ft' ` r w '• !' r f a f`"'" "` r""" s` d HEREBY CONSENTS TO THE RECORDING OF THIS PLAT AS HEREON DRAWN AND C a L: tf tq r t s 1 1 r l ' r qty„, y . r:- 7f' K r' f( 1 + 5 y y+` ` _ ^ y d y HEREBY SUBORDINATES THE LIEN OF SAID DEED OF TRUST TO THE MATTER SET UTILITY NOTES: t r y 1 FORTH ON THIS PLAT. fix!$ i s ', t atsr 3 t 1. THE UTILITIES EXISTING ON THE SURFACE AND SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING r r s' f » s , r } tta, ar" y t ; , HAVE BEEN LOCATED BY FIELD SURVEY. ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES X,., . w l» ' t ' L t I V ut f 6 4; BY: SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING ARE FROM RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITY COM- r rthry' y t . u' e ` g pANIES AND THE SURVEYOR DOES NOT ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR e\\ i f T COMPLETENESS, INDICATED LOCATION, OR SIZE. RECORD UTILITY LOCATION 1 J 1 err 1 SHOULD BE CONFIRMED BY EXPOSIN G THE UTILITY lr%. i y i sfr1' fr Fts. \ 1 r 1Y / a ti S r .{ s%, ,% .• 9 ` , f. 1, t'. > \>-' v ? sraH. ciAUSON nssocIaT= sl";.,,.. ON AND SERVE ALL UNTTS. ACCES r t ,: t,,,' r !' r lti 11; sr Gi HE UTILITY SERVICE LINES ARE 1. < . 0<, rt e t \ ,, ti Gr t `'". l s' I1Lat "'' i ... 2. T ITY SERVICES ACCESS THE DES r f. l D O S S TO MAINTAIN, REPLACE, AND REPAIR SAID UTIL 1 r tft `` AT z i` t t r ll? y y \ v f .>............. ..... .,..... .,.,, m ..._•. w Ml"! BE NECESSARY a i SHEET 1 OF 5 P190 VII.a HOTEL ASPEN PLAT 110 WEST MAIN STREET ptemASPEN, COLORADO 81611 17 Seber. 2012 AREA OF RESCUE AWANCE 4 ILAUND. MEDIA/ MUD FAMILY ROOM 7. BDRM u LIP BAM I... MECH GARAGE ISPARIINGSPACES LIP a- r Is• It ES BONUS Jr LAIJ10. 1 i- RAW I I RAM UP 194r STORAGE ELEVATOR MECHA141CAL ow a j' u MAU1011 LAUNDJ V PDR R' mm STORAGE BONUS UP up HCUSEIIJEEFING/ LAUNORY t' H rl ECH BATH I! N M BORM 7 MEDIA/ N STORAGE FAMILY ROOM MECHANICAL U IT 1 L v" opmm" A PLOF QgP FLOOR PLAN LL1 sc.. a lllr= 1,4y SCHEMATIC DESIGN : PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LOWERLEVEL IS 16 32 A MAN US ASSOC rElibc POSS ARCHI' MIURE- JANNING SHEET 2 OF 5 r P191 VII.a HOTEL ASPEN PLAT 110 WEST MAIN STREET e ASPEN,2Ea, COLORADO 81611 17 September, CANOPY ABOVE 1 a YC 19' d' J17c El Om 10g _... tr ` feel— 7i BDRM. k2 I BItTROOBE i 4 a I YARD 9 I- I • I ENTRY T., 1 , E _ 4 BDRM$ 1 oAP 4 y r 3i N I BDRM03 UP y BATH I 1 COID BB9TROORI 1 1 STORAGE C__ J 1 pFFOCDABIENOU5INGUNl1 y / APjBt10 F BDRM k2 Gu cpeTloodx o ao 1{ i YARD STUDIO Im, 4 j, i STUDY I I ...__.....__.—•..- I I BDRM kl •:-- t. C i I 1 I I SHARED PATIO EIFVATOC I i I L MkI BATH Cj I STUDY YARD a 11: v BDRM 02 s{ _ i. rr----.. I I EPhRY up OR, DABI> OIOVEB= Nn rl OW N 1 BATH% BATH BDRMIk3 I 1 BR pry Y II LIP , I , G11 it BDRM k1 ' YARD Ep I ENTRY M J, LLSCBEB+ 9 l J BDRM` k2 i MASH I ? I O it./ RECYCUNG I 1 < l 1 J I. is is I PROPERTY LINE FYP,) 118 I PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - Ll r scALE l, r• I• a SCHEMATIC DESIGN : PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LEVELI D B 16 99 1w sTaRCUSOB pOSS PLANNING W.R ..,.:.. . ,, ICCACR CTC. 1 swac. u...•. IT- SHEET 3 OF 5 P192 VII.a HOTEL ASPEN PLAT 110 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 17 September, 2012 CANOPY CANOPY 41- IXIJ ire r 27- 01rr 7. L j 1210 B 212 LIVING DECK DINING g F LIP ON D14 Alla LI- 51. 1 STUDY REMOVE Mmomuw IM" j Lo 3 KITCHEN FD1. ING CH T Room DECK DINING LIVING ROOM j KITCHEN U KITCHEN LIVING ROOM DECK 1 fl 27- f UP avonmo ON SIP 1 v USINGUNIT cl A ORDABLEHOUSINGUNR T L J LJ 1 BR 1 STUDY KITCHEN q ON UP C 10, 4- DECK DINING F. P. ry LIVING f 211 DN L LJ ou PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN L2 SCHEMATIC DESIGN : PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 2 STAN pOSS ARCH I fF-(,' TIJRU l- PLANNING . ....... j SHEET 4 OF 5 P193 VII.a HOTEL ASPEN PLAT 110 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 17- 8 7 17 September, 20 jj G in MASTER SLEEPING CLOSIN I RAIN p U. DN 177 DN o7 r j 301 DEM ON MASTER 0 SLEEPING 1 I MASM t.., 4 CLOSEr MASTER SLEEPING ON 21- A lfl DKZ L21'. DICK Guts MASM MASTER I cLosu SLEEPING 4- 1 1 jlDECK i F T PROPERTY UN' 4 PLAN L3 SCHEMATIC DESIGN : PR OPOSED FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 3 32 Tex cLnusorrasaelares: Ec poSS PI- ANNING i RUff- C SHEET 5 OF 5 P194 VII.a ATTACHMENT 8 Stewart title' Stewart Title- Aspen 620 East Hopkings Avenue View your transaction progress 24/7 via SureClose. Aspen, CO 81611 Ask us about your login today! Date:October 09, 2012 File Number: 01330-14101 Buyer: Garmisch Lodging, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company Seller: Property: 110 West Main Street, Commercial Unit all, Aspen, CO 81611 Please direct all Title inquiries to: Melanie Lang Email Address: miang @stewart.com We Appreciate Your Business and Look Forward to Serving You in the Future. P195 VII.a ALTA Commitment(6/17/06) ALTA Commitment Form COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Issued by E Stewart title guaranty company STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, a Texas Corporation ("Company"), for a valuable consideration, commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the Proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges and compliance with the Requirements; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions of this Commitment. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the Proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A by the Company. All liability and obligation under this Commitment shall cease and terminate six months after the Effective Date or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue,whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue the policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. The Company will provide a sample of the policy form upon request. This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by a validating officer or authorized signatory. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Stewart Title Guaranty Company has caused its corporate name and seal to be affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A. rr Countersigned by: l title guaranty company Senior Chairman of tote Board l0ri7.@ti ICOUrdMc ij attire Stewart Title- Aspen 620 East Hopkings Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 4`Chairman of the Board 970 925-3577 f s President Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. X11 a e €t.erTheuseofthisFormisrestrictedtoALTAlicenseesandALTAmembersingoodstandingasofthedateofuse, All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. File No.:01330-14101 Page 1 of 2 004-UN ALTA Commitment(6/17/06) VZ*Cj warty Co,SOary P196 VII.a CONDITIONS 1. The term mortgage,when used herein,shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. 2. If the proposed Insured has or acquired actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing,the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or iftheCompanyotherwiseacquiresactualknowledgeofanysuchdefect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions. 3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions and Conditions and the Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4. This Commitment is a contract to issue one or more title insurance policies and is not an abstract of title or a report of the condition of title. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment. 5. The policy to be issued contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance is 2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. You may review a copy of the arbitration rules at<http://www.alta.ora/>. E.-itewart I le guaranty company All notices required to be given the Company and any statement in writing required to be furnished the Company shall beaddressedtoitatP.O. Box 2029, Houston,Texas 77252. Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. File No.:01330-14101 Page 2 of 2 004-UN ALTA Commitment(6/17/06) V1g gxararty co^wany P197 VII.a COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A File No.: 01330-14101 1. Effective Date: September 19, 2012 at 8:00 A.M. 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: Amount of Insurance a)A.L.T.A. Owner's Proposed Insured: b)A.L.T.A. Mortgagee's Proposed Insured: 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: Fee Simple 4. Title to the said estate or interest in said land is at the effective date hereof vested in: Garmisch Lodging, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company 5. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: Units 100, 101, 102, 103, 104 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, Units 201, 202, 203, 204 through 211 inclusive, 215 through 223 inclusive, 315 through 318 inclusive and 323, HOTEL ASPEN, according to Condominium Map thereof recorded February 28, 1985 in Plat Book 17 at Page 1 as Reception No. 266353 and Amendment thereto recorded April 21, 1989 in Plat Book 22 at Page 36 as Reception No. 310794 and as defined and described in the Condominium Declaration for Hotel Aspen, a Condominium recorded February 28, 1985 in Book 482 at Page 43 as Reception No. 266352 and Amendment to the Condominium Declaration for Hotel Aspen, a Condominium recorded March 4, 1985 in Book 482 at Page 134 as Reception No. 266385 and Second Amendment to the Condominium Declaration for Hotel Aspen, a Condominium recorded April 21, 1989 in Book 590 at Page 457 as Reception No. 310796. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO Purported Address: STATEMENT OF CHARGES 110 West Main Street These charges are due and payable Commercial Unit all before a policy can be issued Aspen, CO 81611 Title Commitment Report $100.00 Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. if The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use.stit; to All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. File No.01330-14101 Page 1 of 1 ict'tCOSTGALTACommitmentSchASTOS r, IBNl 0 P198 VII.a COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE_ SCHEDULE B PART I File No.: 01330-14101 The following are the requirements to be complied with: 1. Payment to or for the account of the grantor(s) or mortgagor(s) of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. 2. Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record. 3. NONE AT THIS TIME NOTE: This product is for informational purposes only. It is not a title insurance product and does not provide any form of coverage. This product is not a guarantee or assurance, and does not warrant, or otherwise insure, any condition, fact or circumstance. This product does not obligate this Company to issue any policies of title insurance for any subsequent transaction based on the information provided or involving the property described herein. This Company's sole liability for any error(s) relating to this product is limited to the amount that was paid for this product. NOTE: Statement of Authority for Garmisch Lodging LLC recorded December 15, 2009 as Reception No. 565319, discloses the following persons as those authorized to transact business on behalf of said entity. If there have been any amendments or changes to the management of the entity, written documentation reflecting the changes and a new Statement of Authority will be required. Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.aawar ;sx File No.01330-14101 Page 1 of 1 sbawCOSTGALTACommitmentSchBIaarea P199 VII.a COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B PART II File No.: 01330-14101 Schedule B of the policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession, not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the Effective Date but prior to the date the proposed Insured acquires for value of record the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. Unpatented mining claims, reservations or exceptions in patents, or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof. 7. Water rights, claims or title to water. 8. Any and all unpaid taxes and assessments and any unredeemed tax sales. 9. The effect of inclusions in any general or specific water conservancy, fire protection, soil conservation or other district or inclusion in any water service or street improvement area. 10. Exceptions and Mineral Reservations as contained in Patent to Aspen Townsite recorded March 1, 1897 in Book 139 at Page 216 as Reception No. 60156. 11. No. 60 (Series of 1976) recorded December 9, 1976 in Book 321 at Page 51 as Reception No. 189906. 12. Statement of Exception from the Full Subdivision Process recorded February 28, 1985 in Book 482 at Page 42 as Reception No. 266351. 13. Condominium Declaration for Hotel Aspen recorded February 28, 1985 in Book 482 at Page 43 as Reception No. 266352 and Amendment thereto recorded March 1, 1985 in Book 482 at Page 134 as Reception No. 266385 and Amendment thereto recorded April 21, 1989 in Book 590 at Page 457 as Reception No 310796. 14. Ordinance No. 60 (Series of 1976) recorded December 9, 1976 in Book 321 at Page 51 as Reception No. 189906 15. Articles of Incorporation of Hotel Aspen Condominium Association recorded March 6, 1985 in Book 482 at Page 294 as Reception No. 266463. 16. By-Laws of Hotel Aspen Condominium Association recorded March 7, 1985 in Book 482 at Page 353 as Reception No. 266484, 17. Nugget Alley Relocation in Minutes of Aspen City Council recorded in Book 482 at Page 350 as Reception No. 266483. Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. a 8s'f3EitAllotherusesareprohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. File No.01330-14101 Page 1 of 2 i t 5 CO STG ALTA Commitment Sch B 11 STO E se aranty n P200 VII.a COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B PART II 18. Easements, rights of way and all matters as shown on Plats of Hotel Aspen Condominiums recorded February 28,1985 in Plat Book 17 at Page 1 as Reception No. 266353and amendment thereto recorded April 21, 1989 in Plat Book 22 at Page 36 as Reception No. 310794. 19. City of Aspen Ordinance recorded September 3, 1997 as Reception No. 407979. 20. Dedication of Real Property to Employee Housing Restrictions and Guidelines for the Hotel Aspen recorded July19, 1989 in Book 597 at Page 667 as Reception No. 312462 (Unit 100) and recorded February 22, 1993 in Book704atPage107asReceptionNo. 354163 (Unit 219). 21. Aspen Historic Preservations Commission Resolution recorded August 24, 2000 as Reception No. 446352. 22. City of Aspen Resolution recorded June 25, 2001 as Reception No. 455763. 23. City of Aspen Resolution recorded October 24, 2002 as Reception No. 473891. 24. Any and all leases and tenancies. 25. Collateral Assignment of Agreements, Permits, Licenses and Approvals by Garmisch Lodging LLC to and for the benefit of U.S. Bank National Association recorded October 1, 2008 as Reception No. 553292. 26. A Deed of Trust executed by Garmisch Lodging LLC, to the Public Trustee, to secure an indebtedness of 6,900,000.00 in favor of US Bank National Association recorded October 1, 2008 as Reception No. 553291. 