The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.council.regular.20160111 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA January 11, 2016 5:00 PM I. Aspen Public Facilities Authority Annual Meeting II. Call to Order III. Roll Call IV. Scheduled Public Appearances a) Swear in Police Officer b) Proclamation - National Mentoring Month in Aspen V. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT scheduled for a public hearing. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes) VI. Special Orders of the Day a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments b) Agenda Deletions and Additions c) City Manager's Comments d) Board Reports VII. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion) a) Resolution #1, Series of 2016 - Designating the Public Place for the Posting of Notices for Public Meetings b) Resolution #3, Series of 2016 - Approving a Ditch Easement for Holden-Marolt Ditch c) Minutes - December 14, 2015 VIII. Notice of Call-Up a) 517 E. Hopkins Ave, Notice of Call-up IX. First Reading of Ordinances X. Public Hearings a) Resolution #2, Series of 2016 - Carry Forward Growth Management Allotments b) Ordinance #48, Series of 2015 - Residential Design Standards Code Amendment XI. Action Items a) Call-up of P&Z approval: 200 S. Aspen (Hotel Lenado) XII. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting January 25, 2016 COUNCIL’S ADOPTED GUIDELINES P1 • Make Decisions Based on 30 Year Vision • 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. P2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Linda Manning, City Clerk DATE OF MEMO: January 5, 2016 MEETING DATE: January 11, 2016 RE: Annual Meeting of the Aspen Public Facilities Authority BACKGROUND: The Aspen Public Facilities Authority is a “non-profit corporation and is an instrumentality of the City of Aspen for certain limited purposes”. The Board of Directors of the Authority are the members of the City Council, the City Finance Director and the City Clerk. The officers at the last annual meeting were: President Steve Skadron Vice President Adam Frisch Treasurer Don Taylor Secretary Linda Manning Asst. Secretary Art Daily The By-Laws state the President shall be the Mayor of the City of Aspen, The Vice-President and Assistant Secretary shall be members of the City Council and shall hold office so long as he or she remains a member of the City Council of the City of Aspen. The Treasurer shall be the Finance Director of the City of Aspen. The Secretary shall be the City Clerk of the City of Aspen. The By-Laws state the following order of business for regular meetings: 1. Roll Call 2. Reading and approval of the minutes of the previous meeting 3. Bills and Communications 4. Report of the President 5. Unfinished Business 6. New Business 7. Adjournment The Authority was formed to assist in the financing of several public projects over the years. The only outstanding bond issue of the Authority is the 2007 Certificate of Participation issue which was used to finance the acquisition and remodeling of the Isis Theatre. This borrowing will be fully repaid in 2037. The debt service is funded from the rents received from the building and is also guaranteed by the City. Attachments A. Minutes January 26, 2015 P3 I. Aspen Public Facilities Authority Annual Meeting Minutes January 26, 2015 Steve Skadron, president, called the meeting of the Aspen Public Facilities Authority to order with members Frisch, Mullins, Daily, Romero, Taylor and Manning present. Don Taylor, treasurer, stated the Authority is comprised of the City Council, himself and the City Clerk. The Corporation was set up as part of the Certificate of Participation financing for the ISIS Theatre. The Certificate of Participation is a syndicated lease purchase agreement that was used to refurbish the building in 2007. These type of agreements are pretty common for building construction or in this case refurbishment. The City leases the spaces to Theatre Aspen and a commercial landlord. The purpose was to secure an operating theater in the City when there was a possibility that was going to go away. When the COP is complete the City will deed out its interest in the spaces to Theatre Aspen and the commercial landlord as they actually pay the debt service through their lease with the City. Authority Member Frisch moved to approve the minutes from last year; seconded by Authority Member Romero. All in favor, motion carried. Authority Member Romero moved to adjourn at 5:05 p.m., seconded by Authority Member Frisch. All in Favor, motion carried. Linda Manning, Secretary P4 I. PROCLAMATION City of Aspen, Colorado Incorporated 1881 WHEREAS, Aspen recognizes the fact that every day mentoring programs connect qualified mentors to our young people and cultivate relationships that provide crucial support and guidance as these young adults grow and develop into our next generation of citizens and leaders; and WHEREAS, Research has shown that when matched through a quality mentoring program, such as the Buddy Program, mentors can play a powerful role in providing young people with the tools to make healthy decisions, stay focused and engaged in school, and reduce or avoid risky behavior like skipping school, drug use and other negative activities; and WHEREAS, In a recent national report called The Mentoring Effect, young people who were at-risk for not completing high school but who had a mentor were 55 percent more likely to be enrolled in college than those who did not have a mentor. They were also 85 percent more likely to participate regularly in sports or extracurricular activities, and 78 percent more likely to volunteer regularly in their communities; and WHEREAS, The same report found that one in three youth will reach age 19 without a mentor. National Mentoring Month in Aspen gives us the opportunity to highlight quality mentoring programs that produce these positive benefits, and to focus on year-round strategies to grow their capacity to ensure every young person in the Roaring Fork Valley who needs a mentor is connected to a caring adult; and WHEREAS, We applaud the efforts of volunteers, schools and the private sector to ensure that more Coloradans know they can support young people to make positive choices in real life by being a caring and consistent adult through volunteer mentoring. NOW THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the Mayor, City Council, and the citizens of Aspen hereby proclaim January 2016 as NATIONAL MENTORING MONTH IN ASPEN By order of the City Council this 11th Day of January, 2016. P5 IV.b Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor P6 IV.b MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Linda Manning, City Clerk DATE OF MEMO: January 5, 2016 MEETING DATE: January 11, 2016 RE: Resolution #1, 2016 – Designating the Public Place for the Posting of Notices of Public Meetings REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Each year City Council, by resolution, must designate the public place for posting notices for public meetings. DISCUSSION: The Colorado Open Meeting Law Section 26-4-6-402(2)(c) states City Council is to annually designate for each calendar year a public place for the posting of notices for meetings. By properly designating a place for posting meeting notices, a public entity will be deemed to have given full and timely notice of any meetings so long as the notice was posted in the designated place at least twenty- four hours in advance of the meeting. Notices for City Council meetings and any other board, committee, commission, authority, or other advisory, policy-making or rule-making board shall be posted in the designated location. Resolution #1, Series of 2016 designates the glass case in the first floor lobby of City Hall as the designated place for posting meeting notices. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff is recommending approval of Resolution #1, Series of 2016. Approval of the consent calendar will adopt this resolution CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENTS: Resolution #1, Series of 2016 – Designating the Public Place for the Posting of Notices of Public Meetings P7 VII.a RESOLUTION NO. 1 (SERIES OF 2016) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, DESIGNATING THE PUBLIC PLACE FOR POSTING NOTICES OF PUBLIC MEETINGS. WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, deems it in the public interest to provide full and timely notices of all its meetings; and WHEREAS, the Colorado state legislature amended the Colorado Open Meetings Laws, Section 24-6-401, et seq., C.R.S. to require “all public bodies” subject to the requirements of the law to annually designate the place for posting notices of public hearings no less than twenty-four hours prior to the holding of the meeting; and WHEREAS, “local public body” is defined by Section 24-6-401(1)(a) to include “any board, committee, commission, authority, or other advisory, policy-making, rule-making, or formally constituted body of any political subdivision of the state and any public or private entity to which a political subdivision, or an official thereof, has delegated a governmental decision-making function but does not include persons on the administrative staff of local public body”. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1 A public notice of each meeting held by the City Council of the City of Aspen and each meeting of any other board, committee, commission, authority, or other advisory, policy-making, rule-making, or formally constituted body of the City of Aspen, shall be posted by the City Clerk at least twenty-four hours prior to the holding of the meeting in the enclosed glass case in the lobby of City Hall, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado. Section 2 The City Clerk shall notify each board, committee, commission, authority or other advisory, policy-making, rule-making, or formally constituted body of the City of Aspen of the contents of this resolution and the other general requirements of the Colorado Open Meeting Law, C.R.S., Section 24-6- 401 et seq. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 11th day of January, 2016. _________________________________ Steven Skadron, Mayor I, Linda Manning, 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, at a meeting held January 11, 2016. _________________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk P8 VII.a 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: David Hornbacher, Utilities and Environmental Initiatives Director Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney THRU: Scott Miller, Public Works Director Jim True, City Attorney DATE OF MEMO: January 4, 2016 MEETING DATE: January 11, 2016 RE: Resolution #3, Series of 2016, Approving a Ditch Easement for Holden-Marolt Ditch REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Approval of the attached Resolution No. 3, Series of 2016. This Resolution includes Exhibit A, the Easement Agreement, for an Easement for the Holden-Marolt Ditch along a property on Cemetery Lane. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On July 13, 2015, Council approved Ordinance 22, Series of 2015, approving a lot split for the property located at 725 Cemetery Lane. The Holden-Marolt Ditch runs through the property along its western boundary and Section 6 of the Ordinance requires the owner to record an easement for the ditch and show it on the Lot Split Plat. BACKGROUND: Staff has worked with the applicant to develop the Easement Agreement, attached as Exhibit A to the Resolution, acceptable to and approved by the City Attorney’s office as required by the Ordinance. This Easement Agreement, once fully signed, will be recorded immediately prior to the recordation of the Lot Split Plat, which will show the full extent of the easement with reference to the recorded document. DISCUSSION: The Easement memorializes the City’s rights to access, operate and maintain the Holden Marolt Ditch through the two lots created by the lot split. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: There are no known budgetary impacts beyond staff and attorney time already invested in reviewing and finalizing the Easement Agreement. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: There is no new construction proposed in connection with this Easement Agreement and no environmental impacts resulting from approval and execution of the Easement Agreement RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council is requested to authorize Steve Barwick to sign the Easement Agreement for the Holden/Marolt Ditch through the property at 725 Cemetery Lane. ALTERNATIVES: Council may desire changes to the Easement Agreement in its current form. P9 VII.b 2 PROPOSED MOTION: “I MOVE TO APPROVE Resolution #3, series of 2016, approving and authorizing the City Manager to sign the Easement Agreement for the Holden-Marolt Ditch.” CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance #22, Series of 2015 Resolution #3, Series of 2016 with Easement Agreement P10 VII.b RESOLUTION #3 (Series of 2016) A RESOLUTION APPROVING A DITCH EASEMENT FOR THE HOLDEN-MAROLT DITCH WHEREAS, the City of Aspen, in Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2015, approved a Lot Split for Property at 725 Cemetery Lane. Section 6 of the ordinance requires an easement agreement for the Holden-Marolt Ditch, located along the westerly property line of both lots, to be recorded and shown on the lot split plat; WHEREAS, the owner of the Property has worked with City staff to develop an Easement Agreement for the Ditch, acceptable and approved by the City Attorney as required by Ordinance 22, Series of 2015; it also requires a signature by the City, prior to its recording; WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has determined that the Easement Agreement, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference, is appropriate and in the best interests of the City and should be approved, signed and recorded. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: That the Aspen City Council approves the Easement Agreement and authorizes the City Manager to sign the Easement Agreement on behalf of the City. Dated: _________________________ Steven Skadron, Mayor I, Linda Manning, 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 January 11, 2016. Linda Manning, City Clerk P11 VII.b P12 VII.b P13 VII.b P14 VII.b P15 VII.b P16 VII.b P17 VII.b P18 VII.b P19 VII.b P20 VII.b P21 VII.b P22 VII.b P23 VII.b P24 VII.b P25 VII.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 14, 2015 1 CITIZEN COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 2 COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ................................................................................................................ 4 BOARD REPORTS ...................................................................................................................................... 4 CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 5 Resolution #139, Series of 2015 & Resolution #140, Series of 2015 – Aspen TREE and Cozy Point Lease Renewals ............................................................................................................................... 5 Resolution #141, series of 2015 – Intergovernmental agreement for Nordic program operational funding and management .............................................................................................................................. 5 Resolution #125, Series of 2015 – Lease for unit 101 and 201 The Mill Building – Relocation of Building Department ................................................................................................................................. 5 Minutes – December 1, 2015 ................................................................................................................ 5 NOTICE OF CALL UP – 200 S Aspen Street (Hotel Lenado) .................................................................... 5 NOTICE OF CALL UP - 209 East Bleeker Street ...................................................................................... 7 ORDINANCE #48, SERIES OF 2015 – Residential Design Standards Code Amendment ......................... 7 ORDINANCE #47, SERIES OF 2015 – Amending review process for fee-in-lieu payments..................... 8 CALL UP OF HPC APPROVAL – 305-307 S Mill Street .......................................................................... 9 CALL UP OF HPC APPROVAL – 434 E cooper Avenue ........................................................................ 11 P26 VII.c Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 14, 2015 2 At 5:00 pm Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Mullins, Frisch, Myrin and Daily present. CITIZEN COMMENTS 1. Ward Hauenstein commented on the petition that was emailed to council. A number of citizens have signed and are asking council to not take a fast track on the hiring of Chris Bendon’s replacement and to rename the department something more in line of sustainable and not in line with development. It is a time to give pause and look at what the community values. They are asking council to take an active role in the recruitment and choosing a leader for the department. They want to give policy direction that is in harmony with the citizens’ desires. There has been a disconnect with what community development has been following and the desire of the community. We have a nice opportunity as a community to define a baseline and carrying capacity of the town. We should be able to come up with a definition of what is too much, expected growth and development. If we fast track his replacement we are missing an opportunity for a check in and a director that is in line with the values of the community. 2. Leslie Thomas, roaring fork valley horse council, thank council and parks for renewing the lease for Cozy Point and emphasizing the management plan. She is looking forward to working with the City in the future. 3. Phyllis Bronson said we the people includes other people. She thinks the last six months has been the most vitriolic she has ever seen. She has been here since 1975. She paraphrase Lorenzo Simple’s column that the defeat of Base 2 is akin to an ax murder. She also paraphrased Wendle Whiting’s column last month that this is a dark time for Aspen. She is confused saying that she sat in council for years and listened to Mick Ireland saying he wanted to see a lodge project without speculative real estate and we saw one that he never supported. She thinks the majority of this council, that she helped to elect, have the ability to help guide good decisions. She doesn’t want everything to go to a public vote. She does not think the selection of a community development director should be in the hands of the citizens alone, it should be a multi-tiered process. She is saddened for many reasons. 4. Maurice Emmer stated he is hoping that we have an opportunity to open the doors and windows and let in a lot of air and light in terms of land use. He encouraged people to read the petition. It is an opportunity for council to avoid a lot of future conflict over land use issues. The conflicts in the past have come from the recommendations and actions from the community development department that have led council into dead ends and difficult situations. Our hope is that a fresh look can be taken at that department and the department can be structured and led in such a way that before a recommendation comes to council it will be vetted so thoroughly and will have so much public support that council will avoid the conflicts it has had. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS Councilman Frisch welcome back Mayor Skadron. He wished everyone a happy holiday season. It has been great to serve and he is looking forward to next year. From a low hanging fruit standpoint he is not too fussed about what the department is called. He has no issue with having the word development struck from the name of the department. A general comment on the org chart in city hall that sometimes gets missed. The people in these seats have a lot of power, more than we are comfortable having sometimes. I don’t see a lot of power hungry people up here either. For those that are frustrated with the land use code or the results that are produced. I don’t think staff is the place to look. They make recommendations on their professional judgement and have an ear to the ground at what is important to the community but at the end of the day the decisions are made at this table. The frustrations are about prior and possibly current people who sit up here. I really think if we look long and hard the blame is probably at this council table for those who are frustrated. I don’t buy the thing that staff is dragging the P27 VII.c Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 14, 2015 3 five of us along. It goes back to the planning director is a really important job and respected but there is nothing binding anyone who sits up here that they have to vote in favor of a staff recommendation. People don’t want to look back at who voted for what. I wish Chris and Sara the best as they move on and try different roles. They have been great staff members. The buck does stop here and that is where people should be rightly frustrated. Councilman Myrin asked that the Base 1 parking decision come to Council if Council supports that rather than being done at a staff level. He gave the example of the Grey Lady tent and staff being able to make the decision on the seven day permit. He asked the Base 1 decision be made in the daylight in front of Council whether it is onsite underground. Those are options Council should hear as well as the community. He stated he has volunteered on P&Z for a number of years and been very involved in elections for a number of years. It is not that the current staff is good or bad people. They have been doing an excellent job in the direction that council and staff has led them. Consistently as Steve mentioned after the election when the voters have an opportunity to vote on development they don’t support it. He would like to see that turned around so the conflicts get addressed sooner and the leadership is running in the direction of the community. We know where the community’s direction is running. Council would start to look much better and be in a better light if we had recommendation if they were aligned with 60 percent of the voters not 30. It is time to make a sea change at the staff level. There needs to be a process of whoever hires that process. It was an experiment that went bad from the outcome that we have today. He feels very strongly that if we have people aligned running staff that are aligned with the community it will reduce the vitriol. Council has the ability to influence the decision if need be through a new city manager or with the current one. We can’t keep down the same path and expect different results. Councilwoman Mullins said Ward has a valid point. We could consider renaming the department. Perhaps development is not the name and we move more toward looking into controlled growth. There is quite a bit of value in the name of something. In terms of Phyllis’s comment, she agrees. It has been quite ugly in the last year. In the end we are on the same page looking for the best for Aspen. She hopes in the New Year that we can be a little less adversarial and work together. Most of us are on the same page. Council depends on our discussions. Each of us has some expertise. That is what we are doing. We hired staff who are experts in their fields. She has great respect for their professional experience and their value to the city. She wished Chris and Sara good luck in their new endeavor. We will certainly look closely at the process for hiring someone new. Two things came up after the current election; how soon a city employee or former council member can work on a project and in the New Year she asked if we could take a look at the rules and if anything should be changed. The other thing is the donation reporting and if we can see what donations came in before the election. We need to look at a panic button in council chambers. She wished a happy holidays to everybody. Councilman Daily wished a Merry Christmas to everyone. He hopes our next year is a fulfilling one for everyone. He supports the concept of renaming the community development department. There is no need to have development in the name. What we are about to undertake is an important process. Chris has done a marvelous job in leading our planning department under very difficult circumstances. We are not going to be governed by history but be thoughtful of what the community needs today. He is supportive of a measured, thoughtful and inclusive process to select that person. He will support that type of process. P28 VII.c Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 14, 2015 4 Mayor Skadron said his goal is to hire a skilled, professional and impartial director. Council has to rely on the director for impartial advice. The director must be trusted to interpret and enforce the laws passed by council. One of the proposals in the petition is to appoint a citizen commission to be involved in the process. By definition it is necessary to avoid a process that is politicized. A politicized process leads to a politicized outcome. We are moving into a lose lose scenario. Regardless, no matter anyone’s personal opinion, the goal must be to hire someone who is impartial. There will be ample opportunity for public participation. They will be able to meet and greet finalist. He has great faith in both P&Z and HPC who deal with land use code. Those two commissions provide the city manager with input. The use of sustainability in the title is compelling. We will give consideration to some of the things suggested. The overall goal is to hire a skilled, professional and impartial community development director. He said he was in Paris for the world climate change conference. It was a privilege to be there. It was a real compliment of the City of Aspen to be there. It was remarkable. It will return much more value to the community than he expected it to. He sat on three different panel discussions with participants from around the world. The media coverage was excellent. Happy and safe holidays to everyone. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Steve Barwick said the hiring process for the community development director or new name will be posted soon and run through January 18. The process will include interviews by HPC and P&Z. It is consistent with the hiring processes in the past. My perspective is there are two citizen boards that council selected and appointed. They know the code and city staff. Those meetings and interviews will be open to the public. There will be a public meet and greet. There seems to be a fair amount of discussion of the charastics I should be looking for. Send me an email with those. Most of all I’m looking for impartiality. They cannot have their own agenda. Given the nature of the petition provided I don’t think it is consistent with the charter. Jim True, city attorney, stated the charter is relatively clear. Section 6.3 states the manager shall be responsible and have the power and duty to hire and remove city employees. 6.5 administrative services states neither the council, its members the mayor or any council committee shall dictate the appointment of any person to office by the city manager except as otherwise provided in this chapter or in any way interfere with the city manager or other city officer to prevent him from exercising his judgement in the appointment or employment of officers or employees in administrative service. The com dev director is a city employee. This section does provide an exception as otherwise provided in this chapter that specifically refers to the following two sections of the charter 6.6 and 6.7. 6.6 says that the city clerk shall be appointed by the manager with approval of council. 6.7 says the director of finance shall be appointed by the city manager with approval of council. The com dev director is not part of the charter in any way. 6.5 does leave the appointment of the com dev director to the city manager. BOARD REPORTS Councilwoman Mullin said there is lots going on at the Red Brick. The web site has all the information. There is lot of holiday cheer going on there with all local artists and gift opportunities. She attended the RFTA board meeting as well. They passed the 2016 budget. It reflected the successful bus driver’s negotiations with the union. It takes into account the increased operating expenses to restructure the driver’s wages. P29 VII.c Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 14, 2015 5 Councilman Frisch said Frontiers has been working on the capital reserves and will meet tomorrow at the work session to go over it. Nordic Council will have the IGA that will hopefully get signed tonight. There is a CORE board meeting on Thursday and he will report back at the first of the year. CONSENT CALENDAR Resolution 125 Mill St lease Councilman Frisch asked to touch base on how long we are signing it for and the flexibility to leave early or late or buy. Jack Wheeler, asset, said the term is five years. There is no early out and we are committed for five years. We can sublet if we need to with approval of the owners. The renewal option is three years with one year notice. We tried to get first right of refusal to purchase but could not get that. We negotiated a first right of offer if they will sell. We are close on the lease and Jim and I will finalize in next day or so. Mr. True said because of tabor requirement there is an obligation of annual appropriations of the rent. Councilman Myrin said he is still in same position and thinks purchasing would make more sense in the long term. He realizes he is one of four. Mr. Wheeler said they looked at all scenarios and this is the least financial risk. Councilman Daily said the IGA makes a wonderful point. The discussion informed him this is the largest free Nordic system in the United States. It is managed by the city parks department and funded by the county open spaces and trails fund. It is impressive information and we ought to be proud of ourselves. Councilwoman Mullins said the tenant finishes are extremely expensive and we should finish with things that can be transferred to the new space. Mr. Wheeler said we are meeting with the steering committee tomorrow and that is the plan. The same furnishings will be used and highlighted for the new city offices. It should be an investment that can be brought to the new city buildings • Resolution #139, Series of 2015 & Resolution #140, Series of 2015 – Aspen TREE and Cozy Point Lease Renewals • Resolution #141, series of 2015 – Intergovernmental agreement for Nordic program operational funding and management • Resolution #125, Series of 2015 – Lease for unit 101 and 201 The Mill Building – Relocation of Building Department • Minutes – December 1, 2015 Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Resolution #139, #140, #141 and the December 1, 2015 minutes; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Resolution #125, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor except Councilman Myrin. Motion carried. NOTICE OF CALL UP – 200 S Aspen Street (Hotel Lenado) Jennifer Phelan, community development, told the Council on November 17th, P&Z voted 5 to zero to approve conceptual commercial design and growth management reviews. The property is proposed to be P30 VII.c Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 14, 2015 6 redeveloped from 17 units and 19 lodge keys and two affordable housing units to a four unit lodge project with 9 keys, two affordable housing units and two free market units. The project was heard at four different public hearings in front of P&Z in March, September, October and November. The approved commercial design will meet the underlying zoning for height, set backs, allowable floor area. If called up it will need to be called up tonight. Councilman Frisch said P&Z approved 5 to 0 but staff recommended denial. It is rare to have a disconnect and he would like to hear more about that. Ms. Phelan said she included some images of the progression of the design in the packet. There were some substantive changes from March to the September meeting and additional refinement to subsequent meetings. The project is located in the mixed use zone with the small lodge overlay for design. It is a lodge and they recognize it should fit into the character of the neighborhood. Staff had concerns with the overall mass and scale and how it fits into the neighborhood. There are historic buildings across the street. At the end of the day, although there have been changes we felt it still needed further refinement. Councilman Frisch said the comments from P&Z met all the technical code and they ran out of reasons to deny. Ms. Phelan said the underlying zoning has been met and it does allow for the size and placement. Staff does believe there are commercial design guidelines that need to be met and the scale and character are part of that review. Councilman Daily said he is not being pushed to call it up. He likes the design changes that were made. The current design is much more attractive. They paid attention to input from staff and others. The size is substantially lower than what is allowed in the zone. Councilwoman Mullins said there are not variations or variances being requested. Ms. Phelan replied no. Councilwoman Mullins asked for the specific guidelines that are not met. Ms. Phelan stated on modulations and form. They felt there needed to be better articulation along the Hopkins façade. There is also some review on mass. They still feel it is a bit too big for the neighborhood. Councilwoman Mullins said she thinks our guidelines are good but this is where it gets somewhat subjective. It is commendable they are not asking for variations. What is being presented is not in character with Aspen and the transitional neighborhood. There is a community park right across the street. It does look commercial and pretty hard edge. It becomes somewhat subjective. She wonders about the east façade and how it engages with the park. There has to be some interaction with the hotel and the park and she does not see the connection. She would suggest the call up. There are fewer and fewer lots and everyone needs to be optimized. Councilman Myrin said he would support calling up this in part because of the staff recommendation and the commercial design review. There are very few spaces left and once it is done we don’t get to go back. We should give this a bit more time. Mayor Skadron stated he concurs with Councilmembers Mullins and Myrin. The Staff recommendation is no. He is concerned with the lodge component and two residential units. Councilman Frisch said it looks like the November design is a good chunk bigger than September and it lost the hotel name. Ms. Phelan said she will summarize that better in the memo. Councilwoman Mullins moved to call up 200 South Aspen Street; seconded by Councilman Myrin. All in favor, motion carried. P31 VII.c Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 14, 2015 7 NOTICE OF CALL UP - 209 East Bleeker Street Amy Simon, community development, said on November 11th, HPC granted conceptual major development approval, demolition of non-historic additions, floor area bonus, set back variations and residential design standard variations. This is a 6,000 square foot lot in the west end that was owned by the Hays family for 50 years. The new owner would like to renovate and expand. They plan to strip back to the original structure and make an addition with a one story connector behind the house and have the new structure some distance from the original resource. HPC originally was concerned with the way the new structure wrapped around the original structure. The board accepted the revision and granted a couple of set back variations including one on the west side. They also granted a combined side yard variance and a rear yard set back reduction. A 500 square foot floor are bonus and a residential design standard variation was granted because the porch of the historic resource does not meet the standard for new construction. The vote was 4 to 1. Councilman Myrin has no questions on this one. Councilman Frisch said overall the applicant is doing a good job of honoring what HPC is all about. He wants to make sure HPC resources are not making each other bigger and bigger. He wants to make sure we are looking at the building on the site. Ms. Simon said it is understood there is a specific amount of square footage allowed on the site. Councilman Frisch said it is good job and he is not desirous of calling up. Councilwoman Mullins stated she would not support the call up. It is one of the last houses on the block to be redeveloped. Contextually it matches better to be larger. The set back variance and side yard are justified by the fact they are not moving the house. Really good work with the connector. Thank you for moving the taller portion over. The 500 square foot bonus is justified. It is a good project. She is sorry it is getting so large. It is a good example for the program. Councilman Daily said he supports the proposed plan. He appreciates the aerial view provided. He thinks it works. He is not favoring the call up. Mayor Skadron said he concurs. There will be no call up. ORDINANCE #48, SERIES OF 2015 – Residential Design Standards Code Amendment Justin Barker, community development, told the Council this ordinance will amend the residential design standards. They were first adopted 20 years ago as a way to maintain design quality and compatibility with historic development without dictating style. The purpose of this amendment is to update and clean up the standard and improve the review process. The feedback has been positive. There are two common issues, lack of clarity in the review process and flexibility to allow design styles. This will reduce the number of steps and provide a more reliable process. The flexibility is being addressed by separating the standards into two categories. The first is for three standards with no administrative flexibility. All remaining standards will be put into a category with some flexibility. This does not change the majority of the standards. A project will still be required to meet the standards as written but will be provided with the opportunity to demonstrate that the standard can be met in another way. There are other updates including a general reorganization of the chapter to make it easier to read, adding definitions and improving the graphics. Staff recommends approval and second reading is scheduled for January 11th. P32 VII.c Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 14, 2015 8 Councilman Frisch stated simpler does not need to be more relaxed in terms of stringency. Councilman Myrin said one change is trying to address the doors at Smuggler. Mr. Barker replied correct. Staff is still working on the language with the consultant. Smuggler is one if the standards. Councilman Myrin said he would support that. Making things more lenient could change a lot of things. He would hesitate to move too far from our current standards. Councilman Daily said he is supportive of the first reading. Councilwoman Mullins said we have seen this several times. The more we can clarify the code the better. She will support his. Mayor Skadron said he supports this as well. Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #48, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. ORDINANCE NO. 48 (SERIES OF 2015) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 26.410 – RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS, AND ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #48, Series of 2015 on first reading; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Daily, yes; Myrin, yes; Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #47, SERIES OF 2015 – Amending review process for fee-in-lieu payments Jessica Garrow, community development, stated earlier this year council adopted ordinance 35 removed ADU as a mitigation option and implemented new employee generation rates for residential construction. The ordinance set forth new requirements for any fee in lieu payment to be made for mitigation. If an applicant wants to pay cash in lieu and generates more than .1 FTEs a council review is required in order to accept that payment. It referred to the standard council review 3 step process. Staff is proposing to simplify the process to a one step council review. They feel it was the original intent and was an oversight on staff’s part. There are no other changes just the change to the process. Councilman Daily said it is a smart change. Councilman Myrin said thanks for changing before they become a problem. Councilman Frisch said he is fine with the change and thinks the underlying legislation will be helpful to the community. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #47, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Daily. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Myrin, yes; Daily, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. P33 VII.c Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 14, 2015 9 CALL UP OF HPC APPROVAL – 305-307 S Mill Street Ms. Simon told the Council this is a redevelopment of the property where Grey Lady is located. The plan that HPC reviewed changed during the review process. Initially it was a total demolition and replacement of the existing development. HPC had several concerns with the complete replacement mostly because it is in the Wheeler view plane. It crosses the property at a very low angle and hits the leading edge of the property at a height of 7 foot 3 inches and exits the property at 10 foot 6. The existing building already violates the view plane and it would be very hard to redevelop a new structure that would comply with the view plane. When HPC was presented with the total demo and replacement they had concerns with how it would affect the view plane, the massing and filling in of the corner. They asked the applicant to relook at the proposal. In September they say a new plan that retained all of the existing development, recladded and filled in a notch and added some enclosed space on the popcorn wagon end. All of what is being added is lower in height than what is existing. It does intrude into the view plane but no more than what it currently does now. HPC did grant a demolition approval. Demolition is defined by removing more than 40 percent of the existing construction. The board approved the architecture conceptually. They approved the view plane impact and the public amenity solution. They need to provide an equal amount of amenity space than exists now. They are doing that by providing 70 percent physically onsite and the remaining balance as cash in lieu. The project does generate new parking requirements that will be paid with cash in lieu. There is no place for parking on site. The project will greatly improve the trash and recycling area. Mitch Haas showed a survey of the existing conditions and what counts as public amenity space. He showed an image of the proposed site plan with the widened trash area and what will count as public amenity space including the set backs. They did make a commitment to put in a crosswalk. There will be no new basement. He showed images of the renderings. They will keep the popcorn wagon on the property. The glass addition is 11 feet tall and will not have any mechanical on top. He showed an image of view plane. It hits the property at 7 foot 3 inches tall. You could not build and comply with the building code and view plane standards. The view plane cuts through the popcorn wagon. The view angle still tracks to the same place on the Grey Lady wall. They had a very good response from the HPC on this proposal. Councilwoman Mullins said the memo says during a public meeting Council shall consider an application so why are we not taking comment. Mr. True said there is a difference between a hearing and a meeting. Councilwoman Mullins said there is a lot of current public sentiment about variance and view planes. She went to the Wheeler and looked. This does two great things, cleaning up that trash area and retaining the arch and she hopes this becomes an AspenModern. If you have a historically designated building that blocks the view plane should it be allowed since you are assuming the historic designated building will never go away. It is somewhat the way she is viewing this. You are retaining what she hopes to be a designated building. You are creating a little bit more of a view by pulling back the trellis area. I think overall it is a really good project and we continue to talk about context. This fits in really well with the 1960s mall. Staggered context, low key design. She would very much like to see this project go forward. She prefers to see something at this corner be an entry to the mall. Building nothing would be the only other option to satisfy the view plane. She would support approval of this project as presented. Councilman Daily said he likes it. The design is a little more modern than he would normally find attractive but it is growing on him. When he thinks about it in the context of the mall entry he thinks it it P34 VII.c Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 14, 2015 10 attractive. It creates an additional open feeling. Maybe it is the glass. He finds the scale context very attractive. He likes the decision to abandon the original plan and is supportive. Councilman Myrin stated this is an important corner. It is the entry to the mall. He has a different view. One of the requirement is the amenity space and there could be more here rather than reducing by 30 percent. If this comes back to us in AspenModern are we then asked to trade things for that, potentially more amenity space? Ms. Simon replied it has not been discussed. It is on the list of properties that represents that period. We don’t know the architect and don’t know if designation will happen. Councilman Myrin stated his concern is if we give away 30 percent of the amenity today and it comes back as AspenModern and they want the 30 percent back. Councilman Frisch asked if the concern is it becomes AspenModern the part by the popcorn wagon becomes bigger? Councilman Myrin replied right. Dwayne Romero stated the corner has a much larger community priority attached to it as well as the view plane. We are willing and happy to pay the short fall in cash in lieu and provide a cross walk there that is part of a well composed community plan. Councilman Myrin said it is a philosophical difference on the amenity space. Once it is gone it is gone forever. The other issue is the view plane. The further back it is the more open it feels. Is the popcorn wagon entirely in the set back? Mr. Haas replied it is. Six feet off Hyman and eight off Mill. Mr. Romero said the improvement of the mechanicals and consolidation can be best witnessed not from the front door but the second floor of the Wheeler. HPC wanted the consolidation of the mechanical on the rooftop of the bathrooms. That will be a community benefit most specifically for the guests of the Wheeler. Councilman Myrin asked is that protected going forward forever or can we get the creeping hvac going forward? Ms. Simon said it is in the HPC resolution. Councilman Myrin asked is there anything in our code that keeps this restaurant versus high end retail? Ms. Simon replied no. Councilman Frisch said he appreciates the trellis but it is not a temporary trellis. The new building is stepping back a lot. This is just from bulk and mass a great example. He is supportive of this. From a pure view plane issue he doesn’t see how this isn’t a better solution that what is there right now. From architecture this is one of the prettier redevelopment example that he has seen in four years sitting up here and that we will see in a while. This is a really really good example. We have seen a lot of glass buildings that have come in here. The use of substantial glass and having the corner be translucent will be beneficial to the community. He is supportive of the application as it stands here. No one is going to build a 7 foot building. I will be happier with what is replace. Mayor Skadron asked for comment on the public amenity space. Mr. Haas said the existing is arguable because it has to be open to the sky and the trellis is not exactly open to the sky. The center alley also counts. It is very much privatized space. The proposed is building set backs and open areas along the rights of way. Councilwoman Mullins said the definition of public is something the public can use and benefit the public. We are looking at everything case by case. Here it is the mall. It is a linear mall. The public benefits much more greatly by getting the fee in lieu to allow it to function. I know you and I differ on this and in this case the cash in lieu is much more valuable. Councilman Myrin said the reason he feels so strongly is this could end up being a restaurant and 100 percent of the seating ends up being in the right of way. P35 VII.c Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 14, 2015 11 Councilman Frisch said the community is better off with this overall proposal than trying to send it back. I like where we are with the application now. Mayor Skadron asked what is the proposed use of the new glass space. Mark Hunt said he is not certain. It is important to have at least one food and beverage operation on the property. Mayor Skadron said it seems like the new building has minimal impact on the view plane. Councilman Myrin said it has less, if it was pushed back it would have even less it was not built it would have none. Councilwoman Mullins moved to accept the HPC decision; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor except Councilman Myrin. Motion carried. CALL UP OF HPC APPROVAL – 434 E Cooper Avenue Ms. Simon stated HPC reviewed the redevelopment because this project is located in the historic district. The