27. As amended by Amendment to Deed of Trust recorded recorded July 23, 2012 as Reception No. 590799. Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. File No.01330-14101 Page 2 of 2 - CO STG ALTA Commitment Sch B 11 STO v,egva Intyc ar„ P201 VII.a DISCLOSURES File No.: 01330-14101 Pursuant to C.R.S. 10-11-122, notice is hereby given that: A. THE SUBJECT REAL PROPERTY MAY BE LOCATED IN A SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT; B. A CERTIFICATE OF TAXES DUE LISTING EACH TAXING JURISDICTION SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM THE COUNTY TREASURER OR THE COUNTY TREASURER'S AUTHORIZED AGENT; C. INFORMATION REGARDING SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND THE BOUNDARIES OF SUCH DISTRICTS MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER, ORTHECOUNTYASSESSOR Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 3-5-1, Subparagraph (7) (E) requires that "Every title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed." Provided that Stewart Title conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal documents from the transaction, exception number 5 will not appear on the Owner's Title Policy and the Lender's TitlePolicywhenissued. Note: Affirmative Mechanic's Lien Protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception No. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment from the Owner's Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the followingconditions: A. The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single-family residence, which includes a condominium or townhouse unit. B. No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or materialmen for purposes of construction on the land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months. C. The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against unfiled Mechanic's and Materialmen's Liens. D. The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium. E. If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased, within six months prior to the Date of the Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded liens will include: disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as to the seller, the builder and/or the contractor; payment of the appropriate premium; fully executed Indemnity agreements satisfactory to the company; and, any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by the Company. No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or agreed to pay. To comply with the provisions of C.R.S. 10-11-123, the Company makes the following disclosure: a. That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate and that there is a substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and b. That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner's permission. NOTE: THIS DISCLOSURE APPLIES ONLY IF SCHEDULE B, SECTION 2 OF THE TITLE COMMITMENT HEREIN INCLUDES AN EXCEPTION FOR SEVERED MINERALS. NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED WILL BE DEEMED TO OBLIGATE THE COMPANY TO PROVIDE ANY OF THE COVERAGES REFERRED TO HEREIN, UNLESS THE ABOVE CONDITIONS ARE FULLY SATISFIED. File No.:01330-14101 CO Commitment Disclosure P202 VII.a STG Privacy Notice 1 (Rev 01/26/09) Stewart Title Companies WHAT DO THE STEWART TITLE COMPANIES DO WITH YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION? Federal and applicable state law and regulations give consumers the right to limit some but not all sharing. Federal and applicablestatelawregulationsalsorequireustotellyouhowwecollect, share, and protect your personal information. Please read this noticecarefullytounderstandhowweuseyourpersonalinformation. This privacy notice is distributed on behalf of the Stewart TitleGuarantyCompanyanditsaffiliates(the Stewart Title Companies), pursuant to Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act(GLBA). The types of personal information we collect and share depend on the product or service that you have sought through us. Thisinformationcanincludesocialsecuritynumbersanddriver's license number. All financial companies, such as the Stewart Title Companies, need to share customers' personal information to run their everydaybusiness—to process transactions and maintain customer accounts. In the section below, we list the reasons that we can sharecustomers' personal information;the reasons that we choose to share; and whether you can limit this sharing. Reasons we can share your personal information Do we share? Can you limit this sharing? For our everyday business purposes—to process your transactions and maintain your account. This may include running the business and managing customer accounts, such as processing transactions, mailing, and auditing services, Yes No and responding to court orders and legal investigations. For our marketing purposes—to offer our products and services to you. Yes No For joint marketing with other financial companies No We don't share For our affiliates'everyday business purposes—information about your transactions and experiences.Affiliates are companies related by common ownership or control. They can be financial and non-financial companies. Our Yes No affiliates may include companies with a Stewart name;financial companies, such as Stewart Title Company For our affiliates'everyday business purposes—information about your creditworthiness. No We don't share For our affiliates to market to you Yes No For non-affiliates to market to you. Non-affiliates are companies not related bycommonownershiporcontrol. They can be financial and non-financial companies. NO We don't share We may disclose your personal information to our affiliates or to non-affiliates as permitted by law. If you request a transaction with a non-affiliate, such as a third party insurance company, we will disclose your personal information to that non-affiliate. [We do notcontroltheirsubsequentuseofinformation, and suggest you refer to their privacy notices.] Sharing practices How often do the Stewart Title Companies We must notify you about our sharing practices when you request a transaction.notify me about their practices? How do the Stewart Title Companies To protect your personal information from unauthorized access and use,we useprotectmypersonalinformation? security measures that comply with federal and state law. These measures include computer,file, and builqt2 safeguards. How do the Stewart Title Companies We collect your personal information,for example,when youcollectmypersonalinformation? request insurance-related services provide such information to us We also collect your personal information from others, such as the real estate agent or lender involved in your transaction, credit reporting agencies, affiliates or other companies. What sharing can I limit? Although federal and state law give you the right to limit sharing (e.g., opt out) in certain instances,we do not share your personal information in those instances. Contact Us If you have any questions about this privacy notice, please contact us at: Stewart Title GuarantyComan , 1980 Post Oak Blvd., Privacy Officer, Houston, Texas 77056 File No.:01330-14101 Page 1 of 1 P203 VII.a File No.: 01330-14101 BEFORE ME, this undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared Garmisch Lodging, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company, (Affiant(s)), personally known by me to be the person(s) whose names are subscribed hereto, who being by me first duly sworn, on their oaths stated the following to be true and correct: 1. I/We are the owners of the following described property: Units 100, 101, 102, 103, 104 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, I'll, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, Units 201, 202, 203, 204 through 211 inclusive, 215 through 223 inclusive, 315 through 318 inclusive and 323, HOTEL ASPEN, according to Condominium Map thereof recorded February 28, 1985 in Plat Book 17 at Page 1 as Reception No. 266353 and Amendment thereto recorded April 21, 1989 in Plat Book 22 at Page 36 as Reception No. 310794 and as defined and described in the Condominium Declaration for Hotel Aspen, a Condominium recorded February 28, 1985 in Book 482 at Page 43 as Reception No. 266352 and Amendment to the Condominium Declaration for Hotel Aspen, a Condominium recorded March 4, 1985 in Book 482 at Page 134 as Reception No. 266385 and Second Amendment to the Condominium Declaration for Hotel Aspen, a Condominium recorded April 21, 1989 in Book 590 at Page 457 as Reception No. 310796. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO 2. There have been no improvements added to the land or construction on the land since the date I/we acquired the property. 3. The land is known as: 110 West Main Street, Commercial Unit all, Aspen, CO 81611 (address). 4. We are not aware, and have not been told, that improvements by our neighbors encroach over any building orsetbacklines, easements or property lines. 5. We are not aware, and have not been told, improvements made by the undersigned encroach over any building orsetbacklines, easements or property lines. 6. Since the date the Affiants acquired the land, or since the date of existing survey, if any, provided by Affiants toStewartTitle, there have been no: a. Improvements added such as new structures, fences, storage sheds, additional rooms, garages, swimming pools, decks, concrete or air conditioning units. b. Changes in the location of boundary fences or boundary walls. c. Construction projects on immediately adjoining property(ies) which construction occurred near the boundary oftheland; or d. Conveyances, replatting, easement grants, or easement dedications by the Affiants. 7. The undersigned agree to indemnify Stewart Title Company and/or Stewart Title Guaranty Company for any loss, cost or expense relating to, or arising from, any inaccuracy or omission as to the above statements and representations. Garmisch Lodging, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company State of Colorado County of The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this 1st day of October, 2012 by Garmisch Lodging,LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public P204 VII.a Units 201, 202, 203, 204 through 211 inclusive, 215 through 223 inclusive, 315 through 318 inclusive and 323, HOTEL ASPEN, according to Condominium Map thereof recorded February 28, 1985 in Plat Book 17 at Page 1 as Reception No. 266353 and Amendment thereto recorded April 21, 1989 in Plat Book 22 at Page 36 as Reception No. 310794 and as defined and described in the Condominium Declaration for Hotel Aspen, a Condominium recorded February 28, 1985 in Book 482 at Page 43 as Reception No. 266352 and Amendment to the Condominium Declaration for Hotel Aspen, a Condominium recorded March 4, 1985 in Book 482 at Page 134 as Reception No. 266385 and Second Amendment to the Condominium Declaration for Hotel Aspen, a Condominium recorded April 21, 1989 in Book 590 at Page 457 as Reception No. 310796. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO BEFORE ME,the undersigned authority,on this day personally appeared: Garmisch Lodging, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company Owner-Borrower personally known to me to be the person(s) whose name is subscribed hereto and upon his/her oath deposes and says that no proceedings in bankruptcy or receivership have been instituted by or against him/her and that the marital status of the Affiant has not changed since the day of acquisition of said property and represents to the purchaser and/or Lender in this transaction that there are: 1. No unpaid debts for lighting and plumbing fixtures, water heaters, floor furnaces, heaters, air conditioners, built-in fireplace screens, installed outdoor cooling equipment, swimming pool equipment, built-in cleaning equipment, built-in kitchen equipment, satellite dish, radio or television antennae, garage door openers, carpeting, rugs, lawn sprinkling systems, venetian blinds, curtains and rods, window shades, draperies and rods, valances, screens, shutters, awnings, mirrors, ceiling fans, attic fans, mail boxes, security and fire alarm detection equipment, water softener, electric appliances, fences, street paving, or any personal property orfixturesthatarelocatedonthesubjectpropertydescribedabove, and that no such items have been purchased on time payment contracts, and there are no security interests on such property secured by financing statement, security agreement or otherwiseexceptthefollowing: Creditor Approximate Amount if NONE,write"NONE"on blank line) 2. No loans, unpaid judgments, or liens (including Federal or State Liens or Judgment Liens) and no unpaid governmental or association taxes, charges or assessments of any kind on such property except the following: Creditor Approximate Amount If NONE,write"NONE"on blank line) 3. All labor and material used in the construction of improvements on the above described property have been paid for and there are now no unpaid labor or material claims against the improvements or the property upon which same are situated, and I hereby declare that all sums of money due for the construction of improvements have been fully paid and satisfied, except the following: If NONE,write"NONE"on blank line) 4. No leases, contracts to sell the land,or parties in possession other than Affiant except as follows: If NONE,write NONE on blank line) If any deed of trust recorded against my property secures an open line of credit or a revolving line of credit, I/we affirm that Itwe have not drawn additional funds from the line of credit since the date of the Payoff Statement from my/our lender to Stewart Title. I/we further agree and affirm that I/we will not make any further draws on the line of credit after the date of this affidavit. I/we further affirm that I/we have not taken out any loans against our property other than those shown on the above referenced commitment number. Indemnity: I agree to pay on demand to the lender and/or title companies (including Stewart Title Guaranty Company) in this transaction, their successors and assigns, all amounts secured by any and all liens, claims or rights not shown above, together with all costs, loss and attorney's fees that said parties may incur in connection with such unmentioned liens, provided said liens, claims, or rights either currently apply to such property, or a part thereof, or are subsequently established against said property and are created by me, known by me, or have an inception or attachment date prior to the closing of this transaction and recording of the deedanddeedoftrust. I realize that the Purchaser and/or Lender and Title Companies in this transaction are relying on the representations contained herein in purchasing same or lending money thereon and issuing title policies and would not purchase same or lend money or issue a title policy thereon unless said representations were made. If Seller or Borrower is an entity, I have authority to