September hearing was continued for discussion of the status of the 2006 demolition approval. There were questions as to what was the status of that approval. It was decided that the demolition approval is still valid. HPC regrouped on September 30th and accepted the proposal with the condition that there be some revisit of the corner in particular. As far as the placement of the building on the lot, HPC felt it was a good location to have a building that sits on the lot lines. There is a design guideline that requires at least 70 percent of the building to meet the lot lines. HPC did not direct the applicant that 100 percent must sit on the lot lines but it is a very traditional form. HPC puts a lot of evaluation as to where building placement is appropriate. This is the very core of downtown and the center of the historic district. Galena Street is where most of the historic commercial blocks are located. All of those buildings were developed by one owner. HPC felt it was an appropriate response. There is a tradition of a chamfered corner. They wanted further discussion of how that was addressed. Other things discussed were parking. There is new parking generated due to new net leasable that will be met with cash in lieu. There is a requirement to meet current utility trash storage requirements that are provided in this application. Another aspect that was discussed was the view plane. There is a pie shape wedge on the second floor affected by the Wheeler view plane. There are intervening buildings between the Wheeler Opera House and this site. The Paragon building cannot be demolished. You cannot see this property from the Wheeler and HPC felt there was no negative impact and the project from that point of view was appropriate. The vote was split at 3 to 2. Some members felt the corner needed restudied at a conceptual level. This is a case where there is disagreement about the building being set at the street but HPC thought it was important for this particular location. As a two story building they thought it was sympathetic to the scale of the surrounding landmarks as well. Mr. Haas said the building is located in the heart of town. The public amenity space sits behind the stairway. The whole length of the sidewalk on Galena is covered with a roof in the right a way. He showed the existing conditions including the covered arcade and sunken courtyard. Mr. Hunt said they looked at the Elks building for inspiration for the corner. It is important to have a two story element to fit in with Galena and the surrounding buildings. They were told to come back with something bold. They looked at the site and streetscape and it made sense to go back to a masonry look. It predominantly holds the corner. It is a logical place to hold the corner. It is up against a historical asset, the mall. He showed pictures of the inspiration. They looked at rounding the corner, working the steel and giving it texture. They paid respect to the 45 degree angle on the corner but added a softer P36 VII.c Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 14, 2015 12 rounded look. HPC asked to address it with a 45 degree chamfer corner. They are not asking for a credit for the amenity space. It was also important to stick to as close to a 30 foot gird as possible. Mr. Haas said for the view plane review to the west is the Red Onion, north west is the Paragon, and kiddie corner is Independence Square. All are significantly taller. The Red Onion is 35.5 feet tall. Mr. Hunt said on that corner, the proposed building is shorter that what is there today. Mr. Haas stated this property has been approved for view plane exemption four times. This proposal would have to be more than 65 feet tall to be visible from the Wheeler. There has been a good amount of discussion. The majority feel the building address the street and holds the street line like every other building on the street. Holding it back would be redundant and erode the mall. Pulling the walls off the mall would erode that integrity. Councilman Frisch said the view planes and public amenity space, from a literal sense it is hard to argue there is a view plane violation. Has there been discussion when the view plane and public amenity space was instilled was used to keep or minimize a certain amount of FAR that wasn’t able to be accomplished through a building height and just having breathing space. I don’t think we have too much redundant air space in town. So what about the public amenity space when it was put in place. Is it also a tool that people can use to reduce the bulk and mass but still allow some type of space whether it is redundant or not? Ms. Simon said she can’t speak to the motivation of the regulation. The public amenity has evolved over the years. It began as physical open space on the site but has evolved over the years. She does not know if either was meant to limit the overall development on the site. Councilman Frisch said the original starting was breathing space to break up some amount of it regardless if someone sat there or not. You saw some relief. Over time there was a focus more on is someone utilizing that space. Ms. Simon stated there was always a cash in lieu option because it would not be appropriate in every situation. With public amenity, it does not mean that the public is allowed to go and sit in that space. It is more of a visual benefit in many cases. There has been a more broad interpretation of what is a contribution to the street scape today versus that original you have to physically push the building away from the street. Councilman Frisch stated that is his overall concern. It is not so much the amenity is that the public can use it but it provides some relief. It goes back to the discussion from the work session. The applicant started with a one story building and the process encouraged bigger taller. Ms. Simon stated there have been several versions of this. She stated that she does not believe that HPC has been driving any of the solutions but reacted to the proposals and gave feedback. There are lots of ins and outs in the streetscapes of downtown. We are not close to having every building right at the lot line and is partly why HPC thinks it is important with new construction. Councilman Frisch stated he has a hard time with the hold the corner phrase. Is there going to be staff and board arguments when Paradise and the crepe place get redone. I haven’t seen a developer put more time, effort and care into architectural detail and why the architecture is being done. I thought at one time there was a building that was proposed smaller and there was pushback from HPC about filling the space. Mr. Hunt said the hole was always filled in. The second floor element was more set back. Councilman Frisch said he is starting to go against the hold the corner and he is worried about the recommendations coming from a variety of people that every corner needs to do that. Ms. Simon said that is not a fair assessment. She said they demonstrated on the popcorn wagon that it was appropriate. It did not work for the thrift shop. The guideline was written to suggest that we want to come closer to the street and HPC would have to evaluate on a case by case basis what is right. Mr. Haas said they are not going to argue that every corner should be held. The feeling on this one is the Casa Tua building is 85 feet away. The Independence Square is 95 feet away. Paradise is left open. The result is this intersection is really open. This building holds the corner but provides a different sense of openness. P37 VII.c Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 14, 2015 13 Councilman Daily said his first 15 years in town his office was in this building. He likes this façade going down the mall towards the Red Onion. It invites the pedestrians and that is attractive. For final review before HPC there will be an easing of the corner? Mr. Hunt said they would like to see a more chamfer corner. Councilman Daily said this is definitely inviting into the mall and attractive for the corner and will add vitality to that portion of the mall. Also at final staff will encourage revision of the store front for entrance off the Cooper side? Mr. Hunt stated they want entryways going from the malls. Councilman Frisch asked was the plan to have one tenant take over everything? Mr. Haas said the tenant spaces are oriented off of Galena Street. We heard the direction and we will have entrances off of the mall as well. Councilman Daily asked is the public amenity requirement intended to be addressed with cash in lieu? Mr. Haas replied yes. Councilman Daily stated he supports that. He said he appreciates this project and thinks it will be successful. Councilman Myrin said in the minutes Michael spoke to the lot line to lot line and no public amenity and it is a concern he has as well. How many bays are there along Galena? Mr. Hunt replied three. Councilman Myrin said if you shrunk those to 27 you would gain 9 feet along Cooper. Mr. Hunt replied no there is 10 feet for the corner element. You could do it on Cooper. Mr. Hunt said yes but it would be strange that it would be the only mall on Cooper that would be pulled back. It would be very unlikely that there would be a restaurant in this space. Councilman Myrin said he would like to see some at grade public amenity space. Councilwoman Mullins asked what has been approved for the annex? Mr. Haas replied 38 feet tall plus a four foot elevator override but it is pushed back. She asked how it compares to the Red Onion height. Ms. Simon stated it is taller. Councilwoman Mullins said the treatment of the trash is very important. The entries are really important to reinforce the 30 foot bays. Lot line to lot line is per our guidelines and reinforces our mall. You are not going to lose the breathing space. The chamfered corner needs a lot more work. It is appropriate but does not look like a part of the building now. The green roof, don’t notice it so much in the winter but it is great to see more of them in town. The view plane, per the guidelines we are talking about the impact. In this case it is minimal because it is already blocked. Councilman Frisch has the argument do you fill in everything then. This building is lower than the adjacent buildings and it minimizes the impact even more to the view plane. I would support this with some type of rethinking of the corner. Councilman Daily said he seconds Councilwoman Mullin’s comment about the corner. Councilman Frisch said for the doors on the mall street. We are trying to get away on the residential side of doors that don’t do anything. Are these doors going to do anything? Mr. Hunt replied I don’t know for certain. Going back to the code it makes it difficult for small square footage. Councilman Frisch said he wants the esthetic to match up with the reality. Mayor Skadron stated he thinks the building is beautiful. You paid great attention to detail and tremendous sensitivity. The community should be grateful that the someone who bought these buildings is you because of the sensitivity you pay. He is dissenting more than Councilman Myrin. He said he happens to like the Bidwell building and the material mix. He likes the touch, covered walkway, wood slats, sound when you walk and the feel. It speaks to western and an Aspen authenticity. He embraces P38 VII.c Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 14, 2015 14 the western attitude that formed the town for generations. While the space is not a great one, I think of it in terms of what a great space would be. It equates to celebration and social and economic exchange. It has to do with places where friends meet and a cultural mix. What is lost in the renovation is the relationship between the physical built environment and the person on the street. Why I wrote in favor of Base is what it delivered to the community. While the building itself is beautiful I’m fearful that it fails to ultimately engage the community appropriately and the current building does a better job of that. The Bidwell building has a flow through and interaction, accessibility and way people are engaged in activity and the socialability of it. That would be my challenge if I were looking at the application from the ground up. Mr. Hunt said he appreciates that and understands that. There is a place for all of it including high end and social interaction. We take great pride for trying to design something appropriate for its location. The architect for this building hated it from day one. There is one great tenant in there we have every intention of keeping. Base engages the community. 305-7 has public amenity space. Mr. Hunt went through images of his properties. We don’t want them to look alike on the inside or outside. Mayor Skadron said the mission here is height, scale, mass and proportion. We are not going to attempt to design this at the council table. I would give some direction on the corner. Councilman Frisch said he is not sure sending this back to HPC is going to do much. Councilwoman Mullins said ultimately she would like to see the Bidwell building stay for all the reasons the Mayor stated. We lost the chance to save it a long time ago. What is proposed is a good solution. She supports coming to the corner. Councilman Myrin said his desire is to have public amenity space that is accessible instead of cash. Councilman Frisch said he wishes they were more towards 70 percent than 100 percent of the lot line. If there was some way to have more relief it would be better. Councilman Myrin said that is where he lands. Ms. Simon said they could take that message back at final that they want more relief in some way but it may not be in shape because they may be done with that issue. It may be in materials like windows. Councilwoman Mullins stated she is supporting just accepting the decision. Councilman Frisch said if it is going to go back, which it is, he would just say at least 70 percent doesn’t meant that it needs to be 30 percent more than that. If after all the discussion they believe that 100 percent needs to be there then I’ll accept that. Mayor Skadron asked Councilwoman Mullins if she is opposed to the direction Councilmembers Frisch and Myrin are suggesting. She replied yes. Councilman Frisch said he wants to make sure HPC is fully invested and explored that. Councilman Daily stated he agrees with Councilwoman Mullins on this. Mayor Skadron stated he will support remanding this back to HPC. Councilman Myrin asked how this will change the timeline for the applicant. Ms. Simon said HPC will not hear the remand until March. Mr. Hunt said the examples of set backs on the malls is a huge mistake because it is on the malls. He asked for an example of a great building with the set backs that they are thinking. He agrees that some of the set backs are great but if you look at the architecture it is not appropriate. He asked for examples of the direction they are thinking versus just take off four and a half feet off of the mall. He said he does not even know what you can do with four and a half feet. At the end of the day what do you gain other than a mistake. You have a great mall that is pulled off. If you are going to start talking about architecture and the space I don’t want to dismiss it by just make it four and half feet off the mall and we can check a box because it doesn’t make sense to me. Councilman Frisch said he doesn’t want it just four and a half feet of the mall. He would like to see more ebb and flow on the mall. There are a lot of buildings in town that you pluck out and they don’t look P39 VII.c Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 14, 2015 15 good when you look at them by themselves but they fit in the context of everything. This is the opposite. He said the building would look better if it had some ebb and flow. It is a quick discussion at HPC. He said he did not see in the minutes that they had that type of discussion. Mr. Romero said they had good discussion on scale and how the building engages with Galena. There is an extensive list of relooks that HPC requested. The feedback we received from HPC was fairly deep and we are not hearing anything new here. Councilman Myrin said in the minutes Gretchen mentioned as a pedestrian walking on the mall there is a breakdown in scale in small buildings. Mr. Romero said the next quote was we don’t want Disney Land. Mr. Hunt said what she was referring to was she wants to see the corner look like a bunch of different buildings and she was the only one who wanted that. He said he strongly disagrees with that and it would be a huge miss. Mayor Skadron said it would be his preference to move forward with this but there is concern at the Council level for more confidence about the information brought forward. Councilwoman Mullins said this is a really good project. They listened to HPC. They listened to public opinion. There are no variances. It is a very good solution for this corner. Remanding it is taking away their conceptual approval. They need to go through the process again. If HPC comes up with the same decision that is fine but there has been a really good effort to get this project moving. By remanding it we have put these guys back another six months for a discussion about some undulations on the mall. Mayor Skadron said that is fair. Councilwoman Mullins said it is unfortunate and we should go ahead with the project. Per the guidelines and the previous era. Councilman Daily said he believes the consistent façade off the corner down Cooper honors the mall in a much stronger way than a 30 percent additional set back would do. It also honors the original Thompkins building configuration. Mayor Skadron said he finds that persuasive as well. Councilman Frisch said there is a 99.9 percent chance that HPC is not going to change their mind. He said he is not sitting here trying to come up with reasons to put anyone through pain. What he read in the minutes he didn’t get that this was discussed. If believes it was discussed and that the decision will not be changed he is happy to rescind his concerns. Mr. Hunt said that this HPC as well as the ones from the past have approved four different versions to the lot line. It is not just this building and this time. It is something consistently for this site they believe should hold this corner. Ms. Simon said it has been a variety of heights and configurations but that has probably been the case. Councilman Frisch said he is sufficiently convinced that it has been discussed more than the minutes allowed and he appreciated coming in here and he is happy to accept the decision. Mr. True said he does not want anyone to be misled. This was a 3 to 2 decision at HPC. There were five members where two alternates participated. If it is remanded it could be a different set of HPC members. He said he does not think you could say the same decision would be made because it could be a different majority. Councilwoman Mullins moved to accept the HPC decision; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor except Councilman Myrin. Motion carried. Mr. True said Staff is recommending Council go in to executive session pursuant to C.R.S. 24.6.402. (b) conference with attorney and (e) negotiations. The purpose of the executive session is discuss the turbine and generator and issues related to the work session tomorrow as well as the power plant. Councilman Daily recused himself. P40 VII.c Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 14, 2015 16 At 9:40 p.m. Councilwoman Mullins moved to go in to executive session; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. At 10:55 p.m. Councilman Frisch moved to come out of executive session; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. At 11:00 p.m. Mayor Skadron moved to adjourn; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning, City Clerk P41 VII.c MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council FROM: Justin Barker, Senior Planner RE: Notice of HPC approval of Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design, and Demolition for 517 E. Hopkins Ave., HPC Resolution #31, Series of 2015 MEETING DATE: January 11, 2016 BACKGROUND: On December 9, 2015, the Historic Preservation Commission approved Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design, and Demolition for a project at 517 E. Hopkins Ave. The existing development on the 9,000 square foot property is a three-story building with commercial, office and residential uses. This building is not historically significant, but is located within the Commercial Core Historic District. The proposal is to demolish the existing building and construct a new two-story commercial building with a full basement. The proposed building will be 28 feet tall, in conformance with the Commercial Core zone district. HPC has also accepted partial on-site public amenity and a cash-in- lieu payment for the remaining requirement. Drawings representing the Conceptual approval are attached as Exhibit A. The draft HPC Resolution is attached as Exhibit C. The board approved the project by a 6-1 vote. PROCEDURE: This is not a public hearing and no staff or applicant presentation will be made at the January 11th Council meeting. If you have any questions about the project, please contact the staff planner, Justin Barker, 429-2797 or justin.barker@cityofaspen.com. Pursuant to Section 26.412.040(B), City Council has the option of exercising the Call Up provisions outlined in Section 26.412.040(B) within 15 days of notification on the regular agenda. For this application, City Council may vote to Call Up the project at their January 11th meeting. If City Council does not exercise the Call Up provision, the HPC Resolution shall stand. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Conceptual Design Exhibit B: HPC Minutes – December 9, 2015 Exhibit C: HPC Resolution #31, Series of 2015 P42 VIII.a FI N . F L O O R 0' - 0 " SE C O N D F L O O R 16 ' - 0 " UP P E R P A R A P E T 28 ' - 0 " PA R A P E T 27 ' - 0 " EX I S T I N G BU I L D I N G (N . I . C . ) EX I S T I N G BU I L D I N G BE Y O N D (N . I . C . ) B. O . L I N T E L 11 ' - 1 1 3 / 4 " B. O . L I N T E L 1 12 ' - 8 " RO O F 26 ' - 6 " T. O . R A I L I N G 19 ' - 6 " 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 8 9 12 5 10 10 10 5 13 5 5 5 2 14 14 15 16 17 T/ O E L E V A T O R SH A F T 31 ' - 0 " 15 SE C O N D F L O O R 16 ' - 0 " UP P E R P A R A P E T 28 ' - 0 " PA R A P E T 27 ' - 0 " B. O . L I N T E L 11 ' - 1 1 3 / 4 " T. O . R A I L I N G 19 ' - 6 " 54 10 10 11 FI N . F L R . S P A C E ' A ' 0' - 8 3 1 / 3 2 " 15 18 T/ O E L E V A T O R SH A F T 31 ' - 0 " 15 17 17 TR A S H E N C L O S U R E TR A N S 1 AD J A C E N T B U I L D I N G ME C H A N I C A L S C R E E N I N G D R A W I N G T I T L E : S C A L E : D R A W N B Y : D A T E : R E V I E W E D : P R O J E C T N O . : L O C A T I O N N O . : A L L D R A W I N G S A N D W R I T T E N M A T E R I A L H E R E I N C O N S T I T U T E T H E O R I G I N A L A N D U N P U N L I S H E D W O R K O F T H E A R C H I T E C T , A N D T H E S A M E M A Y N O T B E D U P L I C A T E D , U S E D O R D I S C L O S E D W I T H O U T T H E W R I T T E N C O N S E N T O F T H E A R C H I T E C T . C O P Y R I G H T : C A M B U R A S & T H E O D O R E , L T D . R A 8 / 1 8 / 1 5 T T A S P E N , C O A- 2 1 1 P R O P O S E D E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S 1 4 - 4 4 0 0 7 1 4 - 4 4 0 0 7 5 1 7 E A S T H O P K I N S A V E . 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 NO R T H E L E V A T I O N 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 EA S T E L E V A T I O N RE F E R E N C E D K E Y E D N O T E S NU M B E R K E Y N O T E 1 P E T E R S E N B R I C K , K O L U M B A S E R I E S , K 4 . 2 H O R I Z O N T A L W O O D P L A N K S , F I N I S H ( T B D ) 3 P R E F I N I S H E D B R A K E M E T A L . 4 C O N T I N U O U S S T E E L R A I L I N G , P A I N T E D . 5 C L E A R L O W - E I N S U L A T I N G G L A S S W I T H A L U M I N U M ST O R E F R O N T F R A M I N G . 6 P R E F I N I S H E D M E T A L O V E R H A N G . 7 E X P O S E D S T E E L C O L U M N , P A I N T E D . 8 C L E A R L O W - E I N S U L A T I N G GL A S S W I T H AL U M I N U M C U R T A I N WA L L , E Q U A L L Y S P A C E D P A N E S . 9 S T E E L B E A M W R A P P E D I N P R E F I N I S H E D B R A K E M E T A L , FI N I S H T O M A T C H S T O R E F R O N T . 10 S T E E L M E M B E R , P A I N T E D . 11 G L A Z I N G I N A L U M I N U M S T O R E F R O N T . 12 P R E F I N I S H E D M E T A L C O P I N G . 13 R O O F L I N E 14 A R C H I T E C T U R A L C A S T S T O N E . 15 B O A R D F O R M E D C O N C R E T E F I N I S H . 16 B U T T - G L A Z E D S T O R E F R O N T S Y S T E M . 17 P R E F I N I S H E D M E T A L C O V E R E D E N T R Y . 