sign on its behalf. Garmisch Lodging, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company State of Colorado County of The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1st day of October, 2012 by Garmisch Lodging, LLC, a n1nror1^ I imi+cA I iohility (`mm nv P205 VII.a Cl-v OF ASPEN E/R1 TT PIUD CITY OF ASPEN DATE REP NO. HRETT PAID U DATE REP NO.PI- 3 j /v7 2,lzD After recording return to: lssacson Rosenbaum,P.C. a so 633 17`h Street,Ste.2200 7) w o s 0® Denver,Colorado 80202 0 N c Attn: William M.Silberstein,Esq. y Locr) 4 SPECIAL WARRANTY DEEDtDmn. mm T N THIS SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED is made this 1 tih day of February, 2007,between ASPEN HOTEL ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Michigan limited liability companyGrantor") and GARMISCH LODGING LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, whose address is 444 North Wells Street, Ste. 504, Chicago, Illinois 60610("Grantee"). WITNESSETH, that the Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten and No/l OO'h Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm unto the Grantee, its successors and N assigns forever, all the real property, together with improvements, if any, situate, lying and being in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado,and described as follows (the "Property"): WU Units 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 114, 118, 121, 201, 202, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 315, 316, 317, 318, and 323, HOTEL ASPEN, according to the Condominium Map thereof recorded February 28, 1985 in Plat Book 17 at Page 1 as Reception No. 266353 and Amendment thereto recorded April 21, 1989 in Plat 9 Book 22 at Page 36 as Reception No. 310794 and as defined and described in the 9 Condominium Declaration for Hotel Aspen, a Condominium recorded February 28, 1985 in Book 482 at Page 43 as Reception No. 266352 and Amendment to the Condominium Declaration for Hotel Aspen, a Condominium recorded March 4, 1985 in Book 482 at Page 134 as Reception No. 266385 and Second Amendment to the Condominium Declaration for Hotel Aspen, a Condominium recorded April 21, 1989 in Book 590 at Page 457 as Reception No. 310796, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the Grantor, either in law or equity, of, in and to the Property, with the hereditaments and appurtenances; TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the Property, with the appurtenances, unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. The Grantor, for itself, its successors and assigns, does covenant and agree that it shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the Property in the quiet and peaceable possession of the Grantee, its successors and assigns, against all and every person or persons claiming the whole or any part thereof,by,through or under the Grantor; 1389267 2.doc 114720-008 r P206 VII.a 111111 IIIII 53 45 09 Page: 2 of 4IIIIIIII92,15,2607 0 8.32 JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 21.00 D 0.00 SUBJECT TO, those matters described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference(the "Permitted Exceptions"). IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has executed this Special Warranty Deed on thedatesetforthabove. ASPEN HOTEL ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company By: Michae H. Brown, Manager STATE OF Cr rev c+ ) 0 :!y .... ss. COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this'l*%\ day of February, 2007, by Michael H. Brown,Manager of ASPEN HOTEL ASSOCIATES, L an limited liability company. t,o, C,A;. X.••.. e•.`C i.q 9i Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Op CLt_CP'P SEAL) Notary Public 1389267_2.doc 214720-OOS r P207 VII.a lIl534509 Page: 3 4 02/15/200707 09:32! JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 21.00 0 0.00 EXHIBIT A Permitted Exceptions 1. Taxes and assessments for the year 2007 and subsequent years a lien not yet due or payable. 2. The effect of inclusions in any general or specific water conservancy,fire protection, soil conservation or other district or inclusion in any water service or street improvement area. 3. Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents, or an act authorizing theissuancethereof; water rights, claims or title to water. 4. Exceptions and Mineral Reservations as contained in Patent to Aspen Townsite recorded March 1, 1897 in Book 139 at Page 216 as Reception No. 60156. 5. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Ordinance No. 60(Series of 1976)recorded December 9, 1976 in Book 321 at Page 51 as Reception No. 189906. 6. Terms, conditions,provisions and obligations as set forth in Statement of Exception from the Full Subdivision Process recorded February 28, 1985 in Book 482 at Page 42 as Reception No, 266351. 7. Terms, conditions,provisions, obligations and assessments as set forth in Condominium Declaration for Hotel Aspen recorded February 28, 1985 in Book 482 at Page 43 as Reception No. 266352 and amendment thereto recorded March 1, 1985 in Book 482 at Page 134 as Reception No. 266385 and amendment thereto recorded April 21, 1989 in Book 590 at Page 457 as Reception No. 310796. 8. Articles of Incorporation of Hotel Aspen Condominium Association recorded March 6, 1985 in Book 482 at Page 294 as Reception No. 266463, 9. Terms, conditions,provisions and obligations as set forth in By-Laws of Hotel Aspen Condominium Association recorded March 7, 1985 in Book 482 at Page 353 as Reception No. 266484. 10. Terms, conditions,provisions and obligations as contained in Nugget Alley Relocation in Minutes of Aspen City Council recorded in Book 482 at Page 350 as Reception No. 266483. 11. Easements,rights of way and all matters as shown on Plats of Hotel Aspen Condominiums recorded February 28, 1985 in Plat Book 17 at Page 1 as Reception No. 266353 and amendment thereto recorded April 21, 1989 in Plat Book 22 at Page 36 as Reception No. 310794. 12. Terms, conditions,provisions and obligations as contained in City of Aspen Ordinance recorded September 3, 1997 as Reception No. 407979. 1389265 2.doc 114720-008 r P208 VII.a 13. Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions contained in document recorded July 19, 1989 in Book 597 at Page 667 as Reception No. 312462 and recorded February 22, 1993inBook704atPage107asReceptionNo. 354163. 14. Terms, conditions,provisions and obligations as contained in the Aspen Historic Preservations Commission Resolution recorded August 24, 2000 as Reception No. 446352. 15. Terms, conditions,provisions and obligations as contained in the City of Aspen Resolution recorded June 25, 2001 as Reception No. 455763. 16. Terms, conditions,provisions and obligations as contained in the City of Aspen Resolution recorded October 24, 2002 as Reception No. 473891. II534509 Page; 4 of 4 I (!II II I +02/15/2007fJANICEKVOSCAUDILLPITKINCOUNTYCOR21.00 D 0 00 09:32- 1389265 2.doe 114720-008 r P209 VII.a ATTACHMENT 9 Mr. Michael H. Brown HayMax Capital P.O, Box 5109 Aspen, CO 81612 Tel: 970 930-1 754 16 August 2012 Ms.Sara Adams, AICP City of Aspen, Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street,3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re:Authorization to Submit a Land Use Application Dear Ms.Adams: This letter is to certify that 1,Michael H. Brown,owner of the property located at 110 West Main Street,give Stan Clauson Associates, Inc.and its staff permission to represent us in submitting a Land Use Application to the City of Aspen for Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual PUD application, Major Growth Management,final PUD,and Subdivision and in activities related to the submission of this application. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me. Contact information for Stan Clauson Associates is as follows: Stan Clauson,AICP,ASLA Stan Clauson Associates, Inc 412 N.Mill Street Aspen,CO 81611 Tel (970)925-2323 Fax (970)920-1628 Ve Truly Yours, Mic el . Brown Owner I P210 VII.a ATTACHMENT 10 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), COMMERCIAL DESIGN CONCEPTUAL),AND DEMOLITION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 110 W.MAIN STREET, HOTEL ASPEN CONDOMINIUMS, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION #14, SERIES OF 2012 PARCEL ID: 2735-124-61-800 WHEREAS, the applicant, Hotel Aspen, represented by Stan Clauson Associates and Poss Architecture and Planning. has requested Major Development (Conceptual), Commercial Design Conceptual), and Demolition review for the property located at 110 W. Main Street, Hotel Aspen Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, development affecting the southern half of the property is within the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission because the property is located in the Commercial Core Historic District. The existing structures are not considered contributing resources within the Historic District; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, in order to authorize a Demolition of structures on the southern half of the property, according to Section 26.415.080, Demolition of designated historic properties, it must be demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, C. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and RECEPTION#: 599327, 05/08/2013 at 110 W. Main 11:21:20 AM, HPC Resolution#14, Series of 2012 1 of 3, R $21.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Page 1 of 3 Janice K.Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO P211 VII.a Additionally,for approval to demolish,all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and C. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area; and WHEREAS, although the northern half of the property is not located within the Commercial Core Historic District, Commercial Design Review of this portion of the proposed development was delegated to HPC to consolidate design review at one review board; and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Commercial Design Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines per Section 26.412.040.A.2, Commercial Design Standards Review Procedure, of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report to HPC dated April 24, 2013, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards would be met with project revisions, and recommended approval pending those revisions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on April 24, 2013 the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and recommended approval with conditions by a vote of 4 to 0. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants HPC Major Development (Conceptual), Commercial Design Conceptual) and Demolition approval for the property located at 110 W. Main Street, Hotel Aspen Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. The approved design is the version presented to HPC at their March 13, 2013 meeting. 2. The approval includes a maximum building height increase to 32', as allowed through Commercial Design Review. 3. HPC approves a combination of on-site Public Amenity space as represented in the drawings, and off-site improvements to the Garmisch Street right-of-way. The specific plan for Garmisch Street improvements requires further review and approval by the Engineering Department, and HPC at Final review. 4. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one 1)year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an 110 W. Main HPC Resolution#14, Series of 2012 Page 2 of 3 P212 VII.a application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30)days prior to the expiration date. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meet n on the 24t of April, 2013. Jami rewste -MacLeod,Vice-Chair Ap roved as to Form: Debbie Quinn,Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickfand, Chief Deputy Clerk 110 W. Main HPC Resolution #14, Series of 2012 Page 3 of 3 P213 VII.a i uu i ru rr ru liur i iir uu riru ui u r i u Sri . 4@7978 Bg/83I1997 IM27R ORVIRM DAVIS SILVI 1 of 0 R 26.W D 8.08 B 0.06 PIIXIH00 COLORADO AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL-OF TH E CITY OFASPEN,COLORADO,TO REZONE SPECIFIC PROPERTIES FROM LODGE PRESERVATION TO UNDERLYING ZONING WITH A LODGE PRESERVATION OVERLAY ORDINANCE NO.2,SERIES OF 1997 VVMREAS,on August 26,1996,Aspen City Counoit approved Ordinance No.29,Series of 1996, which recinded the Lodge Preservation(LP)Zone District and provided OMQS Exemptions for conversion and expansion ofexisting lodges;and WHEREAS,at the time of adoption of said Ordinance,City Council dirbeted staff to initiate the j rezoning ofall LP properties to the most appropriate underlying zoning as a class action;and WHEREAS,the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed map amendments under the applicable standards as contained in Section 26.92 of the Aspen Municipal Code,has considered stall's recommendations,and has taken and considered public comment at a public,hearing on the 17thday of D=mber,1996;end WHEREAS,by a vote of",the Planning Commission did recommend approval of the proposed rozonings to City Council;and WHEPMAS,the Aspen City Council has reviewed the roap amend mcnts under the applicable provisions of the t4unicipal Code as identified herein,has considered iho recommendations of staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission,and has takeki and considered public comment at public hearing;and WHEREAS,the•City E ourfcri finds flier the proposed map amendments meet or exceed all. applicable developmenttanrd'gd'are tAns€stent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan;and WHEREAS,the City Council finds that this Ordinance ftuthem and Is necessary for public health, safety,and welfare,and NOW TIIMUFORE BE IT ORDAINED BYTHE CITY COUNCIIE,OF THE CITY OF ASPEN COLORADO; P214 VII.a IIIL1111LIq111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111 2ef5 R 26300 D 0-00 8 11.0 DAVIS SILK COLORADO 5ec11011 1: Pursuant to Section 26.92.020 of tite Municipal Code,the City Council Finds: I. The proposed map amendments art,not in conflict with the provisions of Chapter26 ofthe Municipal Code or the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. no proposed map amendments will promoteffie public Interestand character of tite City ofAspen. Section 2, Pursuant to Section 26.92 of the Aspen Municipal Code(Map Amendments),the City of Aspen zone District Map is hereby amended to rezone all properties presently zoned Lodge Preservation to their underlying zone district with a Lodge Preservation Overlay.no name,address,legal description,and proposed zone district for each property are included in Exhibit A,and Section 3r This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shalt not operate as an abatement of h any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue ofthe ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided,and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances, motion 4: Ifany section,subsection,sentence,clause,phrase,or portion of this Ordinance