18 8 " C M U . P A I N T E D W H E R E E X P O S E D . R E V I S I O N S N O . D A T E B Y D E S C R I P T I O N 1 1 1 - 1 8 - 1 5 R A I S S U E D T O L A N D P L A N N E R E X H I B I T A P 4 3 V I I I . a FI N . F L O O R 0' - 0 " SE C O N D F L O O R 16 ' - 0 " UP P E R P A R A P E T 28 ' - 0 " PA R A P E T 27 ' - 0 " B. O . A L L E Y L I N T E L 12 ' - 8 " T/ O E L E V A T O R SH A F T 31 ' - 0 " 1 TR A S H EN C L O S U R E TR A N S F O R M E R TR A S H E N C L O S U R E RO O F ME C H A N I C A L S C R E E N I N G NE I G H B O R I N G TR A N S F O R M E R SE C O N D F L O O R 16 ' - 0 " UP P E R P A R A P E T 28 ' - 0 " PA R A P E T 27 ' - 0 " 1 2 2 3 4 EN T I R E E L E V A T I O N A B U T S A D J A C E N T B U I L D I N G OU T L I N E O F A D J A C E N T B U I L D I N G ME C H A N I C A L S C R E E N I N G D R A W I N G T I T L E : S C A L E : D R A W N B Y : D A T E : R E V I E W E D : P R O J E C T N O . : L O C A T I O N N O . : A L L D R A W I N G S A N D W R I T T E N M A T E R I A L H E R E I N C O N S T I T U T E T H E O R I G I N A L A N D U N P U N L I S H E D W O R K O F T H E A R C H I T E C T , A N D T H E S A M E M A Y N O T B E D U P L I C A T E D , U S E D O R D I S C L O S E D W I T H O U T T H E W R I T T E N C O N S E N T O F T H E A R C H I T E C T . C O P Y R I G H T : C A M B U R A S & T H E O D O R E , L T D . R A 8 / 1 8 / 1 5 T T A S P E N , C O A- 2 1 2 P R O P O S E D E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S 1 4 - 4 4 0 0 7 1 4 - 4 4 0 0 7 5 1 7 E A S T H O P K I N S A V E . 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 So u t h 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 We s t RE F E R E N C E D K E Y E D N O T E S NU M B E R K E Y N O T E 1 8 " C M U . P A I N T E D W H E R E E X P O S E D . 2 P R E F I N I S H E D M E T A L C O P I N G . 3 B O A R D F O R M E D C O N C R E T E F I N I S H . 4 C L E A R L O W - E I N S U L A T I N G G L A S S W I T H A L U M I N U M ST O R E F R O N T F R A M I N G . R E V I S I O N S N O . D A T E B Y D E S C R I P T I O N 1 1 1 - 1 8 - 1 5 R A I S S U E D T O L A N D P L A N N E R P 4 4 V I I I . a UP DNDN UP UPUP T A D J A C E N T B U I L D I N G ( N . I . C . ) PR O P E R T Y LI N E 3 ' - 7 7 / 8 " PR O P E R T Y LI N E A D J A C E N T B U I L D I N G ( N . I . C . ) A D J A C E N T B U I L D I N G ( N . I . C . ) 2 ' - 1 0 " 23 ' - 1 0 " 24 ' - 1 0 " 23 ' - 7 1 / 2 " 18 ' - 0 " RE T A I L S P A C E ' A ' 21 5 RE T A I L S P A C E ' B ' 21 6 RE T A I L S P A C E ' C ' 10 2 LO B B Y 21 4 ST A I R # 1 21 2 EL E V . 21 1 ST A I R # 2 21 3 CO V E R E D TR A S H A R E A 21 8 S F 90 ' - 3 1 / 2 " 1 3 ' - 8 " 6 1 ' - 1 0 " 1 4 ' - 6 " 72 ' - 7 " 17 ' - 8 1 / 2 " 24 ' - 2 " 24 ' - 1 " 23 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 7' - 8 1 / 2 " 9 2 ' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 8 5 ' - 1 0 " 9 5 ' - 3 1 / 2 " AI R C U R T A I N BY T E N A N T AI R C U R T A I N BY T E N A N T AI R C U R T A I N BY T E N A N T RE S T R O O M CO N S T R U C T I O N BY T E N A N T (A P P R O X . ) RE S T R O O M CO N S T R U C T I O N BY T E N A N T (A P P R O X . ) RE S T R O O M CO N S T R U C T I O N BY T E N A N T (A P P R O X . ) O P E N T O S K Y 1 0 ' - 0 " OP E N T O S K Y 10 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 0 " 24 ' - 7 " 47 ' - 1 1 " 9' - 1 1 1 / 2 " BU I L D I N G OV E R H A N G BU I L D I N G OV E R H A N G OP E N I N G 8' - 0 " 4' - 0 " 4 ' - 0 " 7' - 0 " 2 ' - 2 " CO R R I D O R 21 5 5 ' - 2 1 / 2 " 9 ' - 3 " 9 ' - 3 " 7' - 0 " 8 . 3 % R A M P U P 1 8 ' - 6 " 6 ' - 5 1 / 2 " 6 ' - 5 " 8 . 3 % R A M P U P 8 . 3 % R A M P U P 3' - 9 " 8 . 3 % R A M P U P 8 . 3 % R A M P U P 2 6 ' - 0 " T 2 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 5 ' - 1 0 " 8 ' - 4 1 / 2 " UT I L I T Y M E T E R LO C A T I O N , T Y P . BO L L A R D PR O T E C T I O N , T Y P . TE N A N T S P A C E ' F ' L1 0 0 34 ' - 3 " 35 ' - 1 0 1 / 8 " 9' - 7 1 / 4 " 10 ' - 5 1 / 8 " 34 ' - 3 " 35 ' - 1 0 " 5' - 6 " 14 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 90 ' - 3 1 / 2 " 1 0 0 ' - 0 " TE N A N T S P A C E ' D ' 21 9 TE N A N T S P A C E ' E ' 22 0 TE N A N T S P A C E ' G ' 22 1 CO R R I D O R 22 2 WO M E N ' S 21 7 EL E V . L1 0 2 ST A I R # 2 L1 0 3 ST A I R # 1 L1 0 1 34 ' - 3 " 35 ' - 1 0 " 4 5 ' - 3 1 / 2 " 9 ' - 5 " 4 5 ' - 3 1 / 2 " 1 1 ' - 4 " 1 3 ' - 6 " 5 1 ' - 2 " 2 4 ' - 0 " 86 ' - 9 1 / 2 " 9 6 ' - 8 " ME N ' S 21 8 ME C H A N I C A L 21 9 4 8 ' - 0 1 / 2 " 4 8 ' - 0 1 / 2 " 18 ' - 0 1 / 2 " 9 ' - 1 " 1 3 ' - 2 1 / 2 " D R A W I N G T I T L E : S C A L E : D R A W N B Y : D A T E : R E V I E W E D : P R O J E C T N O . : L O C A T I O N N O . : A L L D R A W I N G S A N D W R I T T E N M A T E R I A L H E R E I N C O N S T I T U T E T H E O R I G I N A L A N D U N P U N L I S H E D W O R K O F T H E A R C H I T E C T , A N D T H E S A M E M A Y N O T B E D U P L I C A T E D , U S E D O R D I S C L O S E D W I T H O U T T H E W R I T T E N C O N S E N T O F T H E A R C H I T E C T . C O P Y R I G H T : C A M B U R A S & T H E O D O R E , L T D . R A 8 / 1 8 / 1 5 T T A S P E N , C O A- 1 0 0 P R O P O S E D F L O O R P L A N S 1 4 - 4 4 0 0 7 1 4 - 4 4 0 0 7 5 1 7 E A S T H O P K I N S A V E . 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 MA I N L E V E L - F L O O R P L A N 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 LO W E R L E V E L - F L O O R P L A N N N R E V I S I O N S N O . D A T E B Y D E S C R I P T I O N 1 1 2 - 2 - 1 5 R A I S S U E D T O L A N D P L A N N E R P 4 5 V I I I . a DNDN RD OR D RD OR D RD OR D RD OR D OU T D O O R DE C K 22 ' - 1 1 1 / 2 " SE C O N D F L O O R TE N A N T S P A C E 20 0 7 6 ' - 4 " 2 3 ' - 8 " 24 ' - 3 " 23 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 25 ' - 1 " 6' - 1 " ST A I R # 1 20 2 EL E V . 20 3 ST A I R # 2 20 4 8 ' - 2 " 21 ' - 9 1 / 2 " 1 4 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 17 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 24 ' - 7 " 55 ' - 7 1 / 2 " 10 ' - 0 " 7 4 ' - 5 1 / 2 " 78 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 2 1 / 2 " ME N ' S 20 5 WO M E N ' S 20 6 5 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 1 8 ' - 5 " RO O F AC C E S S OU T D O O R DE C K A- 2 1 1 2 A- 2 1 2 A- 2 1 2 A- 2 1 1 1 2 1 S L O P E SL O P E SL O P E SL O P E SL O P E S L O P E S L O P E S L O P E S L O P E S L O P E S L O P E S L O P E SL O P E SL O P E S L O P E S L O P E SL O P E SL O P E SC U P P E R AW N I N G BE L O W AW N I N G BE L O W ME C H A N I C A L EQ U I P M E N T A R E A RO O F AC C E S S ME C H A N I C A L SC R E E N I N G 19 ' - 3 " 50 ' - 0 " 19 ' - 3 " 1 5 ' - 0 " 1 4 ' - 0 " DE C K BE L O W DE C K BE L O W D R A W I N G T I T L E : S C A L E : D R A W N B Y : D A T E : R E V I E W E D : P R O J E C T N O . : L O C A T I O N N O . : A L L D R A W I N G S A N D W R I T T E N M A T E R I A L H E R E I N C O N S T I T U T E T H E O R I G I N A L A N D U N P U N L I S H E D W O R K O F T H E A R C H I T E C T , A N D T H E S A M E M A Y N O T B E D U P L I C A T E D , U S E D O R D I S C L O S E D W I T H O U T T H E W R I T T E N C O N S E N T O F T H E A R C H I T E C T . C O P Y R I G H T : C A M B U R A S & T H E O D O R E , L T D . R A 8 / 1 8 / 1 5 T T A S P E N , C O A- 1 0 1 P R O P O S E D F L O O R P L A N A N D R O O F P L A N 1 4 - 4 4 0 0 7 1 4 - 4 4 0 0 7 5 1 7 E A S T H O P K I N S A V E . 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 SE C O N D L E V E L - F L O O R P L A N N N 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 RO O F P L A N R E V I S I O N S N O . D A T E B Y D E S C R I P T I O N 1 1 1 - 1 8 - 1 5 R A I S S U E D T O L A N D P L A N N E R P 4 6 V I I I . a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015 1 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Nora Berko, John Whipple, Gretchen Greenwood, Patrick Sagal, Sallie Golden, Michael Brown and Bob Blaich. Absent was Jim DeFrancia. Staff present: Jim True, City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Public Comment: Jim Curtis represented the Aspen Institute and asked if there was any way HPC could push the application to early March or have an extra meeting. Willis said he discussed this with staff and HPC is willing to start one meeting a month at 4:00 to accommodate applicants and expedite the meetings. Amy said the guidelines will be presented to HPC in January and then council will adopt them. Disclosure: Michael said he assigned a contract to purchase a TDR, a transferable development right to Bill Guth for no consideration. Jim said the disclosure is appropriate but not substantive for a recusal. 517 E. Hopkins Ave. – Conceptual Design Review and Demolition Proof of publication – Exhibit I Justin Barker, Senior Planner Justin said the proposed project is to demolish the existing building and replace it with a two story commercial building with a basement. This building is not a designated building but is located within the commercial core historic district. HPC is being asked to review conceptual design, conceptual commercial design review as well as the demolition for the existing building. All other reviews will be combined with the final review. Staff is in support of the demolition. There is currently no parking provided EXHIBIT B P47 VIII.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015 2 onsite and the applicant has the right to maintain this deficit and will only have to provide for the increase of net leasable which they are going to do through cash-in-lieu. The project is also required to provide a minimum of 10% of public amenity space of the lot which equates to about 900 square feet and it is a 9,000 square foot lot. There is currently 500 square feet of space that qualified as public amenity which is essentially the walkway that leads between the street and the alley. The proposed building has a setback area in the northeast corner which is about 285 square feet which the applicant has represented as public amenity space and they are also proposing the use of the upper level decks as public amenity space. Staff is in support of the northeast corner but not for the second story portions. Staff recommends that the remaining be cash-in-lieu payment. There are two design options. Both options have 4 modules to the design on the street level. There are three commercial areas and one is the entrance area for the circulation of the building. The entrance area is set back about 14 feet from the property line. Option A which has the center space set back from the property line includes a bridge cat walk between the other two commercial spaces to connect to the roof deck areas. Option B is what is presented after the applicant met with staff which pulls the center commercial area forward so that the three commercials are located at the property line. Option B is in line with the guidelines which bring the building fronts as close to the property line and sidewalk as possible. It helps create a stronger street façade which is what the guidelines request. It also displays a strong height variation which is requested by the guidelines for properties that are over 6,000 square feet. Both designs conform to the zone district. The maximum height is 28 feet and they are at 28 feet. The only portion that extends over that is the elevator overrun which is permitted by right in the code. The proposed development is below what the view plane is and is not subject to view plane review. Staff recommends approval of option B. Mark Hunt, owner Mitch Haas, Haas Planning Mark said the City came to us and asked us to explore putting in some office space and that is why the aspen leaf is on the building. The City decided to go elsewhere. The leaf is a signage place holder. The space to the east is designed to be a shared office environment where there would be short and long term offices with a social environment to that. There is also a health and fitness area as part of the project. We will be using steel and glass partitions to keep it light and airy. The ground floor has a lobby with a large P48 VIII.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015 3 corridor where local artists can hang their work. There are exterior decks above the retail. There will also be benches and landscaping outside. It is one building but we are delineating with the different heights and different facades. There is 285 square feet on the ground that is calculated for public amenity. There will probably be another 750 to 900 square feet provided in the right-of-way. We are only counting the 285 sq.ft. and will pay the cash- in-lieu for the balance. On exhibit A the ins and outs of the façade are consistent with the block and the color is softer. Adding the wood makes a difference and it works well with the brick and stone as proposed and it engages the street. Mitch said the building itself is set back off the street. The public amenity today is essentially the walkway that leads to a transformer and then to the alley. The walkway is on the northeast side of the property. We can do the balance of the public amenity 903 square feet with cash-in-lieu even though the code says it can be taken in the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-of-ways or private property in commercial areas. Why we shouldn’t get credit for improving the street scape putting in benches, trees and a detached sidewalk I don’t understand. The view plane height ranges between 30.6 feet at the front of the property and 34.4 at the front and at the back of the property between 36 and 41 feet high. We fall below the view plan and the elevator run is also below the view plane. The existing building is 10 to 12 feet taller than the proposed. The second floor space on the north east will be broken up into pods or cubicles. There are also three broken retail frontages that face the street. Option B would be all brick punched openings on the second floor. Staff is recommending approval of option B. The existing building fails to meet the guidelines with the sunken courtyard. Dwayne Romero, represented the applicant The proposed structure is stepping back out of a pre-existing encroachment into the view plane that runs to the benefit of the court house. The mass and scale of the proposal is completely in line with the concept of small downtown character. The proposal has an active lifestyle health and fitness thread and a community social gathering space tied to it. It is a great program for our community needs and the shared office model is also included that rounds out the program. P49 VIII.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015 4 Mark said the four studio units on the third floor will be replaced 100 percent off site. The second floor is not laid out for retail use. Mitch said the zoning has changed and we cannot have a third floor. Justin said the housing credits will be addressed with the growth management review in the future. They will either build units or buy credits. John asked staff why they do not like the connecting deck etc. Justin said the design holds the property line and establishes the street wall that is in the guidelines. Mark said option A looks like individual buildings and B is more of the same material. Bob said plan A provides more space on the second floor and has more glass which makes the space lighter and airy. Bob commended the applicant for putting that kind of space in our community and it is needed and successful. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment portion of the agenda item was closed. Mitch summarized and said in terms of height, scale and mass we have kept things to the 28 foot height limit. We have broken up the façade into modules to give a rhythm to the property. We have heard in other reviews that breaking up the frontage so that it looks like separate development is recommended. Willis identified the issues: Public amenity Demolition Cash-in-lieu View plane Mass and scale Community character Willis said this is an excellent presentation and the applicant gave a convincing case for demolition. What was lacking in the presentation was P50 VIII.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015 5 the street elevation showing the former Gap building and the Kenichi building. Option A has a better connection and fits with the mix on the street and the context. As Bob said the glass is a functionally good thing for an open office plan. Willis said he tends to supports staff’s recommendation for approval. Michael said he supports the demolition and option B. Exhibit A presents messy facades going in and out and the punched windows are appropriate. Regarding the public amenity and because of the location on the south side of the street and the fact that there isn’t a real way of providing it I can grant it for the small opening in the entry and paying cash-in-lieu for the balance. The second level doesn’t meet the criteria for public amenity. Patrick said they have done a good job with no variances requested. Having the breakup in option A is preferred. On Hopkins everything historically is pulled back. Regarding public amenity cash-in-lieu has not been beneficial to the community as much as putting physical space on the site. If the public amenity is on the ground floor it works. In general the project works and the concept is great and hopefully it will go through. Willis said the outdoor amenity space represented on the second module is not open to the sky so it doesn’t count for public amenity. Gretchen said she is totally in favor of tearing this building down. Option A is appropriate. The fact that the decks above are connected is a good feature and it feels very community friendly. The breakdown of the building is totally successful. The only concern is the streetscape and the walkway which will be missed. There will be a narrow very small walkway to the very large façade. There should have been more discussion about the corner and the integration of the building. Mark said the building is 14 ½ feet back from the street. Gretchen commented that the board should know what is going on next to the proposed building and see it in plan. The corner is harsh. When applications come before us we need to see a streetscape. Regarding affordable housing it is a mistake to take any affordable housing away when it could be kept there. Continually moving employee housing out of the core is a huge mistake. The different materials and the way it steps in and out and the details are all great. P51 VIII.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015 6 John said he is in complete agreement with Option A and it is messy vitality and the look of the proposal. When it comes to the public amenity you are reinstating a nice detached sidewalk with benches and in the past portions of what applicants have done were calculated in the public amenity. You should get credit for doing the detached sidewalk and benches because it improves the streetscape. The pedestrian sidewalk experience by the old Gap building is one of the best in town. By doing the detached sidewalk you are doing a service to the community. The undulation proposed will do good for the Saturday market. Nora said she also agrees that street scape diagrams should be provided on all applications. Even when you know the street well it is different when you see a new building on it. Philosophically public amenity space should be on the street. Nora said she prefers option B. Option B is much quieter and unified. There are too many materials. Sallie said she is OK with the conditions. Sallie said she would prefer A to look a little more like B, (A ½.) The Theory building next door is one material and not chaotic. I would stand behind that building any day. B feels like a side street. Option A brings in a lot of glass and it doesn’t feel cold. Bob said functionally with the glass A is better. A has a little too many variables. Maybe there can be a middle ground between A & B. The relief of A is good. The fenestration can be dealt with at final. Michael pointed out that the second floor fenestration of all glass will probably not meet the design guidelines for final. A shows a better distinction between the two story element and the one story element of the façade. B looks like it is ready to go to final. Option A might not be what you end up with. Motion: John moved to approve resolution #31, 2015 as written with a minor amendment that option A is conceptually approved and everything else will be addressed at final. Motion second by Willis. Roll call vote: Patrick, yes; Gretchen, yes; John, yes; Bob, yes; Nora, no, Sallie, yes, Willis, yes; Motion carried 6-1. P52 VIII.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015 7 MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Bob. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P53 VIII.a ·w:,··., _) RECEPTION#: 625749, 12/21/2015 at10:34:24 AM, __ · I 1 OF 7, R $41.00 Doc Code RESOLUTIONJanice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, co RESOLUTION NO. 31; (SERIES OF 2015) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL, MAJOR DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL AND DEMOLTION APPROVAL FOR 517 E HOPKINS A VENUE, LOTS D, E, AND F, BLOCK 94, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-073-40-003 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from 517 E.Hopkins LLC (Applicant), represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning for the following land use review approvals: •Commercial Design Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412; •Major Development Conceptual Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415; •Demolition Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415, and; WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the qty _of Aspen Land Use Code in effect on the day of initial application -September 21, 2015, as applicable to this Project; and, WHEREAS, the application represents that the proposed building does not infringe into any protected Mountain View Planes pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.050; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Environmental Health Department, and Parks Department, as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Asp.en Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Application and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, and . Section 26.304.060.B.4, Modification of Review Procedures, all other necessary land use reviews, as identified herein, have been combined to be considered by the Historic Preservation Commission _ at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, such combination of review procedures was done to ensure clarity of review, was accomplished with all required public noticing provided as evidenced by an affidavit of public noticing submitted to the record, and the public was provided a thorough and full review of the proposed development; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on December 9, 2015, during which the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were requested and heard by the Historic Preservation Commission; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 9, 2015, the Historic Preservation Commission approved Resolution 31, Series of 2015, by a six to one (6 -1) vote Historic Preservation Commission Reso No.31, Series 2015 Page I of3 EXHIBIT C P54 VIII.a granting conceptual approvals and demolition approval, with the recommended conditions of approval listed hereinafter. \, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Commission hereby grants -Major Development Conceptual approval, ·Conceptual Commercial Design approval, and Demolition approval subject to the recommended conditions of approval as listed herein. Option A is conceptually approved. Section 2: Subsequent Reviews Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Applicant is required to obtain Final Commercial Design Review, Final Major Development Review, Growth Management Review. 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 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. Section 3: Public Amenity The project has a 10% public amenity requirement. · A portion of the required public amenity will be provided onsite, located in front of the entrance to the upper and lower levels. The remaining public amenity requirement will be mitigated through cash-in-lieu. Section 4: ACSD A potential location for a grease trap ( sub grade) shall be included in the building permit application to allow flexibility for future conversion of the commercial/retail spaces to restaurant. Section 5: Demolition Demolition is granted pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415.080. Section 6: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department and the Historic Preservation Commission are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals Jnd the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Historic Preservation Commission Reso No.31, Series 2015 Page 2 of3 P55 VIII.a Section 7: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 8: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 9th day of December, 2015. ·Approved as to form: Attest: Attachments: Exhibit A: Conceptually approved elevations and floor plans Historic Preservation Commission Reso No.31, Series 2015 Page 3 of3 P56 VIII.a TIO ELEVATOR 0--w:-o--S.!::!8.El_ - - - - - - � �:�ii-R_PARAPET _____ _ � .. � .. ----1 r: ... :::;c:,�:�L v -' SECONQ.FLOOR ·L .. ; .. 16' O" --.·--- �NIEL_ r . �-. 11·-,1314· -1-�-;:� I exi�;imi- 1 -��; :\N.I.C.) � ��:L®L_ -1 1,·. @, 11 u� NORTH ELEVATION 3116"=1'-0" --2� _ __!&,�� _llQ. IJ.��: e� � TIO ELEVATOR -- -- - --;�.�F� � = :::: � UPPER PARAPET � 28'-0" L___��RAeE_l � -----_LQ.�� _____ SECONO_F�� S -----4?':L�� I/ // ,'/ ,,, l''�";-.,}:'jg;,�,;�::\iJ -£IN.i:LR0�:;,7;�: {9 2 EASTELEVATION 3116"•1'-0" REFERENCED KEYED NOTES gl "' ill �i ii !I rn ·re __. o � 8 ; I � �' "a u=; IE1 I � I• � I� I� I�· II A-211 P 5 7 V I I I . a PROPOSED EXTERIOR B.EVATIONS t ...a,1 =�----1 517 EAST HOPKINS·AVE. 1-'--+-'="+"'+--�"�W�,0�,0�=�0�==��'--, l\)•==---1 ASPEN.CO P58 VIII.a I � � � PROPOSED FLOOR PlNIS ,! �1"" � �! �i ·tl±tfh f\ls� @i;• i �i ..... o•------• 517 EAST HOPKINS AVE. I-'-+="-+=+-�"='"�"='="="="='"="�-, ASPEN.CO l!Ll ;�-� "�( @I r \ J ._______!3'·2'1'2. � �� " . =� � I�� • �1 • �� \ P59 VIII.a PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN NfJ ROOf PLAN :f> •��----l'AOJl;CTNO. 14"""4007 LOCATKlNJ'<O.· ...... o•=---- ....a.•==�---517 EAST HOPKINS AVE. 1--'---+-'="+'"+-�'=="='0=�=0�==��'--t ASPEN.CO I I s !@ I I P60 VIII.a 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planner Technician THRU: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner RE: Growth Management Allotment Carry-Forward Review – Public Hearing Resolution No. 2, Series of 2016 DATE: January 11, 2016 ___________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: The purpose of this public hearing is a review of the “unused” growth allotments from 2015 and a decision on the amount to “carry-forward” to the 2016 growth management year. Each year, a certain amount of growth is allotted for development projects. The available allotment is a combination of the standard annual allotment and any previous carry-forward allotment. Available development allotments = annual allotment + Carry-forward allotment from prior year The City’s Land Use Code specifies the annual allotments in various land use categories as follows: Development Type Annual Allotment Residential — Free-Market 18 units Commercial 33,300 net leasable square feet Residential — Affordable Housing No annual limit Lodging 112 pillows Essential public facility No annual limit Growth allotments granted in 2015 are summarized in Exhibit A. The 2015 available growth does not include any carry forward allotments from 2014. Eleven (11) free-market residential allotments, 28,701 square feet of commercial net leasable space, and 32 lodging pillows were applied for in 2015 and will be granted, pending project approvals. According to the Land Use Code, “the City Council shall determine the amount of unused and unclaimed allotments, for each type of development, and may assign the unused allotment to become part of the available development allotment for future projects. There is no limit, other than that implemented by the City Council, on the amount of potential growth that may be carried forward to the next year.” P61 X.a 2 This year, City Council may carry-forward up to seven (7) free-market residential allotments, 4,599 square feet of commercial space, and eighty (80) lodging pillows which went unclaimed in 2015. The Land Use Code provides criteria for this carry-forward review. The City Council may carry forward any portion of the previous year's unused allotment, including all or none. The following criteria are used in determining if allotments should be carried forward: 1. The community's growth rate over the preceding five-year period. 2. The ability of the community to absorb the growth that could result from a proposed development utilizing accumulated allotments, including issues of scale, infrastructure capacity, construction impacts and community character. 3. The expected impact from approved developments that have obtained allotments, but that have not yet been built. Considering these criteria, staff recommends that none of the potential growth be carried forward. A more detailed analysis of these review criteria can be found in Exhibit B. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council approve Resolution No. 2, Series of 2016, carrying- forward none of the unused 2015 growth management allotments. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution No. 2, Series of 2016.” ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Resolution No. 2, Series 2016 Exhibit A – Summary of 2015 growth management allotments Exhibit B – Carry Forward Review Criteria P62 X.a 1 RESOLUTION N0. 2 (SERIES OF 2016) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING THE “CARRY-FORWARD” GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOTMENT FROM 2015 TO 2016. WHEREAS, pursuant to City of Aspen Land Use Code Sections 26.470.030.D and 26.470.040F, the City Council shall review, during a public hearing, the prior year's growth summary, consider a recommendation from the Community Development Director, consider comments from the general public and shall, via adoption of a resolution, establish the number of unused and unclaimed allotments to be carried forward and added to the annual allotment; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to said sections and considering the following criteria, the Community Development Director has provided a recommendation to carry-forward none of the unused growth management allotments from 2015: 1. The community's growth rate over the preceding five-year period. 2. The ability of the community to absorb the growth that could result from a proposed development utilizing accumulated allotments, including issues of scale, infrastructure capacity, construction impacts and community character. 3. The expected impact from approved developments that have obtained allotments, but that have not yet been built. WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 11, 2016 the City Council considered the recommendation by the Community Development Director, comments from the general public at a public hearing, and the above criteria and approved Resolution No. 2, Series of 2016, by a ____ to ____ (_– _) vote; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the decision to carry forward none of the unused growth allotments from 2015 meets or exceeds all applicable standards and is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: That the City Council carries forward none of the unused growth management allotments from 2015 to be available in 2016. RESOLVED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED FINALLY this ___ day of _______, 2016. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: _______________________________ _______________________________ James R. True, City Attorney Steven Skadron, Mayor Attest: _________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk P63 X.a Ex h i b i t A Su m m a r y o f 2 0 1 5 G r o w t h Ma n a g e m e n t A l l o t m e n t s P64 X.a Exhibit B Growth Management Carry-Forward Review 26.470.030.F, Accounting Procedure: “The City Council shall consider the following criteria in determining the allotments to be carried forward:” 1. The community's growth rate over the preceding five-year period. Staff Response: The community’s growth rate has remained fairly consistent over the past few years. With the exception of lodging pillows there have generally been allotments available in all other categories when assessing the year in review. City Council chose to not roll over the leftover allotments into 2014 or 2015. In 2015 nearly three quarters of the available free market allotments were used leaving seven (7) free-market residential allotments available to roll forward. A significant portion of commercial allotments were used, leaving 4,599 square feet of commercial space out of 33,300 square feet that was allocated for the 2015 year to roll forward. 2. The ability of the community to absorb the growth that could result from a proposed development utilizing accumulated allotments, including issues of scale, infrastructure capacity, construction impacts and community character. Staff Response: This is a review criterion in growth management when a development proposal is brought forward. Based on current data, staff believes there is enough physical infrastructure to accommodate new development within the code prescribed limits. 3. The expected impact from approved developments that have obtained allotments, but that have not yet been built. Staff Response: Several of the projects listed on the 2015 GMQS Annual Allotments table have requested growth management allotments but have yet to receive final approval. These projects include the 834 W. Hallam property (formerly known as Poppies), Crystal Palace, Boogie’s and Hotel Lenado. These pending projects comprise a total of 32 lodging pillows and 9,904 sq. ft. of commercial allotments. There are a number of historic preservation applications that are expected to come in for growth management review in 2016 for commercial development. In addition, a number of major projects from past years remain vested but unbuilt. This includes Aspen Club, Sky Hotel, Lift One Lodge, Molly Gibson and Hotel Aspen. At this time, Staff does not recommend rolling over any unused allotments. P65 X.a Staff Memo Residential Design Standards 1.11.16 - Second Reading Page 1 of 7 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Aspen City Council FROM: Justin Barker, Senior Planner THRU: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner RE: Residential Design Standards Code Amendments Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015, Public Hearing MEETING DATE: January 11, 2016 SUMMARY: The attached Ordinance includes proposed language to amend the Residential Design Standards of the Land Use Code. The objective of the code amendment is to improve the review process, better organize the standards, and clean up confusing language and loopholes within the current standards. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance on Second Reading. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: This is the 2nd reading of proposed code amendments to the Residential Design Standards of the Land Use Code. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, City Council is the final review authority for all code amendments. All code amendments are subject to a three-step process. This is the third step in the process: 1. Public Outreach 2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should the pursued 3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments. BACKGROUND: The City of Aspen Residential Design Standards were first adopted in 1995 as a way to maintain design quality and compatibility with historic features of the community. Since then, minor amendments have been processed to add additional standards and create a variation process. Earlier this year, Council asked staff to update and clarify the existing standards. Working with a consultant (Winter & Co.) and an advisory committee, staff has worked to update the standards in an effort to better serve the community and provide attractive, compatible development. This is not a complete re-write. P66 X.b Staff Memo Residential Design Standards 1.11.16 - Second Reading Page 2 of 7 Staff presented the general changes to City Council at the Policy Resolution hearing on December 1st. There have also been multiple check-ins with the community through open houses, advisory committee meetings, and a P&Z meeting. DISCUSSION: The Residential Design Standards are intended to ensure a strong connection between private residences and public streets; ensure buildings provide articulation to break up bulk and mass; and preserve traditional neighborhood scale and character. The standards do not prescribe architectural style, but do require that each home, while serving the needs of its owner, contribute positively to the streetscape. The Residential Design Standards are at their core intended to achieve the following objectives: connect to the street, respond to neighboring properties, and reflect traditional building scale. Staff and Winter & Co. have been working with an advisory committee comprised of six local architects from various firms around town. The role of the committee is to represent the design community by providing input on current issues, reviewing draft updates, and participating in focused group discussions with staff and the consultant. Work on the update began with an inventory of the major issues in the current RDS review process. The most common issues identified by the advisory committee were: • Lack of clarity in the administrative review process • Lack of flexibility in the existing standards for different design styles These are also the issues most often identified by property owners and community members who go through the residential design review process. A summary of the proposed changes, including how the current code language or process presents challenges as well as proposed solutions, is described in more detail below. The RDS update is rooted in two main changes: 1. Clarify the existing review process to make it easier for property owners to know if their home meets the required Residential Design standards before they submit for building permit. 2. Ensure the design standards dictate good building form, not architectural style through some additional flexibility. Review Process: Challenges: The current review process has proven to be challenging for both staff and property owners for its unpredictability and length. Currently, a project is only required to submit an application if a variation from the Residential Design Standards is required. This is typically determined when a potential applicant asks the planner of the day for direction on their proposed design. Staff, typically through the planner of the day, will provide direction to designers and property owners, based on what is shown as this preliminary stage. This process can often lead to a substantial amount of time spent discussing a required variation, or some needed variations being missed P67 X.b Staff Memo Residential Design Standards 1.11.16 - Second Reading Page 3 of 7 because they are not discussed. This can lead to projects that do not meet the RDS getting delayed in the building permit review while they submit an application for a variation. This can place a building permit on hold for several months. Proposed Solution: Under the proposed changes, all residential development would require a planning review prior to building permit submission. During review, staff would review each project for standard applicability and the project’s compliance with the flexible and non-flexible standards (see description of this proposed change below). The application would either be granted approval or denial for compliance with the RDS. This essentially serves as a “gate keeper” to the building permit process. A project could not be submitted for a building permit until it has received a review for compliance with the standards. This will help reduce the number of projects in building permit review that do not comply with the RDS and will provide an applicant with more assurance when submitting a permit. If the project does not comply with the standards, the applicant may amend the application to comply, or they would have the opportunity to request a variation from P&Z. Any decision made by P&Z is final unless appealed under the regular city appeal procedures. Below are diagrams comparing the existing process to the proposed process: Existing Proposed Flexibility for Standards: P68 X.b Staff Memo Residential Design Standards 1.11.16 - Second Reading Page 4 of 7 Currently, a residential project must meet all of the standards as written (with some exceptions depending on the location or specific site constraints). Each of the standards is intended to address different aspects of design, such as relationship to the public realm, massing, and scale of design features. Challenge: Current Standards dictate style. The current standards state that they do not prescribe architectural style, though strict application of the standards has proven to be incompatible with the evolution of architectural styles over the years. For example, a secondary mass may not be appropriate for a more modern design that is intended to be modest and simplistic in form. Challenge: Current Standards sometimes force inappropriate design. While each of the standards serve an important purpose, many of them often lead to a forced design feature on a project in order to meet the letter of the standard. For example, a design may include a main entry door that does not face the street. Rather than redesign the home, a designer may add an “entry door” on a street-facing facade in order to meet the letter of the standard. However, that “entry door” opens to a narrow hallway leading into a back room and is never actually used as the main entry to the home. This example is contrary to the intentions of the standards, but is still permitted under the Code. The proposed changes would close these kinds of loopholes. Challenge: Current Standards do not always respond appropriately to context. Some of the standards can be difficult to meet or do not serve their intended purpose, even if they apply to a project. For example, building orientation on a curvy street is more difficult to achieve than building orientation on a traditional townsite block. Similarly, prohibiting a light well on the front of a building for a building that is 100 feet from the street does not achieve the same purpose as prohibiting one that is 10 feet from the street. Proposed Solution: Adjust applicability and introduce standard options. In an effort to better respond to varying contexts in town, the proposed RDS update clarifies applicability and in some cases adds options based on lot characteristics, required setbacks and other features. Proposed Solution: Allow for alternative compliance on most standards. In an effort to better align the standards with their intents, the proposed code amendments allows for most standards to be evaluated for compliance on a case-by-case basis by staff. Projects would be required to meet the letter of the standard, or provide “alternative compliance” meaning the project meets the overall intent of the standard. For example, a design may include an entry door that is 11 feet back from the front-most wall of the building, but is highly visible from the street and opens onto a large front porch. The door does not technically meet the standard (max. 10 feet from the front-most wall), but it meets the intent by providing street-facing architectural details, enhancing the walking experience and P69 X.b Staff Memo Residential Design Standards 1.11.16 - Second Reading Page 5 of 7 reinforcing local building traditions. This design feature would most likely be permitted under alternative compliance. Another example would be a one-story element that is 19% of the building’s overall width, but is 10 feet deep and a prominent element on the front façade. This feature does not technically meet the standard (min. 20% of the building’s overall width.), but it meets the intent by providing a strong human scale feature that expresses a strong first floor. Alternative compliance would be granted through staff review, similar to the current process. Although the approval method is similar, the process and criteria to obtain the approval are different. Alternative compliance requires a more thorough evaluation of the entire project and context, using improved intent statements that better ensure the purpose of each standard is being met through the design. This proposed process does not eliminate any standards, but allows for some added flexibility that has been requested throughout the public outreach sessions. The proposed alternative compliance process would allow architects and homeowners the ability to more directly work with staff to create a design that promotes pedestrian scale and connection to the public realm without requiring constant variation applications. This also would provide a benefit to the community by focusing on implementation of design features that enhance a residence’s contribution and relationship to the public realm instead of forcing building elements that may not be compatible with the architectural design or style. Proposed Solution: Require compliance on certain standards. Although most standards would allow for alternative compliance, staff believes that flexibility on some standards should require a P&Z review. The following standards provide the greatest impact on the public realm: 1. A visible and accessible front entrance. This standard would require either a front porch with a pedestrian path leading to the feature, or a front door facing and clearly visible from the street. 2. Reducing the appearance of garages from the street. This standard would require garages to be accessed off the alley where one exists. Where an alley does not exist, garages would be required to be set back from the front façade of the building. 3. Articulation of massing to reduce perceived scale. This standard would require a secondary mass or other building articulation. Under the proposed RDS update, all applicable residential development would be required to meet the letter of these standards. If an applicant requests a variation from any of these standards a P&Z review would automatically be required. No staff level variation review would be permitted. Other updates: P70 X.b Staff Memo Residential Design Standards 1.11.16 - Second Reading Page 6 of 7 Staff has also been working with Winter & Co. and the advisory committee on other updates. These include reorganization of the RDS chapter to make it easier to read and understand, adding definitions for often used terms, and updating and improving graphics. QUESTIONS RAISED DURING POLICY RESOLUTION: At the Policy Resolution public hearing, some Council members expressed concern over the proposed alternative compliance approval process as they felt that it would result in staff being able to grant an unlimited number of variations. Currently, up to three residential design standard variations may be granted administratively for a project. An applicant may request a variation from any of the standards. This has the effect of placing all of the Residential Design Standards on equal footing. While all of the design standards are important for ensuring a quality built environment, the proposed update makes a significant change by removing the ability to grant administrative variations from certain standards. Instead of limiting the number of variations that can be granted, the proposed update limits which standards can be granted flexibility. There is not a specific number of limitations but rather specific standards that ensure a residence’s positive contribution to the public realm. The intent of the update is to strike an appropriate balance between standards that cannot be varied without a public hearing with P&Z, with those standards that can be achieved through alternative compliance and reviewed at an administrative level. The proposed change allows design flexibility and creativity while eliminating the ability to request an administrative variation from the standards that have the most impact on the public realm. Council suggested a check-in to evaluate the effectiveness of the alternative compliance process, if it is approved. Staff suggests a check-in could occur as a work session in Summer/Fall of 2016. CHANGES SINCE FIRST READING: Some of the language in the ordinance has been modified since first reading. The intent statements and variation review standards have been further refined to ensure they are as detailed as possible. Some of the standards’ language has also been further refined, including entry connection. The Entry Connection standard has been identified as a difficult standard for properties in Smuggler Park to meet. This is mainly due to the design of modular homes, which typically locates the entrance on the side of the building. Staff suggests two options to address this. One option is to exempt these areas from the standard entirely. The other option, included in the proposed language, requires a front porch to be within 25 feet of the front of the house. This allows a residence to locate a porch on the side of the building, which is more realistic for a modular home, but still requires a high level of visibility and connection to the street. Staff P71 X.b Staff Memo Residential Design Standards 1.11.16 - Second Reading Page 7 of 7 believes it is important to maintain a visible entrance from the street, even if it is not on the front of the house. The Smuggler Park HOA submitted a letter on January 2, 2016 (Exhibit D) requesting additional changes to specific standards for Smuggler Park. Staff does not recommend in favor of the proposed changes. Tailoring the standards to individual neighborhoods is beyond the scope of this update and would be more appropriately addressed through a site-specific amendment. PUBLIC OUTREACH: The advisory committee has been involved in the process since the beginning and has provided valuable feedback that helped craft the current proposed changes. Information on the update has been provided through the Community Development newsletter, which reaches almost 600 professionals including contractors, architects, attorneys, and planners. Two public open houses were held in September and December to obtain feedback from the broader community of the proposed updates. All of the public feedback received to date has been overwhelmingly positive. Both architects and property owners have stated they like the simplified process and the added flexibility of the standards. Staff has also met individually with property owners and HOAs to address specific questions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the attached Ordinance to amend the Residential Design Standards of the Land Use Code and associated sections. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): “I move to approve Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015, approving amendments to the Residential Design Standards of the Land Use Code.” CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Staff Findings Exhibit B – Draft 11/17/15 P&Z minutes Exhibit C – Approved Policy Resolution #136, Series of 2015 Exhibit D – Smuggler Park HOA letter dated January 2, 2016 P72 X.b Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 1 of 23 ORDINANCE NO. 48 (Series of 2015) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 26.410 – RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS, AND ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE. WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the Community Development Department to prepare amendments to the Residential Design Standards Chapter of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall begin with Public Outreach, a Policy Resolution reviewed and acted on by City Council, and then final action by City Council after reviewing and considering the recommendation from the Community Development; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development Department conducted Public Outreach regarding the code amendment; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing on December 1, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No. 136, Series of 2015, requesting code amendments to the Residential Design Standards Chapter of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Chapters 26.410 – Residential Design Standards; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendments and finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310.050; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Code Amendment Objective The goals and objectives of the code amendment are to improve the administrative review process, better organize the standards, and clean up confusing language and loopholes within the Residential Design Standards Chapter of the Land Use Code. Section 2: Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.410 in its entirety shall read as follows: Chapter 26.410 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS P73 X.b Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 2 of 23 Sections: 26.410.010 General 26.410.020 Procedures for review 26.410.030 Single-family & duplex standards 26.410.040 Multi-family standards 26.410.050 Appeals 26.410.010. General A. Intent. The City’s Residential Design Standards are intended to ensure a strong connection between residences and streets; ensure buildings provide articulation to break up bulk and mass; and preserve historic neighborhood scale and character. The standards do not prescribe architectural style, but do require that each home, while serving the needs of its owner, contribute positively to the streetscape. The Residential Design Standards are intended to achieve the following objectives: 1. Connect to the Street. Establish a visual and/or physical connection between residences and streets and other public areas. The area between the street and the front of a residential building is a transition between the public realm of the neighborhood and the private realm of a dwelling. This transition can strongly impact the human experience of the street. Improve the street experience for pedestrians and vehicles by establishing physical and visual relationships between streets, and residential buildings located along streets. Porches, walkways from front entries to the street, and prominent windows that face the street are examples of elements that connect to the street. 2. Respond to Neighboring Properties. Reduce perceived mass and bulk of residential buildings from all sides. Encourage a relationship to adjacent development through similar massing and scale. Create a sense of continuity through building form and setback along the streetscape. Providing offsets or changes of plane in the building facades or reducing the height near side lot lines are examples of responding to neighboring properties. 3. Reflect Traditional Building Scale. Retain scale and proportions in building design that are in keeping with Aspen’s historic architectural tradition, while also encouraging design flexibility. Reinforce the unique character of Aspen by drawing upon the City’s vernacular architecture and neighborhood characteristics in the design of structures. Encourage creative and contemporary architecture, but at a scale that respects historic design traditions. Ensure that residential structures respond to “human-scale” in their design. Ensure that residential structures do not visually overwhelm or overshadow streets. Windows that are similar in size to those seen in historic Aspen architecture or limiting the height of a porch to be in line with the first story of a building are examples of reflecting traditional building scale. B. Applicability. Except as outlined in Section 26.410.010.C, Exemptions, this Chapter applies to all residential development in the City, except for residential development within the R-15B zone district. Specific applicability for each standard is identified within each standard. C. Exemptions. No residential development shall be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter unless the Community Development Director determines that the proposed development: P74 X.b Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 3 of 23 1. Is an addition or remodel to an existing structure that does not change the exterior of the building; or 2. Is a remodel of a structure where the alterations proposed change the exterior of the building, but are not addressed by any of the residential design standards; or 3. Is a residential unit within a mixed-use building; or 4. Is a designated historic resource listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. New buildings on a historic landmark lot are not exempt. D. Remodels. Where work is proposed on any element of an existing building that is addressed by the Residential Design Standards and that is not in compliance with the Standards, the property owner shall make a reasonable effort to bring that element into compliance. The Community Development Director may grant exceptions for remodels that would require significant additional work above and beyond the scope of the remodel in order to ensure that all features are brought into compliance. For example, consider a remodel involving modifications to a porch structure that is currently smaller than the minimum square footage required by the Residential Design Standards. If the porch is being replaced with a new porch, the new porch will be required to meet the minimum size requirements in the Residential Design Standards. If only the porch posts are being replaced, the existing porch may remain without needing a variation even though it does not meet the minimum size requirements in the Residential Design Standards. As a second example, consider a remodel involving modifications to a non-orthogonal window where the maximum number of non-orthogonal windows allowed by the Residential Design Standards is exceeded. If the window is being moved to a new location or the size or shape of the window is being changed, the new window will be required to meet the non-orthogonal window limit in the Residential Design Standards. If the modifications to the window are being made in place and do not expand or change the size or shape, the existing nonconforming non-orthogonal window may remain without needing a variation even though it exceeds the maximum number of non-orthogonal windows allowed by the Residential Design Standards. E. Definitions. Unless otherwise indicated, the definitions of words used in these regulations shall be the same as the definitions used in Chapter 26.104 of the Land Use Code. In addition, the following definitions shall apply: Curvilinear Lot. A lot in which a curve comprises 50% or more of the total length of the front lot line. Façade. An exterior face of a building. It can be applied to any side. Projections, such as open porches, are not considered a façade. Front Façade. The street-facing exterior face of a building that contains the primary building entry. The front façade may include multiple wall planes that make up the front face of the building. See Figure 1. P75 X.b Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 4 of 23 Figure 1 Street-Facing Façade. Any side of a building that faces a street. A street-facing façade may refer to multiple wall planes on a building face that face the street or right-of-way. See Figure 2. Figure 2 Front-Most Wall. The wall of the front façade of a building that is closest to the street or right-of-way. See Figure 3. Figure 3 Front-Most Element. The front most building feature associated with a primary building or garage. In many cases, this element may be located forward of the front façade, such as an open front porch or projecting garage overhang. See Figure 4. P76 X.b Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 5 of 23 Figure 4 Non-orthogonal Window. A window with an opening that is not rectangular in nature and does not possess right angles at each of its four corners and vertical or horizontal orientation of all edges. One Story. A portion of a building between the surface of the finished floor and the ceiling immediately above; or the wall plate height where no additional stories are located above. One story shall not exceed 10 feet for purposes of the Residential Design Standards. Open Front Porch. A porch on the front façade of a building that is open on at least two (2) sides, one of which faces the street. Open shall mean no element of enclosure, except screens. Street. A way or thoroughfare, other than an alley, containing a public access easement and used or intended for vehicular traffic. The term street shall include the entire area within a right-of-way. For the purpose of Chapter 26.410, street shall also include private streets and vehicular access easements serving more than one (1) parcel. Streets shall not include public or private trails. 26.410.020. Procedures for Review A. Determination of Applicability. The applicant may request a preliminary Residential Design Standards pre-application conference with Community Development Department staff to determine the applicability of the requirements of this chapter for the proposed development. B. Administrative Review. Consistency with the Residential Design Standards shall be determined administratively, unless a variation is requested. The Administrative Review process will result in a determination of approval or denial for compliance with the Residential Design Standards. All projects will be reviewed for compliance with the Flexible and Non-flexible Standards contained within the Residential Design Standards. Flexible and Non-flexible Standards are defined as follows: 1. Flexible Standards. Flexible Standards are standards for which additional flexibility around the specific requirements of a standard may be granted administratively. If an application is found to be inconsistent with any of the Flexible Standards, but meets the overall intent of the standard as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3, Alternative Compliance may be granted. The Community Development Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny Alternative Compliance. If an application does not meet the overall intent of a Flexible Standard, the applicant may either amend their proposal or seek a variation, pursuant to Section 26.410.020.C, Variations. 2. Non-flexible Standards. Non-flexible Standards are those standards that shall be met by all projects subject to the Residential Design Standards, with no Alternative Compliance permitted, unless otherwise stated in this chapter. If an application is found to be inconsistent with any of the Non-flexible Standards as written, the applicant may either amend their proposal or seek a variation, pursuant to Section 26.410.020.C, Variations. C. Variations. Any application that does not receive Administrative Review approval described above may apply for a variation, pursuant to Section 26.304.030, Common Development Procedures. An applicant may also choose to apply directly for a variation if desired. The Planning & Zoning P77 X.b Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 6 of 23 Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, during a duly noticed public hearing, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for variation, based on the standards of review in Section 26.410.020.D, Variation Review Standards. A variation from the Residential Design Standards does not grant an approval to vary other standards of this Chapter that may be provided by another decision-making body. The review process is as follows: Step One – Public Hearing before Planning & Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission. 1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the review standards for Residential Design Standard variation. 2. Process: The Community Development Director shall provide the Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, with a recommendation to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application, based on the standards of review. The Planning and Zoning Commission, or Historic Preservation Commission if the property is designated or is located within a historic district, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application after considering the recommendation of the Community Development Director and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing. 3. Standards of review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section 26.410.020.D, Variation Review Standards. 4. Form of decision: The decision shall be by resolution. 5. Notice requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3.a), b) and c). D. Variation Review Standards. An application requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variation, if granted would: 1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3; or 2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. 26.410.030. Single-family & duplex standards A. Applicability. Unless stated otherwise below, the design standards in this section shall apply to all single-family and duplex development. B. Location and Massing. 1. Articulation of Building Mass (Non-flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots outside of the Aspen Infill Area. P78 X.b Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 7 of 23 b) Intent. This standard seeks to reduce the overall perceived mass and bulk of buildings on a property as viewed from all sides. Designs should promote light and air access between adjacent properties. Designs should articulate building walls by utilizing multiple forms to break up large expansive wall planes. Buildings should include massing and articulation that convey forms that are similar in massing to historic Aspen residential buildings. This standard is critical in the Infill Area where small lots, small side and front setbacks, alleys and historic Aspen building forms are prevalent. Designs should change the plane of a building’s sidewall, step a primary building’s height down to one-story in the rear portion or limit the overall depth of the structure. c) Standard. A principal building shall articulate building mass to reduce bulk and mass and create building forms that are similar in scale to those seen in historic Aspen residential buildings. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Maximum Sidewall Depth. A principal building shall be no greater than fifty (50) feet in depth, as measured from the front-most wall of the front façade to the rear wall. An accessory building that is completely separated from the main building is permitted. Garages, sheds and accessory dwelling units are examples of appropriate uses for an accessory building. See Figure 5. Figure 5 (2) Off-set with One-Story Ground Level Connector. A principal building shall provide a portion of its mass as a subordinate one-story, ground floor connecting element. The connecting element shall be at least ten (10) feet in length and shall be setback at least an additional five (5) feet from the sidewall on both sides of the building. The connecting element shall occur at a maximum of forty-five (45) feet in depth, as measured from the front-most wall of the front façade to the rear wall. Accessible outdoor space over the connecting element (e.g. a deck) is permitted but may not be covered or enclosed. Any railing for an accessible outdoor space over a connecting element must be the minimum reasonably necessary to provide adequate safety and building code compliance and the railing must be 50% or more transparent. See Figure 6. Figure 6 P79 X.b Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 8 of 23 (3) Increased Side Setbacks at Rear and Step Down. A principal building shall provide increased side setbacks at the rear of the building. If the principal building is two stories, it shall step down to one story in the rear. The increased side setbacks and one story step down shall occur at a maximum of forty-five (45) feet, as measured from the front-most wall toward the rear wall. The increased side setbacks shall be at least five (5) feet greater than the side setbacks at the front of the building. See Figure 7. Figure 7 2. Building Orientation (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to establish a relationship between buildings and streets to create an engaging streetscape and discourage the isolation of homes from the surrounding neighborhood. The placement of buildings should seek to frame street edges physically or visually. Buildings should be oriented in a manner such that they are a component of the streetscape, which consists of the street itself and the buildings that surround it. Building orientation should provide a sense of interest and promote interaction between buildings and passersby. Building orientation is important in all areas of the city, but is particularly important in the Infill Area where there is a strong pattern of buildings that are parallel to the street. Designs should prioritize the visibility of the front façade from the street by designing the majority of the front façade to be parallel to the street or prominently visible from the street. Front facades, porches, driveways, windows, and doors can all be designed to have a strong and direct relationship to the street. c) Standard. The front façade of a building shall be oriented to face the street on which it is located. d) Options. Fulfilling one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Strong Orientation Requirement. The front façade of a building shall be parallel to the street. On a corner lot, both street-facing façades of a building shall be parallel to each street. See Figure 8. (2) Moderate Orientation Requirement. The front façade of a building shall face the street. On a corner lot, one street-facing façade shall face each intersecting street. See Figure 8. Figure 8 P80 X.b Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 9 of 23 The availability of these options shall be determined according to the following lot characteristics: 3. Build-to Requirement (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of 25 feet or greater. (2) Lots that are curvilinear. (3) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to establish a consistent physical pattern of front façades close to and parallel to streets in order to frame the street. The placement of buildings should respond to the street by framing street edges physically. Buildings should be located to provide a strong physical presence and integration within the streetscape, which consists of the street itself and the buildings that surround it. This standard is most important in the Infill Area where a strong pattern of smaller front setbacks and consistent building orientation exists. Designs should maximize the amount of the front façade that is close to the street while still providing articulation and expressing a human scale. Porches, front façade walls, rooflines and other elements can all contribute to framing the street. c) Standard. At least sixty percent (60%) of the front façade of a principal building shall be within five (5) feet of the minimum front yard setback line. On a corner lot, this standard shall be met on at least one (1) of the two intersecting streets. A front porch may be used to meet this requirement. See Figure 9. 4. One-story Element (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to establish human scale building features as perceived from the street and express lower and upper floors on front façades to reduce perceived mass. Designs should utilize street-facing architectural elements, such as porches, that imitate those of historic Aspen residential buildings. Buildings should provide visual evidence or demarcation of the stories of a building to relate to pedestrians. This standard is important in Figure 9 P81 X.b Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 10 of 23 all areas of the city. Front porches or portions of the front-most wall of the front façade should clearly express a one-story scale as perceived from the street. Changes in material or color can also be incorporated into these elements to help to strengthen the establishment of a one-story scale. c) Standard. A principal building shall incorporate a one-story element on the front façade. Duplexes in a side-by-side configuration are required to have a one-story element per dwelling unit. d) Options. (1) Projecting One-Story Element. The front façade of the principal building shall have a one-story street-facing element that projects at least six (6) feet from the front façade and has a width equivalent to at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's (or unit’s) overall width. This one story element may be enclosed living space or a front porch that is open on three sides. This one story element shall be a minimum of 50 square feet in area. Accessible space (whether it is a deck, porch or enclosed area) shall not be allowed over the first story element; however, accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front façade shall not be precluded. See Figure 10. (2) Loggia. The front façade of the principal building shall have an open loggia that is recessed at least six (6) feet but no more than ten (10) feet from the front façade, and has a width equivalent to at least twenty percent (20%) of the building’s (or unit’s) overall width. The loggia shall be open on at least two (2) sides and face the street. This one story element shall be a minimum of 50 square feet in area. See Figure 11. (3) One-Story Stepdown. The principal building shall include a one-story component on one side of the building that remains one story from the front façade to the rear wall. The width of the one-story portion shall be a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the building’s (or unit’s) overall width. The one-story portion may be fully enclosed and used as living area. Accessible space (whether it is a deck, porch or enclosed area) shall not be allowed over the first story element; however, accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front façade shall not be precluded. See Figure 12. Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 P82 X.b Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 11 of 23 The availability of these options shall be determined according to the following lot characteristics: C. Garages. 1. Garage Access (Non-flexible). a) Applicability. This standard is required for all lots that have vehicular access from an alley or private street. b) Intent. This standard seeks to minimize potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles by concentrating parking along alleys and away from the street where pedestrian activity is highest. This standard also seeks to minimize the visibility of opaque and unarticulated garage doors from streets by placing them in alleys wherever possible. Properties with alleys shall utilize the alley as an opportunity to place the garage in a location that is subordinate to the principal building, further highlighting the primary building from the street. This standard is important for any property where an alley is available, which is most common in the Infill Area. c) Standard. A lot that has access from an alley or private street shall be required to access parking, garages and carports from the alley or private street. Where alley access is available, no parking or vehicular access shall be allowed forward of the front façade. See Figure 13. 