Is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competentjurisdiction,such portion shall be deemed a separate,distinct and independentprovislon and shall aot afre:ctthe validity of the remaining portions thereof.. Scdlonl That the City Clerk is directed,upon the adoptioa of this ordinance,to recoad a copy ofthis ordinance in the office of the Pitktn County Clerk and Recorder. Sectioe 6: A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the I th day of February,1997 at 5:00 in the City Council Chambers,Aspen City Hall,Aspen Colorado,fifteen(15)days prior to which hearing a publio notice of the same was published Ina newspaper ofgeneral circulation within the City of Aspen. I P215 VII.a I lillll 11111 lllill i}!I1 IIII1 I!I!I 1!!!11 NI 111!1 ilfl 111141797909/53/1997 181274 ORKNANC NVIS SILVI 3 of 5 R 25.08 D e.5e N 5.00 PITKINCO COLORADO IMODUCYI),READ AND ORDERED PUBUMD as provided bylaw,by the City j Council ofthe City of Aspen on the 13th day of January,)997. John Ifnnett,Mayor s oeb,City Clerk i FMALLX,adopted,passed and approved this I Oth day of February,1997. John rcanctt,Mayor Kathryn S: ;City'Clerk P216 VII.a llil(I 111i111i111 IIIII li11111{!1111111 Ill illl(1111 IIII 407GW 00/03/1807 10:27R t> INANC DAVIS SILV3 4 of ti R 211.00 D 0.08 N 0.00 P1TXINCO COLORADO Lr7CMrr A Lodge Address Legal Description Proposed Zone District 1. Alpine Lodge 1240 B.Cooper last 112 of Lot 17,All ofLots 18,19,20,21 and 22, R 15A(PUD) I Block 17,Riverside Addition to the City of Aspen 2, Aspen tied& 311 W,Main Aspen Bed&Breakfast,Units 100-111,200-211, Office Breakfast 300-311,401-403;East M2 of Lot D,ai l of Lots B,P, 1,Hand],Block 45 3. Bavarian Inn 801 W.Blc&er Lots I3,F,F,G,H and 1,Block 12 RMF(PT 4. Bell Mountain Lodge 720 E.Cooper Lots K.L,M,14,O,P and 20.73'ofW Q.Block 105 R/MF(PUD) 5. Boomerang Lodge 500 W.Hopkins Lots K,L,M,N,O,P.Q.R and S,Block 31 R-6 6. Brass Bed Inn 926 E.Durant 'Lots P,Q.R.and S,Block 118,and a strip of land£8, R/MF fat In width with all points being parallel to and lying easterly of and adjacent to rot S in Block 18, bounded on the north by the extension easterly of the southerly line of the alley through said Block l8 and bounded on the south by the northerly line of Durant AvO. 7. Christiana Lodge 501 W.Main Lots A,B,C,D,E,FO,H and 1,Block 31 Office S. Cbristutas Inn 232 W.Main Lots K,L,M and West 112 of Lot N.Block 51 Office 9, Copper Horse 328 W.Main East 112 of Lot 4 and all of Lot M,Block 44 R/MF 10.Cortina 224 B.Main. Lots P and Q,Block 73 Office It.Crestahaus 1301 E.Cooper A tract of land in the Riverside Addition,desribed as X-IS follows: All of Block 21 lying eaa of the following descrlbed line: begin at a point on-the northwest line of Vick Avenue where the easterly comer ofLot 8, Block 21,Riverside Addition,bears north 75 300 east 235.7 feet;then north 10 09°west 226.81 feet;then north 37 41°east 120 feet more or less to the south right-of-Aay line ofState Highway 82 and all streets, alleys and parkways lying east of said line and between Colorado Highway 82 and Vick Avenue 12.Fireside Lodge 130 W.Cooper Lots K,1-,M,N,O and?,Block 61 1tlbtF P217 VII.a llliil fIl{l ff{1f!{1111 i{!!1 if{fl 11!111 Ili f1{1I fill IN 40MO 09/03/1097 10:27A ORDIMM DAVIS SILVI 6 of 5 R 28.00 D 0.00 N 8.00 PI7KIW COLORADO 3.Hearthstone House 134 E.Hyman Lots Q,R and S,Block 68 R/MF Hotel Aspen 110 W.Maim Hotel Aspen,Units JO1-122,201-223,315-318& Ofiiee/R-6 323;East 1/2 of Lots E&O,All of Lots F,G,H,l,P, Q,R and S;easterly 16-04'of alley;Block 58 15.Hotel Lenado 200 S,Aspen Lots A,B and C,Block 75 Office i 16.Innsbruck Inn 233 W.Main Lots A,19,C,D and E,Block 52 Office 1 17.Molly Gibson Lodge/ 101 W.Main Lots O,P and Q,Block 59;OlficeIR-6 Aspen Ski Lodge Aspen Ski Lodge,Units 1-34;Lots E,F,G,H end 1, Block 59 18.Mountain House 905 E.Hopkins Lots A,B,C and A,Block 32,East Aspen Additiolt R/MF Lodge 19.Northstar 914 E.Waters Lots M,N and O,Block 119 R/NIF 20.St.Morltz Lodge 334 W.Hyman Lots K.L,M,N and O,BI ock 46 R-6 21.Shadow Mountain 232 W.Hyman Shadow Mountain Lodge at Aspen,Units 1.12; R-6 Lodge . Lots K,L and M,Block 53 Snow Queen Lodge 124 E.Cooper East ill of Lot F and all of Lot Q,Block 69 R/MF laA P218 VII.a II A AMENDED RLAT• Or THE MU i IwL ASPEN— A CONDOMINIUM t i xuJaa rmaan, we wale aJM, R y.. ^ I t»'•..^ or- r[+..: I l: w' h in.... rte j I w, N» r. 4xbr . n+"' qc. UN? Jp' I1 I bl •.'•` r ^, j iyYw. oH,. Ni.....,.. r' r• 77: 4M• mrtrb nM 4•,,,, U` Y r M L hI . Y • f .. .. rrm LJ1q I UN?' 1• r5 uk; Nny`,' W,,;, wa., n•. 4, , 1: i LLJ , i. I _ .... ... yam n.... n-... w,•..,..... orv= Awr AmDvow ar rilr_• rnr l utr •••; awl 100 !! j L J-_ • i—_._ - rw. a... T r,'•= i... Cilo.T- 1 I ` J ,.... Iwu M• 4 WdN4Wµ ay z NiT 31N uH1T all ' UMT. T/ b' UNlI. 513 S T yA wa w-_•' iu r.. .— nt uwv Nr iYN'%+ wV L wN: n Vm.'+ u J JNn- 3. 7 ' i J_.. x• '!; Ir! yl; NOT AUMFO 8Y TWS PLAT LS6' C770N 9— B ------ .. .....__.....____..._._ nn 7"• m: a? 3., etNi"•:.." l"""» i I au. wiaJ nR w weem w: e• x c. aww. r.:., rew e. A! . t y r 8CUW, iFRFR gOiiIYJN idEYEA INC_ ORA u••. u w. tira' j ' v i i r-'" Y uG k Ne Mum! to% cK. IOCG TQ- K- P219 VII.a p retie i ire I C UN/ T?? 9 JArr tY0 t i ', 11 • I I III. I ,' I • 1 TAUT 1•/N a3 Af i y, lmr wsr= o i ± pel ; wrens WrPff v K ND FZOOR PlAld 3RD/ ZOOR FL, W 7 7: r TIN gpm NQ I j;' y Lti. 7ALiVT/' LAN I S fZOOR RLM+ b e aro' o° I au» rot i I A c, woMMay. irk i r tr.. . w ... ew . rr xwn:. s:.. .. P220 VII.a r E RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING AN EXEMPTION FROM THE SCORING AND COMPETITION PROCEDURES OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT EIGHT LODGE UNITS AND TWO AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS TO BE LOCATED IN AN ADDITION TO THE HOTEL ASPEN AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE T$E HOTEL ASPEN MINOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,110 WEST MAIN STREET LOTS F,G,H,I,P,Q,R, AND S, BLOCK 58,CI'IY AND TOWNSTTE OF ASPEN,PITKIN COUNTY,COLORADO, i Parcel ID#2735-124-61-112 Resolution#2001-2 WIIEREAS, the Community.Development Department received an application F from Hotel Aspen Condominium Association,owner of the Hotel Aspen Lodge located at 110 West Main Street,Lots F, G,H, 1,P; Q, R, and S, Block 58, City and Townsite of Aspen, for a Minor Planned Unit Development (PUD) to accommodate eight (8) new lodge rooms and two(2)new affordable housing units to be contained within an addition to the existing Hotel Aspen;and, WHEREAS,the Hotel Aspen is located in the Office(0) and Medium Density Residential Zone Districts with a Lodge Preservation(LP)Overlay;and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.070 (M) of the Land Use Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission may exempt the development of properties in the LP Overlay Zone District to provide additional lodge units and additional affordable housing units from the scoring and competition procedure of growth management at.a duly noticed public hearing,pursuant to the requirements of said section;and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445 of the band Use Code, dimensional requirements of properties located in the LP Overlay Zone District may be,establishedthroughthePUDreviewprocess;and, WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code,the City Council may approve a PUD final development plan during a duly noticed public hearing after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission made at a duly noticed public hearing, comments from the general public,a recommendation from_ the Community Development Director, and recommendations from relevant referral a envies• WIRREAS,theirre arsshall,Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District,the City Water Department, City Engineering, City Parks Department,the Aspen/Pitkin CountyBuildingDepartmenttheAspetVPidditGotintyandtheCommunityDevelopmentDepartmentreviewedtheProjectandrecommendedapprovalwith conditions;and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November, 7, 2000, continued to December 5, 2000, and continued to January 16, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, by a four to zero (4-0) vote, the growth management P&2 Reso 2001-02 Page i 459763 05/2a/2001.11t21A RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVX i of 4 R 20.00 0 0,00 K 0,00 PITKIN COUNTY CO P221 VII.a i allotment eight(8)lodge units and two(2)affordable housing units to be included in theHotelAspenexpansion;and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November, 7, 2000, continued to December 5, 2000, and continued to January 16, 2001, the Planning andZoningCommissionrecommended, by a four to zero (4-0) vote, that the Aspen CityCouncilapprovetheHotelAspenMinorPlannedUnitDevelopment, with conditionscontainedherein. NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RLf SOLVED by the Commission: That the Hotel Aspen expansion to include eight lodge units and two affordable housing fifi' iunitsisherebyapproved,subject to the following conditions,and that the Aspen City Council should approve the Hotel Aspen Minor planned Unit Development subject to the following conditions: 1. A PUD Agreement shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by CityCouncilandshallincludethefollowing: a) The approved dimensional requirements for the property in a tabular format, b) The information required in Section 26.445.070(C). c) A parking management plan that details the marketing,taxi voucher,and free bicycle programs that will be implemented by the hotel operator. 2. A Final PUD Plan shall be recorded within 180 days-of the Final approval granted byCityCouncilandshallinclude: a) A final plat meeting the requirements ofthe City Engineer and showing easements,encroachment agreements and licenses with reception numbers for Own_a$ any physical improvements within City rights-of-way,and location of utility pedestals. If any utility mains are to be relocated,those new locations must be shown: If any utility mains exist in the vacated alley,easements shall be r". ggranted if not already established. N b) An illustrative site plan of the project showing the proposed improvements, landscaping,parking,and theapproved dimensional requirements in a tabular d a+ T`—-— c} Adrawtag representing the project's architectural character. ------------- m d) A lighting plan demonstrating compliance with the City Lighting tlations a , e) A geometric design of the Main Street loading pull-out area with a signature line for the City Engineer. r N 1) A drainage plan,including an erosion control plan,prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer maintaining drainage and sediment on-site during and fig after construction. If aground recharge system is requited;a soil percolation o P&2 Reso 2001.02 page 2 P222 VII.a report will be required to correctly size the facility: A 2-year storm frequencyshouldbeusedindesigninganydrainageimprovements. i I Prior to application for a building permit being accepted by the Building Departmenttheapplicantshall: a) Record the PUD Agreement and the Final PUD Plans, . b) Gain final approval from the Historic Preservation Commission. c) Deed restrict the two one-bedroom employee units to Category 2,or lower,with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing-Authority. d) Deed restrict the two one-bedroom employee units to employees of Hotel Aspen,or its successors or assigns. I e) Review a PM10 mitigation plan with the City Environmental Health Department. 4. The building permit application shall include: a) A copy of the final PUD Ordinance,recorded PUD Agreement,and the applicable HPC approval documents, b) The conditions of approval placed on the project by for Planning and ZoningCommission,City Council,and the Historic Preservation Commission approvals printed on the cover page of the building permit set, c) 'A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, d) A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department, e) A completed agreement to join any future improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights-of-way, f) Construction drawings for improvements to the Main Street right-of-way forapprovalbyCityEngineering. g) An encroachment license for the parking area within the Bleeker Street right- of-way for approval by the City)engineer, This encroachment may also i require a lease agreement with the City. h)-Encraacl mentlieet sesfor existingt nlicensedirrilsreme s`3nnu7,7y Y3c--- __...—__.......__... i) Construction drawings for improvements to the Garmisch Street right-of--way approval by CifyEngineering. - - S. Prior-to issuance of a building permit: a) The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development Direotor stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. b) All tap fees,impacts fees,and building permit fees shall be paid. P&z Kesa 2001-02 Page 3 557tf3 06/2'I2001 iis21A itgS8LUT1 DAVIS SYLVI4 of 4 e 20.00 t) 0.00 N 0.ee PtTK1N COUNTY CO P223 VII.a i'j 6. The applicant shall encourage visitors to not rent a car when staying at the HotelAspenthroughmarketinginformation,supply fr ee taxi vouchers to guests,and thefreeuseofbicyclestoguests. The Hotel manager shall use day parking passesavailablethroughtheCItyParkingDepartmentforofdsiteguestparking.The detailsofthisongoingobligationshallbeincludedinthePUDagreement. 7. Two parking spaces shall be made available and signed for the employee units,8. All construction vehicles,materials,and debris shall be maintained on-site and notwithinpublicrights-ofway unless specifically approved by the Director of the StreetsDepartment. All vehicle parking,including contractors,and their employees,,shallabidebythe2hourresidentialparkinglimitation©f the area unless an exemption is r granted by the Parking Department. The applicant condition. shall inform the contractor of this 9. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances, Construction activity is limited tothehoursbetween7a.m.and 7 p.m.with no construction activity on Sundays, 10..Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Completion for t ehemployeeunits,a member of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shadinspecttheunitstodetermineiftheunitscomplywiththerepresentationsmade in theapplication. 1 I.Before issuance of a building permit,the applicant shall record this Planning andZoningResolutionwiththePitkinCountyClerkandRecorderlocatedintheCourthousePlazaBuilding. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative,theapplicantmaypaythisfeetotheCityClerkwhowillrecordtheresolution. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on January 16,2001. APPROVED AS TO)FORM.PLANNINGAND ZONING r' CONINJ SSIONi City Attorney Robert Bla.ch,Chair ATTEST. oe I,otlu an,Deputy City Clerk C:IhomeiChrisICASES Hotel Aspenlp2 trso,doc P&Z Reso 2001-02 Page 4 455703 05/25/2001 11,218 RESOLBTI DAVIS SILVI4of4R20,00 o 0,80 N 0,00 PITKIN COUNTY Co P224 VII.a RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMNIISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT FOR 110 W.MAIN STREET,HOTEL ASPEN,A PORTION OF LOT)i,LOTS G,H,I AND A PORTION OF LOT O,LOTS P,Q,R,S,BLOCK 58,CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,COLORADO Parcel ID No.2735-124-61-201 RESOLUTION NO.14,SERIES OF 2000 WHEREAS, the .applicant, the Hotel Aspen Condominium Owners Association, represented by Reno Smith Architects,has requested conceptual design approval for the Property at 110 W.Main Street,a portion of Lot F,Lots G,H,I,and a portion of Lot O, f Lots P,Q, R, S, Block 58, City'and Townsite of Aspen. The project involves adding athirdstorytotheexistingbuilding;and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.415.0I0.C.5 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1.Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massingandvolume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a"H,"Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard,side yard and rear yard setbacks,extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred(500)square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five(5)percent;HPC may grant such variances after making afindingthatsuchvariationismorecompatibleincharacterwiththehistoriclandmark and the neighborhood, than would be, development in•accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variaions pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwellingunitspursuanttoSection26.40.090(8)(2). 2,Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character. . . g ce prapos r-deve opffierh. 3 Standar • The pwposed dryftwent ' 4"a„ces or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposedfordevelopmentoronadjacentparcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof, and 1 111111 IIIl1 IIIIl1 VIII Iillll IIIJ 111111111 lull Jill Jill 1488152 08/24/20M 09:49A RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 1 of 3 R 18.00 D 0,00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO P225 VII.a WHEREAS,Amy Guthrie,in her staff report dated May 24,2000,performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found favorably for the application, and recommended approval with conditions;and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 24, 2000, the Historic PreservationCommissionconsideredtheapplication,found the application to'meet the standards,and approved the application with conditions by a vote of 6 to 1. THEREFORE,BENT RESOLVED: i- That the review standards are met and HPC grants conceptual design appro val for 11' W.Main Street, a portion of Lot F, Lots G, H, I; and a portion of Lot 0, Lots P,Q, R, S, t' Block 58, City and Townsite of Aspen as presented at the May 24, 2000 meeting, asfollows: L The applicant should consider adding windows on the west elevation of the addition as'this piece may be visible from Main Street, 2• The HPC should make a recommendation to the Planning and ZoningCommissiontolookverycarefullyatheightandbulkissuesontheWestBleeker Street portion of this project, Height may be an even more significant problem there, within the residential neighborhood. Additionally,there are three historic homes in a row along that street frontage,The plans for the Hotel Aspen note two 70-80 foot tall spruce trees to be removed along West Bleeker Street, leaving the new construction particularly exposed to view. I A lighting plan for.the new addition and cut she for the exterior lightingfixturesmustbeprovidedforfinalreview. 4. All representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic, Preservation commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval,unless otherwise amended by other conditions.5. Make connector more transparent APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 24th dayOfMay,.2006.. . . David Hoefer,Assistant ty Attorney I I illl II 11f1[Il ll Illf(1 lfll illlti 11 flll ll f III 44W2 08/24/20M 090 RESCLUTI DAVIS SILVI 2 of 3 8 19.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY 00 P226 VII.a Approved as to Content: RISTORIC I RES COMMISSIO1 nn eeld, ATTEST: Kathy St and,Chief Deputy Clerk i 44x392 08/24/2000 09r3of3it19.00 D 0.00Ng 00 PjTKrNAV SILVZ P227 VII.a r ill SILV fAi1O1p11v ttIt 4 : Page: I of 2 TKiN 11.00 /24/2602 10 134 111(illiw#1111111+1111111 D RESOLUTION OF THE ASPS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSIONAPPROVINGANAPPLICATIONFORFINALD)EVELOPA +NT FOR'l 10 W.MAIN STREET,HOTEL ASPEN,A PORTION OF LOT F,LOTS G,H,I AND APORTIONOFLOTO,LOTS P,Q,R,S,BLOCK 58,CITY AND TOWNSITE OFASPEN,COLORADO Parcel ID No.2735.124-61-201 RESOLUTION NO,36,SERIES OF 2401 WHEREAS, the applicant, the Hotel Aspen Condominium Owners Association,represented by Reno Smith Architects, has requested final design .approval for they property at 110 W.Main Street, a portion of Lot F,Lots G,14,1,and a portion of Lot O,Lots PQ, R, S, Block 58, City and Townsite of Aspen. The project involves adding athirdstorytotheexistingbuilding;and WHEREAS, all development In an "H," Historic Overlay District or developmentinvolvingahistoriclandmarkmustmeetallfourDevelopmentReviewStandardsofSection26.415.010-C.5 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval,namely: I.Standard; The proposed development is compatible in general design, massingandvolume, scale and site plan with.designated historic structures located on theParcelandwithdevelopmentonadjacentparcelswhenthesubjectsiteisIna"H,"Historic Overlay District or-is adjacent to an Historic Landmark, For HistoricLandmarkswhereproposeddevelopmentwouldextendintofrontyard,side yard andrearyardsetbacks,extend into the minimum distance between byildings on the lot orexceedtheallowedfloorareabyuptofivehundred(SOO)square feet or the allowedsitecoveragebyuptofive(5)percent,HPC may grant such variances after making afindingthatsuchvariationismorecompatibleincharacterwiththehistoriclandmarkandtheneighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensionalrequirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed thosevariationsallowedundertheCottage1nfi11programfordetachedaccessorydwellingunits'putsuant to Section 26.40,090(8)(2). of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development, tan ar : e propose evelopment enhances or does not detract from thehistoricsignificanceofdesignatedhistoricstructureslocatedontheparcelproposedfordevelopmentoronadjacentparcels, 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from thearchitectunalcharacterorintegrityofadesignatedhistoriestructureorpartthereof;and P228 VII.a Jjj i 473891 paQa f 2 off 2 10/ZIf/AUVTY CO R 11.0$ 2eez io:lapt1 $.00 4'G' AS,Amy.Guthrie,in her staff report dated ruly 11,2001,performed an analysis isOftheapplicationbasedon.the standards, found favorably for the application, andrecommendedapprovalwithconditions;and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on July 11, 2001, the Historic PreservationCOmtnissioll-considered the application, found the application to ineet the standards,andapprovedtheapplicationwithconditionsbyavoteof5to0, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED: That the review standards are met and UPC grants final design approval for 110 W,MainStreet,a portion of Lot F;Lots G,H,1,and.a portion of Lot O,Lots P,Q,R,S,Block 58,City and Iownsite of Aspen as presented at the July 11,2001 meeting,with the followingcondition: 1 There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved withoutFirstbeingreviewedandapprovedbyHPCstaffandmonitor. ' APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at Its regular meeting on the 11th day L of July,2001, Approved as to Norm: David Hoefer,Asslstant ity Attorney Approved as to Content: MSTORIC PRESE VATION COMMISSION rl SY ffr•,r, d 1•F f UI cti.''tr<.-,-- ATTEST: by stric and,Chief Depaty Clerk P229 VII.a Easy Peel®Labels iUseAveryOTemplateS1680 Feed Pa per ••...r. Bend along line to 11 j p expose-Pap-up FdgeTM i ATTACHMENT 11 120 EAST MAIN PARTNERS LLC 132 WEST MAIN STREET ASSOC LLC ASPEN CLINIC BLDG ORTHOPAEDIC120EMAINST PO BOX 6565 GRP LLCASPEN, CO 81611 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 816156565 401 CASTLE CREEK RD#2100 ASPEN, CO 816111159 BROCKWAY LEXIE CHISHOLM EDITH S 46%7714 FISHER ISLAND DR CITY OF ASPEN FISHER ISLAND, FL 33109-0966 205 W MAIN ST ATTN FINANCE DEPTASPEN, CO 81611 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 COLLINS CINDA REV TRUST CRAWFORD RANDALL&ABIGAIL42PARKLN 124 N GARMISCH ST 35 FR IUS RA TRUST 5 35MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 ASPEN, CO 81611 PASADENA,NA, CDR CA 91103 DOMINGUE FAMILY TRUST FREEDMAN GARY& DONNA 2/3POBOX2293MEYERLOWELLJ& ELEANOR F 1/3 GARCIA STEVEN JWINTERPARK, FL 32790 PO BOX 1247 120 N GARMISCHASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 GARMISCH LODGING LLC GLICKMAN ADAM110WMAIN 81 ST 611ASPEN, CO 81 PO BOX 1207 GSW FAMILY INV LP PO BOX 2038ASPEN, CO 81612 WHEELING, WV 26003 HAYMAX LODGING LLC HITE HENRY H&ANGELA R101WMAIN 81 ST ASPEN, CO 81 PO BOX 155 KAPILOFF BRIAN J&TRACY M611 WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 3713 DEL MONTE DR HOUSTON,TX 77019 KING LOUISE LLC LANDIS CAROLYN BASALT, CO 81621 BOX 1467 128 N GARMISCH ST MELTON DAVIDBA ASPEN, CO 81611 135 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 Pi+RULBr,,,1Ri r-c:o r\ FF DAVID &S/;RAH116NGARMISCHST PIETRZAK BOB&SUE LLCASPEN, CO 81612 1811 NORTH BLVD HOUSTON, TX 77098 1796 E SOPRIS CREEK DR BASALT, CO 81621 RILEY ANY CLARK 98.76% CLARK AMY L 1.24% ROSE BRANDON SARDY HOUSE NEW LLC129WBLEEKERST625MTHOPERD INC UNITED REAL ESTATE VENTURESASPEN, CO 81611 WHARTON, NJ 07885 240 CRANDON BLVD#167 KEY BISCAYNE, FL 33149 SKILOFT LLC SPEARS NANCY M11GREENWAYPLAZA#2000 PO BOX 2630 STEELE JULIANNE BELL REV TRUSTHOUSTON, TX 77046 ASPEN, CO 81612 121 W BLEEKER ST ASPEN, CO 81611 tiquettes faciles 4 peter s cQw 10 nnl+nri+A%/Cov®r.1C.n® i Sens de Repliez a la hachure afin de I4lr6vcluslarohnrlPnn.onTM WWW.avel'y,cOm P230 VII.a Easy Peel1''Labels aUseAvery@Template51600feedPa Bend along line toPaper +.j p expose Pop-up EdgeTm U AVERY® 5160® L STEVENSON KAREN H 27% TARADA LLC205WMAINST 8075 LEEBURG PIKE#760 TYROL APARTMENTS LLCLEESBURGCO81611VIENNA, S RG P 200 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 TYROLEAN LODGE LLC WEESE KATE B IRV TRST 2200WMAINSTC/O SHIRLEY YOUNG WEST HOPKINS LLCASPEN, CO 81611 37 KINGSTON RD PO BOX 6150 KESINGTON, CA 94707 POTOMAC, MD 20859 WOLKENMUTH EDWARD F JR TRUST ZATS JULIE121WBLEEKERST 118 N GARMISCHASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 tiquettes faciles 41 peter r A Repliez a la hachure afin de 11I+aimv 70 nmhnr:+p\/RRV®g14A® 1 Sens de rovblar in rahnrd Pnn.uniM ! // ;?/is COm RM_rn_evesv P231 VII.a ATTACHMENT 12 CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Jennifer Phelan, 970-429-2759PROJECT: Hotel Aspen DATE: 5/15/2013 APPLICANT:Michael Brown, represented by Stan ClausonTYPEOFAPPLICATION: PUD, Commercial Design Review DESCRIPTION: The prospective Applicant is interested in demolishing a portion of the existing lodge building, decreasing the sizes of lodgingroomstobeanaverageof300squarefeetnetlivablearea, increasing the number of lodging rooms (from 45 to 54), and addinnewfreemarketresidentialunitsonsite, a restaurant may also be part of the proposal..g The property spans from Main Street to Bleeker Street and is about 27,000 square feet in size. The originalsubjectpropertyintotwodifferentzonedistricts—the portion of the property that fronts Main Street is zoned Mixed Use andtisincludedintheMainStreetHistoricDistrict; and the portion of the property that fronts Bleeker Street is zoned R-6 MediumDensityResidential. The entire subject property has a Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay which allows lodging and free markresidentialuses. et The Main Street portion has a FAR of 0.75:1 for lodging use. The back portion of the lot is zoned R-6, which does not permitmulti-family residential or lodge, however the LP overlay allows both uses and assigns an FAR for free market multi-familythroughtheLodgezonedistrict. y The applicant is interested in pursuing a Planned Unit Development plan (PUD)to establish dimensional requirements regardingfloorareaforlodgingandfreemarketresidentialusesontheproperty. The PUD review may be consolidated into a two stepprocesspursuanttofinaldevelopmentplanreview; however, growth management allotments cannot be applied for until theconsolidatedPUDisapproved. Parking for the lodge and free market residential uses needs to be specifically addressed in theapplication. Conceptual Commercial Design Review has been granted by the Historic Preservation Commission.entitlement process include Growth Management Review (GMQS) for new free market residential units, the Next steps in thetheexpansionofanexistinglodge. Both of these reviews are Major Planning and Zoning applications which ay only andand for beforonFebruary15thandAugust15th. Major GMQS applications compete for allotments through the community scoring c i appAffordablehousingmitigationisrequiredfornewnetleasablearea, new lodging llows, and new net livable area. The additionofmulti-family residential use to the property triggers subdivision review by City Council with a recommendation fromPlanningandZoningCommission.om the The review process is as follows: Step 1: HPC reviews Conceptual Commercial Design and Conceptual Major Development. Completed.Step 2: P&Z reviews Final PUD, subdivision and rezoning application for reStep3: City Council reviews and acts on application. commendation to City Council. Step 4: Once PUD is granted, apply on Feb, 15th or Aug. 15th for Major Growth Management review, final.Step 5: HPC review Final Commercial Design and Final Major Development. In addition, please note than any increase in floor area may trigger School Lands, Parks, and TDM/Air Qualit impact fThesearecollectedatthetimeofbuildingpermit. Y p ees. P232 VII.a Please note that Ordinance 3, Series of 2012 (a link is above) also changes the requirement that a project com ply with theAspenAreaCommunityPlan. This application is subject to Ordinance 3 which went into effect on March 27 2012. Below are links to the Land Use Application Form and Land Use Code for your convenience. Land Use App: htt ://www,as en itkin.com/Portals/0/docs/Cit Land Use Code: Comdev/A s%20and%20Fees/2011%201and%20use%20a °o20form, df htt :// www.as en itkin,com/De artments/Communit -Develo ment/Plannin -and-Zonin /Title-26-Land-Use-Code/ Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures26.304.035 Neighborhood Outreach26.310.060 Rezoning - Procedure for amendment26.412 Commercial Design Review26.415.070 Certificate of Appropriatenessroriateness for major development26.445 Planned Unit Development26.470 Growth Management Quota System (GMQS)26.470.070.4 Development of Affordable Housing26.470.080.2 Expansion or new commercial development26.470.080.2 Major Planning and Zoning application- New free market residential26.470.080.3 Major Planning and Zoning application—Lodge development26.470.100 Calculations 26.515 Parking26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements26.610 Impact Fees 26.710.040 Medium Density Residential (R-6)26.710.180 Mixed Use (MU)26.710.190 Lodge (L) 26.710.320 Lodge Preservation Overlay(LP) Review by:Community Development Staff for complete application.Historic Preservation Commission Planning and Zoning Commission City Council Public Hearing: Yes, at HPC, P&Z, City Council Planning Fees: For the P&Z and Council application $10,080. This includes 32 hours of staff review timAdditionaltimeover32hourswillbebilledat$315 per hour. e' Referrals: Engineering -$265 per hour deposit Housing -$1,575 flat fee Parks-$1,575 flat fee Total Deposit: For P&Z/Council application: $13,495 P233 VII.a Total Number of Application Copies: 13 Copies for HPC, (HPC= 12; PZ= 10; CC= 7;=2) Referral Agencies = 1/ea.•Planning Staff 23 Copies for P&Z and Council To apply, submit the following information: C] Total Deposit for review of application. D Pre-application Conference Summary. D Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant statin g thename, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. D Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of acurrentcertificatefromatitleinsurancecompany, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listingthenamesofallownersoftheproperty, and all mortgages,judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreementsaffectingtheparcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. D Completed Land Use application and signed fee agreement. D An 81/2"x 11"vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City of Aspen. D 23 copies for P&Z of the complete application packet. D A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how a proposed development complies with thereviewstandardsrelevanttothedevelopmentapplication. D A description and site plan of the proposed development including a statement of the objectives to be achieved bthePUD. vey D A floor area calculation reflecting existing and proposed floor area, net leasable area and net livable area. D A recent site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status of the parcelcertifiedbyaregisteredlandsurveyor, licensed in the State of Colorado. A proposed plat indicating the size and location of the existing and proposed development and proposed setbacks. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoninwhichissubjecttochangeinthefuture, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate, The summa gdoesnotcreatealegalorvestedright. summary P234 VII.a Z, SUPPLEMENTAL LAND USE CODE SECTION RESPONSES EkD h.31O Amendments ro the Land Use Code and Official Zone District The purpose wf this Chapter imto provide u means for amending theDistrictmap. Driw not intended twredov*purdoulur hardships o --wu rypoc[ulpr eKmoor6 btmomu» w person. This application proposes the redevelopment of the Hotel Aspen and the development of four (4) new free market units. A planned unit development designation will encourage flexibility and innovation in the design of the bui|dingsFoUuwingtheapprovalofthe no| PU[} development plan for the oedeve|opmen/-of the Hotel Aspen and creation of new free market units, the Applicants request the Community Development Director amend the City's Official Zone District Map toshowoPlannedUnitDevelopmentoverlay. h'310.04O Standards ofReview Du reviewing uo amendment to the text of this Title nrau amendment,u1beODoiulZnuaNiwbdotMup`the A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. The PUC> overlay will allow for the redevelopment of the Hotel Aspen and the development of four (4) new free market units. The proposed development is not in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area CommunityPlan. The PUD overlay will allow for the proposed redevelopment of the Hotel Aspen and the creation of new free market units. This development will enable the Applicants to add small lodge units fothe inventory oflodging units for the City of Aspen AddingsmoUlodgeunitsbostatedgoaloftheAspenAreaCommunity | rnun ponosvv Uoso phohfyofthe City and address on important. '' 'm punonTgop in the lodging h)venh»mforthe (dv. K. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible wituuorrouodinAsonedisbiot aod u omeo ooum erb4geodwt gland use and neighborhood obaructcr dom' The PU[} overlay will allow for the proposed redevelopment of the Hotel Aspen and the creation of new free market units. The development will he consistent with the character ofthe neighborhood by utilizing the dimensional requirement; of underlying neighboring zone districts. The general vicinity ofthe Hotel Aspen is characterized byo mixture ufinstitutional, commercial,o nd-residential development. The mixture of lodge and free market residential will be compatible with the established use patterns of the area. The architectural style and building orientation vUbecOmpofih/etoexiofingofy/es and represent on improvement over existingstructures. Gormisoh Street,with its wide hght-of-woy, udh- porkond open space across Bleeker Street in front of the Yellow Brick easily accommodate the proposeddevelopment. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Hotel Aspen (PID#273512461800) Page IFinalPUD,Subdivision and Rezoning-Supplemental Submission uu June 2o/3 P235 VII.a The PUD overlay and the proposed redevelopment of the Hotel Aspen and thecreationofnewfreemarketunitswillnothaveanadverseeffectontrafficgenerationandroadsafety. Sidewalks will be improved along the proposeddevelopmentandpedestrianamenitiesaddedwhichwillprovideaverypleasingandsafeenvironment. The Hotel Aspen is located on existing public transit routesandhascloseconnectiontobicycleandpedestrianpathsleadingtothecommercialcore. Required parking will be provided entirely onsite in the subgradeparkinggarage. While the parking configuration along Garmisch has beenrequestedtobemodifiedbytheHistoricPreservationCommissionduringConceptualReview, a substantial amount of the existing public head in parking along Garmischwillremain. This parking will receive substantial landscape improvements. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on publicfacilitiesandwhetherandtheextenttowhichtheproposedamendmentwouldexceedthecapacityofsuchpublicfacilitiesincluding,but not limited to,transportation facilities,sewagefacilities,water supply,parks,drainage,schools and emergency medical facilities. The PUD overlay and the proposed redevelopment of the Hotel Aspen and thecreationofnewfreemarketunitswillnotincreasetransportationimpactsoradverselyimpactwatersupply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.The Applicants have been in contact with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation Districtandhavediscussedrequiredimprovements/modification that will be required to bemadetotheexistingsewagefacilities. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantl adverseimpactsonthenaturalenvironment. y The PUD overlay and the proposed redevelopment of the Hotel Aspen and thecreationofnewfreemarketunitswillnotcreateadverseimpactsonthenaturalenvironment. The Hotel Aspen is located within an existing and built-upneighborhoodoftheCityofAspen. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character intheCity. The proposed PUD overlay is consistent and compatible with the communitycharacterintheCityandthesurroundingneighborhood. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surroundingneighborhoodwhichsupporttheproposedamendment. . As stated in the most recent AACP, "during the last 10-15 years, the market hasfavored, and the land use codes have allowed for many small to mid-sized lodges toconverttootheruses. This has resulted in the development of projects that areinconsistentwithourtown's bulk, mass, and scale." The redevelopment of the HotelAspenwillcounterthistrendandpreserveasmalllodgeprojectforfuturegenerationsofvisitorstoAspen. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it isinharmonywiththepurposeandintentofthisTitle. Hotel Aspen (PID#2 735 1246 1800) Final PUD,Subdivision and Rezoning—Supplemental Submission Page 2 26 June 2013 P236 VII.a The proposed PUD overlay will not be in conflict with the public interest and will be inharmonywiththeintentoftheLUC. 26.480 Subdivision 26.480.50 A. General Requirements. 1. The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the mix of development in the immediatevicinityoftheparcelintermsofdensity,height,bulk,architecture,landscaping and open space,as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan. The proposed redevelopment of the Hotel Aspen and the creation of new freemarketunitswillbecompatiblewiththemixofdevelopmentintheimmediate vicinitywhichischaracterizedbyamixtureofcommercial, institutional, and residential. Theproposeddensity, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space of thedevelopmentwillbecomplimentaryandsimilartothedevelopmentintheimmediatevicinity. The architecture and the areas of public amenity andlandscapingwillgreatlyincreasethevisualattractivenessoftheneighborhood. 2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in thearea. The proposed redevelopment of the Hotel Aspen and the creation of new freemarketunitswillbeconsistentwiththecharacteroftheexistinglandusesintheneighborhood. The general vicinity of the Hotel Aspen is characterized by a mixtureofinstitutional, commercial, and residential development. The mixture of lodge andfreemarketresidentialwillbecompatiblewiththeestablishedusepatternsofthearea. The architectural style and building orientation will be compatible to existingstylesandrepresentanimprovementoverexistingstructures. Garmisch Street, with itswideright-of-way, and the park and open space across Bleeker Street in front of theYellowBrickeasilyaccommodatetheproposeddevelopment. 3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surroundingareas. The proposed subdivision of the four free market units will not adversely affect thefuturedevelopmentofsurroundingareas. The new buildings and off-street parkingwillenhancethevalueandappearanceoftheneighborhood. B. Suitability of land for subdivision. 1. Land Suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable fordeveiopmentbecauseofHooding,drainage,rock,or soil creep,mudtlow,rockstides,avalanche,or snowslide,steep topography,or any other natural hazard or other conditionthatwillbeharmfultothehealth,safety,or welfare of the residents in the proposedsubdivision. The proposed subdivision is located on a 27,000 sq. ft. parcel spanning from MainStreettoBleekerStreet, and bordering Garmisch Street. The subdivision is not locatedonlandunsuitablefordevelopmentduetoflooding, drainage, rock or soil creep,mudflow, rockslides, avalanche or snowslides,steep topography, or any other naturalhazardorotherconditionsharmfultothehealth,safety, or welfare of the residents oftheproposedsubdivision. Hotel Aspen (PID#27351246 1800) Final PUD, Subdivision and Rezoning age 3 26 June 2013 g—Supplemental Submission P237 VII.a 2. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies,duplication,or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. The proposed subdivision will exist in a developed neighborhood where infrastructure and public facilities exist. No utility extensions will be required. C.Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review(See,Chapter26.430)if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing,neighboring development areas and/or the goals of the community. Through the PUD process, the applicant requests variances of maximum cumulative floor area and side yard setbacks along Garmisch Street for the residential units. The floor area variance will make the redevelopment of the Hotel Aspen and the resulting increase in affordable housing possible. The setback variance along Garmisch Street was recommended by staff and approved by the HPC. Increasing a variety of lodging types, particularly smalllodges, is a state goal of the AACP. D. Affordable Housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shallberequiredtoprovideaffordablehousingincompliancewiththerequirementsofChapter 26.520,Replacement housing program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwellingunitsshallberequiredtoprovideaffordablehousingincompliancewiththerequirements ofChapter26.470,Growth Management Quota System. The applicant proposes to provide replacement of the existing affordable housing studio unit and mitigation for the additional lodge and residential development is proposed through the provision of three on-site affordable housing units. The proposed affordable housing units will be fully compliant with Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines and are intended to house employees of the lodge. E. School land dedication. The applicant proposes to provide a school land dedication fee in a manner consistent with the land use code. This is currently calculated as$78,330, subjecttofinalreviewbyCityofAspenstaff. D. Growth Management Approval. Following Final PUD, subdivision, and rezoning approval by City Council the Applicants will submit for Major Growth Management review, ideally for thesubmissiondeadlineof15August2013. Hotel Aspen (PID#273512461800) Page 4FinalPUD,Subdivision and Rezoning—Supplemental Submission 26 June 2013 P238 VII.a FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS SUBG RADE CALCULATIONS LEGEND L _ L _ _ _ rr _ _ EXIS- 17ING LOWER LEVEL WALL CALCULATIONS 11 1 I NON UNIT WALL LABEL TOTAL WALL AREA( SF) EXPOSED WALL AREA( SF) EXPOSED WALL IF I I 1 1 263 a l 2 171 a WALL BELOW GRADE I I II I I I r 3 263 a 12SF 17SF 7 S 24 SF 29 SF F— J IL I 4 12 a I 1 Ir - - 1 11 1 1 1 II I I 1 I 1 17 0 6 73 0 19•- 0• * z9- r r- 4 r- lo iiz UB'- B" Uo- 9' 11* fit- f f- f— 1r 1 I 1 1 7 7 a 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 1 1 ' ' s 24 a 1 J 9 29 NUN 0 y4 i_ _ — — — 10 44 a 1. TOTAL LODGE WALL AREA( SF) 903 I9. r J 1 EXPOSED LODGE WALL AREA( SF) 0 87 2. 1 I Sb OF EXPOSED LODGE WALL ARJI,( EXPOSED/ TOTAL) a 6' I 1 11 64 3 EXISTING LOIN cR LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS II LODGE GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 0 II LODGE FLOOR AREA( 5;==) 0 RESIDENTIAL GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) a I RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA( S€) a I AHU GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 0 L — — — — — — - AHU FLOOR AREA( SF) a NON- UNIT GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 639 NON- UNIT FLOOR AREA( SF) 0 639 x 0% l EXISTING LOWER LEVEL F. A. R. TOTAL LOWER LEVEL COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA( SF) D 1"= 20'- 0" TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR. AREA CALCULATIONS LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA( SF) a FIRST LEVEL FLOOR AREA( SF) 9, 660 SECOND LEVEL FLOOR AREA( SF) 9, 691 THIRD LEVEL FLOOR AREA( SF) 1, 793 TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR AREA( SF) 21, 344 Rm" ECEIVED 0 C T 10 ? 3g3 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HOTEL ASPEN 110 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 poss SCHEMATIC DESIGN : FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 400 0 20 40 BO 805 EAST AI STREET Af Pf X, COLORADO 81! 11 2012 to a7D/ e 2! e7!! lP) 610/ 8202lsD rouw./.. 09/ 17/ 13 P239 VII.a FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 28 2. 3. SUBGRADE CALCULATIONS LEGEND v_ PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL WALL CALCULATIONS LODGE VVAL LABEL TOTALVVAL AREA( SF) EXPOSED WALL AREA( SF) EXPOSEDWALL 3. 1 71 0 WALL BELOW GRADE 27. 2 26 0 5. r u IODG I. ton° s I a 954 0 26 SF 5 to 4 155 18145E 20 5 87 0 g 26. 6 548 I„ ayx, z- I, 6 o 3/ a" Los- 111/ r v- 3 L L '• 7 283 0 f' 1-. 2] f.. 3. 4. 28, 19. I 3 221 0 9 272 44 II I RE210405FA 18. 10 i 11. 11 207 0 tz. 9.- N" 6o•- to• L 3z- o' * 2°' 16. 12 159 0 Sa t3.. 13 149 0 5. 6. 7. 8. 1e ,<. I 14 19. a 191F 39 SF 12. 8 15 39 0 16 147 0 z9. n. 10. 17 39 0 L w- z 1 6 2 7(- IT- 73/ 4" 16'- 6• 2- 4" •- 4 16- 4" 9. Is 105 0 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. T 4. 16. 19 124 a 39 5F 111F 139 SF 20 109 0 21 39 0 22 146 ID 4- 11'- e' L 13'- 9 # IZ'- 11/ 4" 4' 16'- 21/ 2' I PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL F. A. R. z i3s a 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. zo•_ o•• TOTAL LODGE WALL AREA( SF) 4, 222 1 4 EXPOSED LODGE WALL AREA( SF) OF EXPOSED LODGE WALLAREA( EXPOS ED/ TOTAL} RESIDENTIALWALL LABEL TOTAL WALL AREA( SF) EXPOSED WALL AREA( SF) 25. - o'. 26. 27. 25 357 0 g- 24 135 0 23 139 0 0 ES o 9 22 146 0 L.. 56'-] 1/ 2" LL L 52.- 0.. L 21 39 0 20 109 a 28. 29. 30. 26 312 40 27 356 40 28 312 40 i8 105 a 17 39 C 16 147 0 15 39 0 14 19 0 13 149 0 12 159 0 29 470 40 30 1 469 1 0 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL WALL AREA 3, 500 EXPOSED RESIDENTIAL WALL AREA 160 OF EXPOSED RESIDENTIAL WALL AREA( EXPOSED/ TOTAL) 5% PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS LODGE GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 10, 224 LODGE FLOORAREA( SF) 0 10224 x0%) RESIDENTIAL GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 3, 954 RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA( SF) 181 3954x5%) AHU GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 0 AHU FLOOR AREA ISF) 0 NON- UNIT GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 0 NON- UNIT FLOOR AREA( SF) 0 TOTAL LOWER LEVEL COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA( SF) 181 TOTAL PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA( SF) 181 FIRST LEVELFLOOR AREA( SF) 12, 574 SECOND LEVEL FLOOR AREA( SF) 14, 364 THIRD LEVEL FLOOR AREA( SF) 9, 26 HOTEL ASPEN TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR AREA( SF) 36, 365 110 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PASS SCHEMATIC DESIGN : FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 4 0 20 40 80 SOS EAST MAIN STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 9I- I1 02012 W. C!, L' ,. 09/ 17/ 13 11) 970/ 915 47551119) 0/ 930 2950 P240 VII.a DECK 958 SF FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS EXISTING FIRST LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS LODGE GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 9, 353 LODGEI RESIDENTIALGROSS FLOOR AREA EPE 276JS L G 821 S64 Sf 1530 SF AHU GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) NON- UNIT GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) FIRST LEVELCOUNTABLE FLOOR AREA( SF) LODGE DECK GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) RESIDENTIAL DECK GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 0 AHU DECK GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 121 r-- r NON- UNIT DECK GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 0 DECK/ PORCH COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA( SF) 0 IXEMPT, d5% 1AHU DecK 121 SF TOTALFIRSTLEVELCOUNTABLE FLOOR AREA( SF) 9, 860 07S507 SF TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA( SF) 0 0 35s FIRST LEVEL FLOOR AREA( SF) 9, 960 SECOND LEVEL FLOOR AREA( SF) 9, 691 THIRD LEVEL FLOOR AREA( SF) 1, 793 DEC TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR AREA( SF) 21, 344 LODGE So SF O EXISTING FIRST LEVEL F.A.R. 1"= 20- 0. FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS e - - - PROPOSED FIRST LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS oD e 1139 S LODGEGROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 7, 155 ICI RESIDENTIAL GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 4, 130 AHU GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 1, 088 RESIDE IA NON- UNIT GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 171 zoos s FIRST LEVEL COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA( SF) 12, 574 u LODGE d34 SF i 139 S LODGE DECK GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 1, 645 RESOD- NTIAt 7=_ CK GROSS rtOOR AREA( S=) 0 F ....._ ON- UNIT AHU DECKGROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) - 249 v1 SF 87 SF III Loy DG F i NON- UNIT DECK GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 19 RES DENT Al DECK/ PORCH COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA 0 EXEMPT,< 15% M65 TOTAL FIRST LEV EL COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA( SF) 12, 574 AHU 6545 DISTAIRFED DECK 19131913 SF TOTAL PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA( SF) 181 0 FIRST LEVEL FLOOR AREA( SF) 12, 574 1644 SF SECOND LEVEL FLOOR AREA( SF) 14, 364 THIRD LEVEL FLOOR AREA( SF) 9, 246 TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR AREA( SF) 36, 365 AHU DECK 114 SF 2 PROPOSED FIRST LEVEL F.A.R. I"= 20'- 0' HOTEL ASPEN 110 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 poss SCHEMATIC DESIGN : FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 1402 0 20 40 80 505 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO . 1511 2012 u2V rz[ teMl.` vcP::. 09/ 17/ 13 I T). 701925 4755( 1). 70/. 30 2. 50 P241 VII.a FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS LODGEDECK ODGE DECK SO IF 105 IF EXISTING SECOND LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS O G LODGE GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 3, 691 1616 S RESIDENTIAL GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 1530SF AHU GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 0 ODGF DECK NON- UNIT GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 0 10s IF SECOND LEVEL COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA( SF) 9, 691 LODGE DECK GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 1, 312 oD RESIDENTIAL DECK GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 0 lozz sF IF AHU DECK GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 0 NON- UNIT DECK GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) o DECK/ PORCH COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA( 517) 0 EXEMPT,< 15% LODGEDECK 697 IF TOTAL SECOND LEVEL COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA( SF) 9, 691 ODG LODGE DECK TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS IF 1 CS2 IF LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA( SF) 0 z13a s FIRST LEVEL FLOOR AREA( SF) 9, 860 SECOND LEVEL FLOOR AREA( SF) 9, 691 THIRD LEVEL FLOOR AREA( SF) 1, 793 TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR AREA( SF) 21, 3- 04 EXISTING SECOND LEVEL F.A.R. FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL 19615E DECK PROPOSED SECOND LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 443 IF l In S 1139 SF LODGE GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 9, 671 RESIDENTIAL GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 3, 922 AHU GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 684 NON- UNIT GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 87 SECOND LEVEL COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA( SF) 13, 364 G 1427 S LODGE DECK GROSS FLOORAREA( SF) 1, 815 RES€ DENTIAL DECK GROSS FL OOR AREA( Sc) SSG o GE 29as s LODGE NON II-87 IFNR AHU DECK GROSS FLOO R AREA( SF) 684 3035E NON- UNIT DECK GROSS FLOOR AREA( S-) 19 RESIDENTIAL DECK DECK/ PORCH COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA( SF) 0 EXEMPT,< 15% a43 IF TOTAL SECOND LEVEL COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA( SF) 14, 364 LODGE DECK 733E 6& SF LODGE DECK TOTAL PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 7916 IF LO ER LEVEL FLOOR AREA( SF) 181 FIRST€ EVEL FLOORAREA( SF) 12, 574 DEN 1961 IF SECOND LEVEL FLOOR AREA( Sc) 13, 364 LODGE 16265E THIRD LEVEL FLOOR AREA( SF) 9, 236 361 IF TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR AREA( SF) 36, 365 2 PROPOSED SECOND LEVEL F.A.R. HOTEL ASPEN 110 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 poss r SCHEMATIC DESIGN : FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 14, aOl 0 20 40 905 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 91611 201$" ca." ,",. ice,. 09/ 17/ 13 T19701. t5 4733/ F) 97- 1900 2. 50 P242 VII.a FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS ODE DECK 6664 S49S EXISTING THIRD LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS LODGE GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 1, 793 Y RESIDENTIAL GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 0 AHU GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 0 NON- UNIT GROSS FLOOR AREA( SFJ 0 13ss SF THIRD LEVEL COUNTABLE FLAOR AREA.( SF} 1, 793 LODGE DECK GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 1, 260 RESIDENTIAL DECK GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF 0 ODGE DECK 5455F AHU DECK GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 0- NON- UNIT DECK GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 0 DECKIPORCH COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA( SF) 0 IXENiP I,< 15% TOTAL THIRD LEVEL COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA( SF) 1, 793 TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 363: ODGE DECK LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA( SF) 0 53SF FIRST LEVEL FLOOR AREA( Sr) 9, 860 SECOND LEVEL FLOOR AREA( SF) 9, 691 THIRD LEVEL FLOOR AREA( SF) 1, 793 TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR AREA( SF) 21, 344 EXISTING THIRD LEVEL F. A. R. RESIDENTIAL DECK FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 466 SF RESIDENTIAL DECK PROPOSED THIRD LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 56 SF IODG 1139 S I LODGE GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 9, 24- 6 X I RESIDENTIAL GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) AHU GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) o I NON- UNIT GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 1709 sF ESIDENTIA pG THIRD LEVEL COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA( SF) 1343 SF LODGE DECK GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) I RESIDENTIAL DECK GROSS FLOOR AREA( Sc) 1, 033 NON- UNIT AHU DECK GROSS FLOORAREA( SF) 0 PRBIDENTIAL BI SF NON- UNIT DECK GROSS FLOOR AREA( SF) 17 DECK/ PORCH COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA( SF) 0 EXEMPT,< 15`% TOTAL7HIRD LEVEL COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA( SF) 9, 246 1011 S 1155E TOTAL PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS LODGE DEC6) 5SF LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA( SF) 181 oDG FIRST LEVEL FLOOR AREA( SF) 12, 574 SECOND LEVEL FLOOR AREA( S F) 14, 364 9, 246 THIkDLEVELFLOORAREA( SF) 5D65F TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR AREA( SF) 36, 365 DECK 666 SF 2 PROPOSED THIRD LEVEL F. A. R. HOTEL ASPEN 110 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 poss SCHEMATIC DESIGN : FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 40 0 20 40 505 EAST MAIN STREET AEPFX, COLORADO E 811 1011 Fyn O , nA l ti r,:, 09/ 17/ 13 IT15701225 4755( 1) 1 701 9 20 2 050 P243 VII.a Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pete Strecker, Assistant Finance Director THRU: Don Taylor, Director of Finance Steve Barwick, City Manager DATE OF MEMO: December 3, 2013 MEETING DATE: December 9, 2013 RE: 2014 Mill Levies REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This memo outlines information for City Council to consider when adopting property tax mill levies for 2014. Adoption of the proposed 2014 mill levy resolution is required to be submitted to Pitkin County no later than December 15, 2013. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council adopted the 2014 budget on November 11, 2013 which included revenue assumptions regarding property tax revenue for the General Fund, Asset Management Plan Fund and Stormwater Fund. Property tax revenues below are greater than those communicated during the 2014 budget development process for the General Fund and AMP due to updated inflationary estimates and better than anticipated new construction. Revenues are slightly below communicated figures for Stormwater due to greater than projected reductions to assessed valuations for 2013. BACKGROUND: General Fund and Asset Management Plan mill levy are by law subject to the TABOR restrictions; the Stormwater mill levy is calculated under the provisions of TABOR by City Council direction. TABOR provides that the amount of revenue from property taxes cannot grow by more than the amount attributable to inflation plus new construction, mitigating excessive fluctuation in total property tax revenue that could otherwise result from assessed valuations rising or falling. As assessed valuations rose in prior years the City reduced its tax yield to the TABOR limits by implementing a temporary mill levy credit. DISCUSSION: Proposed mill levies and their respective tax yield are shown in the following table. For 2014, the temporary mill levy credit has been reduced to 0.426 mills for the General Fund / Asset Management Plan Fund; the Stormwater mill levy is proposed to be limited to 0.650 mills per prior Council direction. P244 VIII.a Page 2 of 2 2014 Tax Rate 2014 Temporary Credit 2014 Mill Levy Rate General Property Tax 5.410 0.426 4.984 Stormwater Fund 0.650 0.000 0.650 Total 6.060 0.426 5.634 2013 Assessed Valuation Updated Mill Levy Rate 2014 Property Tax General Fund $1,238,989,610 1.744 $2,160,798 Asset Management Fund $1,238,989,610 3.240 $4,014,326 Total General Mill Levy 4.984 $6,175,124 Total Stormwater Mill Levy $1,238,989,610 0.650 $805,343 Refund/Abatements $1,238,989,610 0.020 $25,862 Total 2014 Property Tax 5.654 $7,006,329 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff proposes that the 2014 mill levies be adopted. ALTERNATIVES: The proposed mill levies may be amended downward as City Council deems necessary. PROPOSED MOTION: Move adoption of the resolution attached which approves the 2014 mill levies as proposed. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: P245 VIII.a RESOLUTON NO. 112 (SERIES OF 2013) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO SETTING THE 2014 MUNICIPAL MILL LEVY RATES AND CERTIFYING SAME TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR PITKIN COUNTY. WHEREAS, the City Manager, designated by Charter to prepare the budget, has prepared and submitted to the Mayor and City Council the Annual Budget for the City of Aspen, Colorado for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2014 and ending December 31, 2014; and WHEREAS, the net assessed valuation of the taxable property for the year 2013 in the City of Aspen returned by the County Assessor of Pitkin County was updated on November 27, 2013, is the sum of $1,238,989,610; and WHEREAS, said mill levy is calculated to produce gross ad valorem tax proceeds in the amount of $6,702,934 for collection year 2014; based upon the assessed valuation as determined by the County Assessor, and WHEREAS, voter approval on November 6, 2007 established the City’s Stormwater Fund mill levy rate at an amount not to exceed 0.650 mils upon each dollar of assessed valuation on all taxable property within the City annually with no date of expiration, permitting collection of property tax revenues in excess of the mill levy limitation provided in Article X, Section 20 or the Colorado Constitution for property tax collection in all future years beginning in 2008; and WHEREAS, said mill levy rate is calculated to produce gross ad valorem tax proceeds in the amount of $805,343 for collection year 2014; based upon the net assessed valuation of the City of Aspen as determined by the County Assessor, and WHEREAS, the net assessed valuation of taxable property in Aspen decreased approximately 3.0% between 2012 and 2013 assessment years, and WHEREAS, a temporary reduction in property tax collections is desired by the City Council in order to reduce the tax burden on owners of taxable property within the City of Aspen while preserving the City’s ability to increase property taxes to levels previously authorized by City of Aspen voters as described above, and WHEREAS, C.R.S. section 39-1-111.5 authorizes a local government to certify a refund in the form of a temporary property tax credit or a temporary mill levy rate reduction, provided that the certification includes the gross mill levy, the temporary property tax credit or temporary mill levy rate reduction expressed in mill levy equivalents, and the net mill levy and under C.R.S. section 39-1-111.5(4), the Assessor shall, concurrent with delivery of tax warrants to the Treasurer, itemize duly certified temporary property tax credits or temporary mill levy rate reductions in the manner set forth in C.R.S. section 39-1-111.5(2), and under C.R.S. section 39-1-111.5(5) the tax P246 VIII.a statements shall indicate by footnote which local government mill levies reflect a temporary property tax credit or temporary mill levy rate reduction for the purpose of effecting a refund. SECTION 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, Colorado for the purpose of balancing the 2014 budget, and providing a reasonable closing fund balance for said fiscal year, levies the following taxes upon each dollar of the total valuation for assessment of all taxable property within the City of Aspen for the year 2013; that a temporary mill levy rate reduction is authorized; and that the individual mill levies are expressed in terms of the gross mill levy, the temporary mill levy rate reduction shown in mill levy equivalents, and the net mill levy as shown below, which includes a temporary credit of 0.426 for the General Property Tax mill levy: 2014 Tax Rate 2014 Temporary Credit 2014 Mill Levy Rate General Property Tax 5.410 0.426 4.984 Stormwater Fund 0.650 0.000 0.650 Total 6.060 0.426 5.634 2013 Assessed Valuation Updated Mill Levy Rate 2014 Property Tax General Fund $1,238,989,610 1.744 $2,160,798 Asset Management Fund $1,238,989,610 3.240 $4,014,326 Total General Mill Levy 4.984 $6,175,124 Total Stormwater Mill Levy $1,238,989,610 0.650 $805,343 Refund/Abatements $1,238,989,610 0.020 $25,862 Total 2014 Property Tax 5.654 $7,006,329 SECTION 2 The City Clerk is hereby directed to certify and deliver this Resolution to the Board of County Commissioners for Pitkin County on or before December 15, 2013. ADOPTED THIS 9, day of December 2013 __________________________ Steven Skadron, Mayor P247 VIII.a I, KATHRYN KOCH, duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the City of Aspen, Colorado, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Resolution adopted by the City Council at its meeting held on December 9, 2013, which Resolution was adopted subsequent to public hearings on the City of Aspen’s 2014 Proposed Municipal Budget and prior to the final day established by law for the certification of the tax levy to Pitkin County, all was required by the Sections 9.8 and 9.9 of the Aspen Home Rule Charter. _______________________ Kathryn Koch, City Clerk P248 VIII.a MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Skadron and Council FROM: Wheeler Executive Director Gram Slaton THRU: Assistant City Manager Randy Ready DATE OF MEMO: November 20, 2013 RE: Wheeler Board of Directors Ordinance No. 50 SUMMARY: The Board of Directors of the Wheeler Opera House and Wheeler staff are presenting a suggested change to the composition of the Wheeler board that would change the appointment of a high school student representative (“youth representative”) and fill that position with a regular board appointment. This is the first suggested change to the composition of the board of directors since 2005. The proposed change to the Wheeler Board ordinance would allow Council to continue to fill the seat with a high school or youth representative, but the board position would not be reserved exclusively for a high school student. BACKGROUND: In 1982, in advance of the comprehensive renovation of the Wheeler Opera House, Aspen City Council established and appointed an initial Board of Directors to undertake the management of the facility in accordance with Ordinance No. 10 (Series of 1982). Over the years, Aspen City Council has reorganized and re-established the Wheeler board by three separate ordinances, these being Ordinance No. 63 (Series of 1992), Ordinance No. 5 (Series of 2004), and Ordinance No. 48 (Series of 2005). These ordinances have served to clarify the role of the board (1992), expanded its composition (2004), and reduced its composition while also eliminating potential conflicts of interest (2005). A youth representative was established as part of the 2004 ordinance. DISCUSSION: Since its establishment in 2004, the Wheeler has had five different youth representatives on its board, with periodic gaps between appointments. The City Clerk’s office works with a representative of Aspen High School to ideally secure a student for a two-year period (by ordinance, the appointment is for a one-year term). The Wheeler Board of Directors believes that, while the intention of the youth representative on the board was a good idea and would ensure a direct link between an underserved audience and the Wheeler, in practice it has proven difficult not only to attract an interested high school student but also to make the traditional board meeting schedule integrate with the youth representative’s hectic curricular and extra-curricular schedules. The youth representative has full voting authority and is one of seven voting members of the board (the eighth member of the board is a representative from the Aspen Music Festival and School and serves in an ex officio capacity). While the quality of the input P249 VIII.b from the youth representatives has been high, the rate of absenteeism associated with both the conflicting schedules and traveling distance from school to town has undermined the effectiveness in allowing this student to make a meaningful contribution to the Wheeler’s board process. However, Wheeler management in the past few years has developed other avenues for meaningful involvement with students. Staff and the board believe that these new ways of engaging youth are actually better than board membership. The Wheeler annually hosts year-end honors ceremonies for both Aspen and Basalt High Schools. The Wheeler also offers outreach activities that take the MountainSummit films and guests to the school campus. The Wheeler’s social media efforts engage young people, make them aware of upcoming programs, and provide interactive opportunities for them to comment on performances and to make programming suggestions. At present, the Wheeler’s Audience Services Manager and Marketing Coordinator are organizing a youth advisory group to help promote shows and receive ideas and feedback about how the Wheeler can be an even-better entertainment venue for youth. RECOMMENDATION/COMMENT: Wheeler board and staff recommend Council approval of Ordinance No. 50, in order to better serve the community through active management and guidance of the Wheeler Opera House. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: P250 VIII.b ORDINANCE NO. (Series of 2013) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 48 (SERIES OF 2005) AND RE-ENACTING AN ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE WHEELER OPERA HOUSE. WHEREAS, the City of Aspen owns the historic structure known as the Wheeler Opera House, located at the corner of South Mill Street and East Hyman Avenue in the City of Aspen, Colorado, and has the right and responsibility to manage the same; and WHEREAS, the City Council did appoint a Board of Directors of the Wheeler Opera House to undertake the management of the Wheeler Opera House in accordance with Ordinance No. 10 (Series of 1982); and WHEREAS, the City Council repealed Ordinance No 10 (Series of 1982) and re-enacted an ordinance (Ordinance 63 of 1992) to clarify that the Board of Directors is to function as an advisory board and not a managing board; and WHEREAS, the City Council repealed Ordinance No. 63 (Series of 1992) and re-enacted an ordinance (Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2004) to change the powers and duties of the Board of Directors to clarify its role in establishing policies for the Wheeler Opera House and to expand the membership of the Board of Directors from seven (7) to nine (9) members; and WHEREAS, the City Council repealed Ordinance No. 5 (Series of 2004) and re-enacted an ordinance (Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2005) to decrease the membership of the Board of Directors from nine (9) to seven (7) members, one of which was designated as a youth representative, and modified the qualification requirements to eliminate members or candidates that have a conflict of interest as described in the City Charter (Section 4.7) as “a substantial personal or financial interest” in the Wheeler Opera House; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to now remove the designation of one of the voting members as a youth representative and return such board seat to another community representative; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Establishment of the Board of Directors. There is hereby established the Board of Director of the Wheeler Opera House for the City of Aspen, Colorado, which Board of Directors shall serve for an indefinite term and at the pleasure of the City Council. Section 2. Composition; Term; Qualification. The Board of Directors shall be constituted as follows: (a) The Board of Directors of the Wheeler Opera House shall consist of seven (7) members, all of whom shall serve overlapping three (3)-year terms. The Board shall P251 VIII.b be appointed by the City Council with all appointees designated as at-large appointees who shall be selected primarily for their knowledge of and experience in the performing arts and/or financial, management or marketing capabilities. (b) Except for the filling of vacancies, all terms of appointment shall be for three-year periods, commencing at the time of appointment. (c) The Aspen Music Festival and School (AMFS) or its successor organization that may have the right to the exclusive use of the Wheeler Opera House during the summer season, as per contract through August 2034, shall appoint a representative to fill a permanent, non-voting, ex-officio seat on the Board of Directors. By virtue of AMFS’s Wheeler Opera House management responsibilities for a significant portion of the year, the AMFS representative shall be entitled to participate in any of the activities and deliberations of the Board, but shall not vote. (d) All members of the Board of Directors shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council and may be removed by majority vote thereof. (e) The Board of Directors is declared not to be a permanent board within the meaning of Section 8.2 of the Charter of the City of Aspen and, therefore, there shall be imposed no age or residency requirement for membership on the Board of Directors nor shall candidates for appointment be required to be qualified electors. Section 3. Powers and Duties. Generally, the Board of Directors is empowered to advise the City of Aspen on the planning and policy related to the daily and long-term operations of the Wheeler Opera House. These management duties shall include the following: (a) Recommend scheduling policy, priorities and rates for the theatre operations; and (b) Recommend operating policy and rental rates for the commercial space in the Opera House building. Section 4. Rules of Procedure. (a) A quorum to transact the business of the Board of Directors shall consist of four (4) members. (b) At its first meeting (which shall be called by the City Manager), the Board of Directors shall elect a chairperson, vice-chairperson, and secretary. (c) The Board of Directors shall establish regular meeting times and days. Special meetings may be called by the chairperson or at the request of any two (2) members on at least twenty-four (24) hours written notice to each member of the Board of Directors, provided that a special meeting may be held on shorter notice if all members of the Board of Directors waive notice in writing. No business shall be transacted at any special meeting unless it has been stated in the notice of such meeting. P252 VIII.b (d) All regular and special meetings of the Board of Directors shall be open to the public except for executive (closed door) meetings as are permitted by law. Citizens shall have a reasonable opportunity to be heard and all minutes and other records of action of the Board of Directors shall be made available to the public. (e) The Board of Directors may adopt by-laws for the conduct of its business not inconsistent with this ordinance and the Charter of the City of Aspen, and shall adopt such rules of procedures as it deems necessary. Section 5. Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance 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. Section 6. Public Hearing A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 9th day of December, 2013, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 2nd day of December, 2013. ________________________________ Steven Skadron, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and ordered published this 9th day of December, 2013. ________________________________ Steven Skadron, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk P253 VIII.b