2. Garage Placement (Non-flexible). a) Applicability. This standard is required for all lots that do not have vehicular access from an alley or private street. b) Intent. This standard seeks to prevent large expanses of unarticulated facades close to the street and ensure garages are subordinate to the principal building for properties that feature driveway and garage access directly from the street. Buildings should seek to locate garages behind principal buildings so that the front façade of the principal building is highlighted. Where locating the garage behind the front façade of the principal building is not feasible or Figure 13 P83 X.b Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 12 of 23 required, designs should minimize the presence of garage doors as viewed from the street. This standard is important in all areas of the city where alley access is not an option. c) Standard. A garage or carport shall be placed in a way that reduces its prominence as viewed from the street. On a corner lot, this standard shall apply to both street-facing façades. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Set Back Garage. The front-most element of the garage or carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front-most wall of any street-facing façade of the principal building. See Figure 14. (2) Side-Loaded Garage Forward of Street-Facing Façade. A garage or carport located forward of a street-facing façade shall be side-loaded. The garage or carport entry shall be perpendicular to the street. For lots on curved streets, the garage door shall not be placed on any street-facing façade of the garage. See Figure 15. The availability of these options shall be determined according to the following lot characteristics: 3. Garage Dimensions (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard applies to all residential development in the city that is subject to the Residential Design Standards. b) Intent. This standard seeks to minimize the presence of wide garages as perceived from streets and ensure that garages are subordinate to the principal building. Designs should promote an active streetscape that is not dominated by wide expanses of garage doors. Garage doors should Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 P84 X.b Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 13 of 23 either be hidden from public view or their width minimized. This standard is important in all areas of the city. See Figure 16. c) Standards. The width of the living area on the first floor of a street- facing façade on which a garage is located shall be at least five (5) feet greater than the width of the garage or carport. The total width of all vehicular entrance(s) to garage(s) or carport(s) that are visible from the street, whether on the same plane or offset from one another, shall not exceed twenty-four (24) feet. See Figure 17. 4. Garage Door Design (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard applies to all residential development in the city that is subject to the Residential Design Standards. b) Intent. This standard seeks to promote a streetscape that maximizes visual interest by minimizing unarticulated expanses of garage doors. Garage doors that utilize increased articulation, changes in façade depth and profile of materials, windows and other features to break up the garage door should be prioritized. This standard is critical for any property where garage doors are visible from the street. c) Standard. A garage door that is visible from a street shall utilize an articulation technique to break up its façade. d) Options. Fulfilling one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Two Separate Doors. A two-car garage door shall be constructed as two separate doors. See Figure 18. (2) Appearance of Two Separate Doors. A two-car garage door shall be constructed with one door that is designed to appear as two separate doors by incorporating a vertical separating element that is at least one (1) foot in width. B. Entry Features. 1. Entry Connection (Non-flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to promote visual and physical connections between buildings and the street. Buildings should use architectural and site planning features to establish a connection between these two elements. Buildings shall not use features that create barriers or hide the entry features of the house such as fences, hedgerows or walls. Buildings and site planning features should establish a sense that one can directly enter a building from the street through the use of pathways, front porches, front doors that face the street and other similar methods. This standard is critical in all areas of the city. Figure 17 Figure 18 P85 X.b Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 14 of 23 c) Standard. A building shall provide a visual and/or physical connection between a primary entry and the street. On a corner lot, an entry connection shall be provided to at least one (1) of the two intersecting streets. Duplexes in a side-by-side configuration shall have one (1) entry connection per dwelling unit. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Street Oriented Entrance. At least one (1) entry door shall be provided on the front façade of the principal building. The entry door shall face the street and shall not be set back more than ten (10) feet from the front- most wall of the front façade of the principal building. Fencing, hedgerows, walls or other permitted structures shall not obstruct visibility to the door. See Figure 19. (2) Open Front Porch. The front façade of the principal building shall have a front porch that is open on at least two (2) sides, a minimum of 50 square feet, face the street, and have a demarcated pathway that connects the street to the front porch. The front porch shall contain the primary entrance to the building. Fencing, hedgerows, walls or other permitted structures shall not obstruct visibility to the porch or the demarcated pathway. See Figure 20. For lots located in the Smuggler Park and Smuggler Run Subdivisions: the front porch is not required on the front façade, but the front-most element of the porch shall be within twenty-five (25) feet of the front-most wall of the building. The porch shall meet all other requirements of this standard. The availability of these options shall be determined according to the following lot characteristics: 2. Door Height (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. Figure 19 Figure 20 P86 X.b Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 15 of 23 b) Intent. This standard seeks to retain historic architectural character by ensuring modestly scaled doors that are not out of scale when compared to historic Aspen residential buildings. Large, oversized doors should be avoided so as not to overwhelm front façades and distort the sense of human scale as perceived from the street. This standard is important in all areas of the city. c) Standard. All doors facing a street shall not be taller than eight (8) feet. A small transom window above a door shall not be considered a part of the door for the purpose of this standard. See Figure 21. 3. Entry Porch Height (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard promotes porches that are built at a one-story human-scale that are compatible with historic Aspen residential buildings. This standard prevents porches that are out of scale with the street and traditional porches seen in the surrounding neighborhood. Porch designs should reinforce the one-story scale and help reduce perceived mass as viewed from the street. This standard is critical for buildings in the Infill Area. c) Standard. An entry porch or canopy on the front façade of a principal building shall not be more than one-story in height as defined by this chapter. See Figure 22. B. Fenestration and Materials. 1. Principal Window (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to prevent large expanses of blank walls on the front façades of principal buildings. A building should incorporate a significant sense of transparency on the front façade. Designs should include prominent windows or groups of windows on the front façade to help promote connection between the residence and street. This standard is important in all areas of the city. c) Standard. A principal building shall have at least one (1) street-facing principal window or grouping of smaller windows acting as a principal window on the front facade. Duplexes in a side-by-side configuration shall have one (1) principal window per dwelling unit. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: Figure 21 Figure 22 P87 X.b Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 16 of 23 (1) Street-Facing Principal Window. The front façade shall have at least one (1) window with dimensions of four (4) feet by four (4) feet or greater. See Figure 23. (2) Window Group. The front façade shall have at least one (1) group of windows that when measured as a group has dimensions of four (4) feet by four (4) feet or greater. See Figure 24. 2. Window Placement (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to preserve the historic architectural character of Aspen by preventing large expanses of vertical glass windows that dominate street-facing façades. Overly tall expanses of glass on a street-facing façade do not relate well to human scale. Designs should utilize windows that provide a sense of demarcation between stories and pedestrian scale. Where an upper story window is located directly above a lower story window, a gap with no window should be provided between them that is easily recognizable from the street and clearly differentiates lower and upper stories. This standard is important in all areas of the city. c) Standard. A street-facing window on a building shall not vertically span more than one story as defined by this chapter. See Figure 25. 3. Non-orthogonal Window Limit (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots outside of the Aspen Infill Area. (2) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to encourage rectilinear window shapes seen in Aspen’s historic residential architecture and discourages the proliferation or overuse of round or diagonal- oriented windows. Designs should minimize the use of non-orthogonal windows that face the street in order to help preserve the historic character of Aspen. This standard is critical in the Infill Area where many of Aspen’s historic residential buildings are located. Figure 23 Figure 24 Figure 25 P88 X.b Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 17 of 23 c) Standard. A building shall have no more than one (1) non- orthogonal window on each façade of the building that faces the street. A single non-orthogonal window in a gable end may be divided with mullions and still be considered one (1) non-orthogonal window. See Figure 26. 4. Light well/Stairwell Location (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to minimize negative visual impacts to the street and discourage visual and physical disconnection between buildings and streets. Building designs should avoid placing light wells, areaways, skylights, and stairwells between primary buildings and streets. These features should be located away from the front of buildings. Designs should locate these elements at the sides or rear of a principal building. This standard is most important in all areas of the city with smaller setbacks. c) Standard. A light well, areaway, skylight or stairwell shall not be located between the front-most wall of a street-facing façade and any street. See Figure 27. 5. Materials (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard applies to all residential development in the city that is subject to the Residential Design Standards. b) Intent. This standard seeks to reinforce historic architectural character by preventing the use of materials on single-family and duplex buildings that is in sharp contrast with use of materials seen in historic Aspen residential buildings. Buildings should use materials consistently on all sides of a building instead of simply applying a material on one façade of a building. Buildings should seek to use heavier materials, such as brick or stone, as a base for lighter materials, such as wood or stucco. Buildings should use materials that are similar in profile, texture and durability to those seen in historic residential buildings in the city. This standard is important in all areas of the city. c) Standards. The quality of the exterior materials and their application shall be consistent on all sides of the single-family or duplex building. See Figure 28. Materials shall be used in ways that are true to their characteristics. For instance stucco, which is a light or nonbearing material, shall not be used below a heavy material, such as stone. See Figure 29. Figure 26 Figure 27 P89 X.b Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 18 of 23 Figure 28 Figure 29 26.410.040. Multi-family standards A. Applicability. Unless stated otherwise below, the design standards in this section shall apply to all multi-family development. B. Design standards. 1. Building Orientation (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to establish a relationship between buildings and streets to create an engaging streetscape and discourage the isolation of homes from the surrounding neighborhood. The placement of buildings should seek to frame street edges physically or visually. Buildings should be oriented in a manner such that they are a component of the streetscape, which consists of the street itself and the buildings that surround it. Building orientation should provide a sense of interest and promote interaction between buildings and passersby. Building orientation is important in all areas of the city, but is particularly important in the Infill Area where there is a strong pattern of buildings that are parallel to the street. Designs should prioritize the visibility of the front façade from the street by designing the majority of the front façade to be parallel to the street or prominently visible from the street. Front facades, porches, driveways, windows, and doors can all be designed to have a strong and direct relationship to the street. c) Standard. The front façade of a building shall be oriented to face the street on which it is located. d) Options. Fulfilling one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Strong Orientation Requirement. The front façade of a building shall be parallel to the street. On a corner lot, both street-facing façades of a building shall be parallel to each street. See Figure 30. (2) Moderate Orientation Requirement. The front façade of a building shall face the street. On a corner lot, one street-facing façade shall face each intersecting street. Figure 30 P90 X.b Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 19 of 23 The availability of these options shall be determined according to the following lot characteristics: 2. Garage Access (Non-flexible). a) Applicability. This standard is required for all lots that have vehicular access from an alley or private street. b) Intent. This standard seeks to minimize potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles by concentrating parking along alleys and away from the street where pedestrian activity is highest. This standard also seeks to minimize the visibility of plain, opaque and unarticulated garage doors from streets by placing them in alleys wherever possible. Properties with alleys shall utilize the alley as an opportunity to place the garage in a location that is subordinate to the principal building, further highlighting the primary building from the street. This standard is important for any property where an alley is available, which is most common in the Infill Area. c) Standard. A multi-family building that has access from an alley or private street shall be required to access parking, garages and carports from the alley or private street. See Figure 31. 3. Garage Placement (Non-flexible). a) Applicability. This standard is required for all lots that do not have vehicular access from an alley or private street. b) Intent. This standard seeks to prevent large expanses of unarticulated facades close to the street and ensure garages are subordinate to the principal building for properties that feature driveway and garage access directly from the street. Buildings should seek to locate garages behind principal buildings so that the front façade of the principal building is highlighted. Where locating the garage behind the front façade of the principal building is not feasible or required, designs should minimize the presence of garage doors as viewed from the street. This standard is important in all areas of the city where alley access is not an option. c) Standard. The front of a garage or the front-most supporting column of a carport shall be set back at Figure 31 Figure 32 P91 X.b Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 20 of 23 least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front façade of the principal building. See Figure 32. 4. Entry Connection (Non-flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to promote visual and physical connections between buildings and the street. Buildings should use architectural and site planning features to establish a connection between these two elements. Buildings shall not use features that create barriers or hide the entry features of the house such as fences, hedgerows or walls. Buildings and site planning features should establish a sense that one can directly enter a building from the street through the use of pathways, front porches, front doors that face the street and other similar methods. This standard is critical in all areas of the city. c) Standard. A building shall provide a visual and/or physical connection between a primary entry and the street. On a corner lot, an entry connection shall be provided to at least one (1) of the two intersecting streets. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Street Oriented Entrance. There shall be at least one (1) entry door that faces the street for every four (4) street-facing, ground-level units in a row. Fencing, hedgerows, walls or other permitted structures shall not obstruct visibility to the entire door. See Figure 33. (2) Open Front Porch. There shall be at least one (1) porch or ground-level balcony that faces the street for every street-facing, ground-level unit. Fencing, hedgerows, walls or other permitted structures shall not obstruct visibility to the porch or the demarcated pathway. See Figure 34. 5. Principal Window (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. Figure 33 Figure 34 P92 X.b Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 21 of 23 b) Intent. This standard seeks to prevent large expanses of blank walls on the front façades of principal buildings. A building should incorporate significant transparency on the front façade. Designs should include prominent windows or groups of windows on the front façade to help promote connection between the residence and street. This standard is important in all areas of the city. c) Standard. At least one (1) street-facing principal window or grouping of smaller windows acting as a principal window shall be provided for each unit facing the street. On a corner unit with street frontage on two streets, this standard shall apply to both street-facing façades. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Street-Facing Principal Window. The front façade shall have at least one (1) window with dimensions of three (3) feet by four (4) feet or greater for each dwelling unit. See Figure 35. (2) Window Group. The front façade shall have at least one (1) group of windows that when measured as a group has dimensions of three (3) feet by four (4) feet or greater for each dwelling unit. See Figure 36. 26.410.050. Appeals A. An applicant aggrieved by a decision made by the Community Development Director regarding administration of this Chapter may appeal the decision to the Administrative Hearing Officer, pursuant to Chapter 26.316. B. An applicant aggrieved by a decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission as applicable, may appeal the decision to the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.316. In such circumstances, the Commission’s decision shall be considered a recommendation to City Council. Section 3: The following definitions in Section 26.104.100, Definitions, shall be added as follows: Berm. A human-made raised strip of land or ridge made of earthen materials. Hedgerow. A row of closely spaced bushes, trees, or shrubs that create, or have the potential through growth maturity to create a largely opaque visual barrier. Section 4: Figure 35 Figure 36 P93 X.b Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 22 of 23 Chapter 26.210.020.B – Community Development Director, which section described the power and duties of the Community Development Director, shall be amended as follows: [No Changes to Subsections 1 – 24] 25. To approve Alternative Compliance, pursuant to Chapter 26.410. Section 5: Chapter 26.212.010 – Planning and Zoning Commission, which section describes the power and duties of the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall be amended as follows: [No Changes to Subsections A – N] O. To hear, review and approve variations to the Residential Design Standards, pursuant to Chapter 26.410; [No Changes to Subsection P – Q] Section 6: Chapter 26.220.010 – Historic Preservation Commission, which section describes the power and duties of the Historic Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows: [No Changes to Subsections A – H] I. To hear, review and approve variations to the Residential Design Standards, pursuant to Chapter 26.410; [No Changes to Subsection J – K] Section 7: Update of Review Fees Section 26.104.070, Land Use Application Fees shall be amended to reflect the changes to the Residential Design Standards, as follows: “Flat Fee 4, $650, Residential Design Variance, admin.” shall be amended to state “Flat Fee 4, $650, Residential Design Standard Administrative Compliance, admin.” “Planning Review – One-Step, Hourly Fee, Residential Design Variance – P&Z” shall be amended to state “Planning Review – One-Step, Hourly Fee, Residential Design Variation – P&Z” [All other fees shall remain unchanged.] Section 8: Any scrivener’s errors contained in the code amendments herein, including but not limited to mislabeled subsections or titles, may be corrected administratively following adoption of the Ordinance. Section 9: Effect Upon Existing Litigation. P94 X.b Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 23 of 23 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 10: 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 11: Effective Date. In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final passage. Section 12: A public hearing on this ordinance was held on the 11th day of January, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 14th day of December, 2015. Attest: __________________________ ____________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of ______, 2015. Attest: __________________________ ___________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor Approved as to form: ___________________________ James R. True, City Attorney P95 X.b Exhibit A Staff Findings RDS Code Amendment Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT A STAFF FINDINGS 26.310.050 Amendments to the Land Use Code Standards of review - Adoption. In reviewing an application to amend the text of this Title, per Section 26.310.020(B)(3), Step Three – Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Staff Findings: There are no known conflicts with any other portions of this Title. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Whether the proposed amendment achieves the policy, community goal, or objective cited as reasons for the code amendment or achieves other public policy objectives. Staff Findings: The main purposes of the proposed amendment are to improve the administrative review process to provide more clarity and reliability, provide flexibility to promote a variety of design styles, and cleanup the language to read easier for the community. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with the community character of the City and is in harmony with the public interest and the purpose and intent of this Title. Staff Findings: The proposed amendment provides more transparency and reliability for the review process while providing flexibility to promote different design styles and creativity in a community that has a strong history of this variety. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P96 X.b Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 but he also feels the developer needs to have trust in the process too. He thinks it will be a positive outcome and hopes in the future they are dealing with a different set of criteria. Mr. Goode agreed. Mr. Elliott motioned to approve resolution #20, series 2015 adding the following conditions identified by Ms. Phelan as a third paragraph of Section 1. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mesirow. •Meet the growth management requirements for above graded net livable space for the affordable housing units. •Verify dimensional requirements are met, specifically Floor Area Calculations. •The applicant is encouraged to further review the Hopkins fa<;:ade. Mr. Goode requested a roll call. Roll call vote: Mr. Morris, yes; Mr. Mesirow, yes; Mr. Elliott, yes; Ms. McNicholas Kury, yes; and Mr. Goode, yes. The motion passed with a total five (5) yes -zero (O) no. Ms. Phelan requested Mr. Wilson to provide an electronic copy of the presentation. Mr. Goode then closed the public hearing. OTHER BUSINESS Residential Design Standards. Code Amendment Check-In Mr. Justin Barker, Community Development Senior Planner, stated he wanted to check in with P&Z regarding proposed code amendments pertaining to the City's Residential Design Standards (RDS). Mr. Barker provided background on the RDS and stated Council directed Staff earlier this year to look into updating the RDS to make it more appropriate for the current designs and timeframe. Staff has been working with a consultant as well as an advisory committee to identify possible updates. After multiple discussions and meetings, two issues were identified with the current version of the chapter. •Lack of clarity in the administrative review process •Lack of flexibility in the existing standards Mr. Barker then reviewed the administrative review process. The process is confusing as is the standard for the reviews that occur during the process. He referred to Exhibit A which diagrams the existing and proposed review processes. With the new review process, they are proposing all projects come in for an administrative review for all standards. Administratively, they would receive an approval or denial to be included in their building permit providing them assurance they have a signed off approval. This would also removes the three design request limitation. Staff will look at all the standards combined and whether they are met collectively or not. If the proposal is denied, the applicant has the opportunity to request a variation from P&Z or mend their requirements to meet the RDS. When an application comes in, there are set standards based on the location and topography of the site that must be met to the letter. The application may also go through an administrative or a P&Z variance review. Staff recognizes not all the standards have equal importance and he provided an example of the location of the structure on the lot may not be as important as the overall mass of the building. The proposed changes prioritize the standards and identifies three standards as the nonflexible standards as 8 EXHIBIT B P97 X.b Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 listed on p. 75 of the agenda packet. These must be met as per stated in the code and any variance must be taken to P&Z for review. All the other standards are reviewed with flexibility in mind and Staff will determine the intent of the standard is being is met. He discussed the two examples on pp 79 and 80 of the packet. There are a few more updates Staff has been working on including the following. •Reorganizing the entire chapter to make it more readable •Define some terms not previously defined or are unclear •Updating and improving the graphics to be more understandable •Adding new graphics to further assist with explaining topics For public outreach, there was an open house at the end of September that approximately 20 people attended. There was an overwhelming positive response to the idea of the proposed changes. The proposed changes were also included in the Community Development Newsletter which goes out to almost 600 professionals in the valley to which there has been mostly positive responses as well. The next steps include the proposed changes going to Council for policy resolution in early December. There will also be one more public open house on the same date to obtain additional feedback prior to the meeting with Council. If the policy resolution is approved, they will proceed with an ordinance reading for the specific language to amend the code. Mr. Barker asked if P&Z supports the proposed amendment or has any concerns. Mr. Mesi row asked who made up the audience at the open house. Mr. Barker answered it was a lot of local architects and designers. Mr. Mesi row stated it seems very counter to the general feeling of the community to hold to very specific guidelines with no flexibility in granting anything to anybody. Mr. Morris asked if the audience receiving the newsletter was also primarily architects and designers at which Mr. Barker stated the newsletter is viewed by architects, designers, real estate agents, attorneys and others involved with land use code review and enforcement. Mr. Morris wondered how we could get some from the other side to show up and participate in the review. Ms. Phelan stated there needs to be guidelines in place and the values of the town are so high that if there were no requirements, you would see 10 ft walls around houses turning them into compounds and the public streetscape would be negatively impacted. What Staff heard is that some of the requirements are not flexible. Staff is trying to identify those standards that are sacred and there can't be an administrative variation unless you go to a board for review. Mr. Barker added they want to focus on the design and the overall intent of the applicants instead of looking at the extreme details such as your window is 9 ft tall instead of 9 ft 3 in tall. Staff does not feel it is necessary for an applicant to come to P&Z to ask for a window that is 3 in taller than allowed per the code. Mr. Goode remarked P&Z has seen plenty of such examples. Mr. Goode other commissioners stated they feel the changes will be good for the process. Mr. Mesi row appreciates the direction and finding more competence in the process for everyone is important. He also feels the intent to focus on use is really healthy oppose to it looking as though the standards are being relaxed. Mr. Morris also feels it will be important to articulate the reasons behind amending the code. Mr. Mesi row does see a red flag when it comes to the prioritization. He understands why it is being done, but is concerned they may be drawing a roadmap for architects and designers to figure out which things they need to abide by. Ms. Phelan added the proposed process may be able to dial in the intent 9 P98 X.b Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 to match the location more appropriately to match the development pattern of the area. She added there are certain design principles that will be upheld. She gave the example that Staff feels very strongly about the placement of a garage at a site. For instance, on Cemetery Lane they may allow side loading where they typically do not allow for it. Mr. Mesi row asked for the process to revisit this based on changing community priorities. Mr. Barker stated it would be easier to change the priorities in the future should the need arise. Mr. Barker stated a lot of designers have figured out a loophole process to meeting the standards which creates a worse design in the end. These amendments will help Staff focus on the overall design and allow the applicant to focus on a holistic design rather than just meet the standard. Mr. Mesi row reiterated having check-in mechanisms would ultimately make the process better. It would also encourage trust with the community. Mr. Goode felt opening it up to look at the entire design from the beginning would be helpful. Mr. Barker reiterated currently an applicant may present up to three items for administrative variances from three different standards. If they request more than three, it currently goes to P&Z for review. With the amendments, there will no longer be a limitation on the number requested for administrative review. If the administrative review is not granted, the applicant would have the option of taking their request to P&Z. Mr. Mesi row asked if it was a requirement or opportunity for the applicant to currently ask for administrative review. Mr. Barker replied currently it is reviewed for RDS when someone submits for a building permit. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked how Staff makes their decisions defensible in regards to intent. Ms. Phelan stated there are some standards that are a bit loose and it is harder to define the intent but she feels the more something can be explained, the more you can define where it meets or doesn't meet the standard. Mr. Barker stated there will always be subjectivity in design, but it important to gather as much information as possible. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated some statements raise red flags for her. She cited a statement Section 26.410.010.A.3, which states to encourage creative and contemporary architecture in keeping with Aspen's history. She stated statements like this are extremely difficult to interpret and noted the application approved earlier and how it will change the character of the neighborhood impacting any future review under that criteria is different. She feels there is a tension between what Aspen was and what it is becoming. She is concerned the direction in which it is heading is very unclear and doesn't feel in terms of design, it is something that's been articulated. Mr. Goode brought up that the aspect of messy vitality that has driven change in Aspen. Mr. Mesirow feels Ms. McNicholas Kury wants better confines to direct the change that will occur. He added change includes not only what it will look like, but also what it act and feel like. Ms. McNicholas Kury feels the change should be tied to an intent whether it be messy vitality or something else. Mr. Barker understands Ms. McNicholas Kury's concerns, but unfortunately it is not in the scope of the update being discussed. He does feel the proposed amendments will help support the intent going forward to the specific standards. He suggested perhaps the standards could be reviewed for their relevance sometime in the future. 10 P99 X.b Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission Elevator Overrun Code Amendment Check-In November 17, 2015 Mr. Barker reviewed the current code allows for elevator overruns for anything but single family homes and duplexes has the capability to be five and in some cases up to 10 ft taller than what code allows based on the setback from the street to reduce visibility. Staff has heard complaints it is difficult to achieve a workable design based on the requirements and Council has directed Staff to look into it. Mr. Barker stated they asked through their newsletter for realistic numbers. From their responses, it seems most standard elevator designs range from 14.5 to 20 ft in height for the entire assembly. This is measured from where you exit the elevator to the very top of the roof of the enclosure. A typical height is 16 ft for a structure available for purchase from vendors serving the valley. Staff is asking if P&Z is interested in increasing the height for an elevator enclosure. He added one of the difficulties identified in regards to the design is currently they end up with awkward elevator ramping systems to get to the actual top and stay under the height limit. For an example, with a 16 ft enclosure the floor would have to be dropped approximately 6 ft below the roof line or have a custom, expensive structure built to achieve the five ft or 10 ft height limit. Mr. Goode doesn't see the cost as an issue for those who typically build in Aspen. Mr. Morris asked for the typical costs to comply with the existing code requirements. Mr. Barker stated he has not received any specific input regarding how much it costs for a closure requiring ramping for the 19 ft enclosure. Ms. Phelan reminded P&Z this is only to access the roof and this wouldn't be an issue if they don't need roof access. Mr. Barker added rooftop views are a hot item lately. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the elevators are used to transport people or a commercial elevator. Mr. Barker answered it is for people. Mr. Barker stated the elevator overrun example provided in the packet is for commercial use and not residential use. Mr. Mesi row asked if this code amendment was applicable to commercial core or other zone districts. Mr. Barker stated the amendment discussion it is not tied specifically to zone district but he would welcome any input from P&Z. Mr. Mesi row looking objectively at the recently approved projects and noted they all had elevators on top conforming to the 10 ft requirement. He feels it is clearly doable and while he doesn't feel it makes sense to impose superfluous costs on developers, he doesn't feel 20 ft elevators would be popular with the community. He felt additional height may be possibly allowed if the structure was not visible from the closest structure at street level in each direction. Mr. Elliott supports having roof access but feels the current standard is working. He feels taller structures would impede the views of the mountains. Although the cost to make it possible currently may be higher, he feels there is also a visual impact cost to the community with higher towers. Mr. Mesi row remarked the Sky Hotel will have a roof top access. He stated if the roof takes up 200 sf for ramps to make the 10 ft tower design work. If allowing a higher tower would improve the public amenity space and not a visual impact from the street, he would not have a problem with it. Mr. Elliott feels it is necessary to look for impacts other than from the street. He feels the developers have been able to work out solutions to make it work. Mr. Goode asked how long the rule has been in place. Ms. Phelan believes it has changed somewhat in the last 10 years. Mr. Goode feels technology may provide for opportunities going forward. 11 P100 X.b Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission Ms. McNicholas Kury doesn't feel roof access is a pressing public need at this time. In summary, P&Z does not support an increase in height. Mr. Goode then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk's Office, Records Manager November 17, 2015 12 P101 X.b RESOLUTION NO. 136, (SERIES OF 2015) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS, CHAPTER 26.410 OF THE LAND USE CODE. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), the Community Development Department received direction from City Council to explore amendments to the Residential Design Standards Chapter, Chapter 26.410 of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(l ), the Community Development Department conducted Public Outreach to local architects, contractors, and planners; and, WHEREAS,, the Community Development Director recommended changes to the Residential Design Standards in the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendment policy direction, and finds it meets the criteria outlined in Section 26.310.040; and, . WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing on December 1, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No. 136, Series of 2015, by a five to zero (5 -0) vote, requesting code amendments to the Residential Design Standards in the Land Use Code; and, ' WHEREAS, this Resolution does not amend the Land Use Code, but provides direction to staff for amending the Land Use Code; �nd, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the,promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS-FOLLOWS: Section 1: Code Amendment Objective and Direction Council directs the Community Development Department to return with code amendments to update the Residential Design Standards in the Land Use Code. The code amendments are intended to improve the administrative review process, better organize the standards, and clean up confusing language and loopholes within the current standards. Section 2: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the resolutions or ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior resolutions or ordinances. Resolution No. 136, Series 2015 Page I of2 EXHIBIT C P102 X.b Section 3:· If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. FINALLY, adopted this 1 st day of December 2015. ��-� � . �cf -Oo�Y\,'")Steven Skadron, Mayor f · ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: /Ja'mes R True, City Attorney Resolution No. 136, Series 2015 Page 2 of2 P103 X.b Smuggler Park Homeowners Association 301 Oak Lane Aspen, CO 81611 January 2, 2016 City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Smuggler neighborhood and Residential Design Standards Dear Mayor, City Council and City Staff, The Smuggler Mobile Home Park, consisting of Smuggler Run and Smuggler Park, was created in 1982 before the Residential Design Standards were in place. We understand that the intent of the Standards is to create a pedestrian friendly neighborhood with a related pattern of development. Appreciating the purpose of the Standards and applying the actual Code requirements unfortunately do not always work for projects within Smuggler Park and Smuggler Run. Most building permits for a remodel involve a recurring conversation with the Planning Staff about whether the project meets specific Standards, whether a variance is needed and how to comply. Most of these conversations stem from our small lots (a minimum of 2,400 – 3,000 sf) that situated on a diagonal and are not very deep. While we recognize the importance and our ability to meet many of the Standards proposed with the Code amendment, we ask for you to consider three specific areas for relief. We have worked closely with Planning Staff to understand the proposed Code changes, to voice our concerns, and to discuss the following potential changes with Planning Staff. The following points focus on recurring problem areas that where homeowners either have to request a variance or not pursue their remodel due to inability to meet these requirements. 1)Front Porch size: Staff proposes language that a front porch within the Smuggler Park and Smuggler Run is allowed to be on the side of the home and not required to be on the front. We appreciate this adjustment and request that the minimum size (50 square feet) for a front porch be slightly reduced to accommodate the small size of the homes and the lots. We propose the following language (underlined) that still creates a visible front porch located within 10 feet of the front façade of the house, and takes into account that our homes are much smaller than the average Aspen residence. Underlined language is proposed. “For lots located in the Smuggler Park and Smuggler Run Subdivision: the front porch is not required on the front façade, but the front-most element of the porch shall be within ten (10) feet of the front-most wall of the building. A minimum depth of five (5) is required and a minimum of 25 square feet is required. Unless specified, the porch shall meet all other requirements of this standard.” 2)Principal window size: Staff proposes language requiring a 4 x 4 window or group of windows on the front of the home. We agree that blank walls facing a street do not create friendly EXHIBIT D P104 X.b Smuggler Park Homeowners Association 301 Oak Lane Aspen, CO 81611 neighborhoods. Considering a typical layout of homes in our neighborhood, with a bedroom in the front and the short width of our homes (our lots are a minimum of 40 sf in width), we are concerned that a 4 x 4 sized window or group of windows may create an uncomfortable living space and are out of proportion considering our small wall size (we are also restricted to one story buildings). We propose either a reduced minimum size principal window/group of windows or a minimum cumulative glass area calculation that includes all of the windows on the front façade rather than a group of windows. Underlined language is proposed. “For lots located in the Smuggler Park and Smuggler Run Subdivision: the front façade shall have at least one (1) window with dimensions of two (2) feet by four (4) feet or greater; or shall have at least one (1) group of windows that when measured as a group has dimensions of two (2) feet by two (2) feet or greater.” Or, “For lots located in the Smuggler Park and Smuggler Run Subdivision: the front façade shall have a cumulative glass area of at least three (3) feet by three (3) feet or greater.” 3) Lightwell location: The proposed language does not allow lightwells in front of a street facing wall of a home. We understand that the intent is to avoid large moats around buildings. We propose language that would, in our opinion, still meet the intent of avoiding moats and provide us with a little more flexibility to place lightwells in the front yard, which frees up some yard space for a garden or patio. We propose that lightwells that are incorporated into another element, such as a porch, are allowed forward of street facing facades. Underlined language is proposed. “For lots located in the Smuggler Park and Smuggler Run Subdivision: the minimum size lightwell required for egress and for Building Code compliance is permitted forward of street facing facades only when the lightwell is covered with a grate and is incorporated as part of a deck or front porch element. We appreciate the willingness of Staff to discuss these issues with us. We understand the one size fits all approach works for most of town, but we feel that the three proposed changes meet the intent of the Standards and also address recurring problem areas that should save time and money for the City and for the homeowners. Please let us know if we can explain these requests further or show past examples of projects in our neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Smuggler Park Homeowners Association P105 X.b MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: Call-up of the Planning and Zoning Commission’s approval of Conceptual Commercial Design for 200 S. Aspen Street (Hotel Lenado, P&Z Resolution 20, Series of 2015 MEETING DATE: January 11, 2016 On December 274h City Council voted to call up a recent P&Z approval for discussion. The call- up procedures are described below. During a public meeting, City Council shall consider the application de novo and may consider the record established by the P&Z. The City Council shall conduct its review of the application under the same criteria applicable to the P&Z. City Council may take the following actions: 1. Accept the decision, or 2. Remand the application to the P&Z with direction from City Council for rehearing and reconsideration, or 3. Continue the meeting to request additional evidence, analysis or testimony as necessary to conclude the call-up review. The final P&Z vote on this application was unanimous (5-0). Although staff did not recommend approval of Conceptual Commercial Design Review, staff recognizes the project was vetted over multiple hearings and the Commission came to a decision. If Council selects Option #2 and remands the application back to the Commission, the rehearing and reconsideration of the application by P&Z is final and concludes the call-up review. Substantial changes to the application outside of the specific topics listed in the remand to P&Z may require a new call-up notice to City Council; however the call up review would be limited only to the new changes to the application. Following the conclusion of the call-up process, this application will be subject to Final Commercial Design Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission BACKGROUND: On November 17, 2015, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Conceptual Commercial Design and Growth Management Reviews for a project at 200 S. Aspen Street (redevelopment of the Hotel Lenado). Drawings representing the Conceptual approval are attached as Exhibit A. The Commission approved Resolution No. 20 (Series of 2015) by a five to zero vote (Exhibit B). P106 XI.a The 9,000 square foot property is located at the corner of E. Hopkins and S. Aspen Street and is located within the Mixed Use (MU) zone district with a Lodge Preservation (LP) overlay. The property is proposed to be redeveloped with a mixed use building containing lodging, affordable housing and a free-market residential component. For a mixed use building, the zone district permits a maximum allowable Floor Area of 2:1 or 18,000 sq. ft, with individual caps on the permitted uses. The estimated Floor Area for the project is approximately 10,500 sq. ft. The proposal is to demolish the existing lodge (containing 17 lodge units with 19 keys and 2 affordable housing units) and redevelop it with a mixed use building containing 4 lodge units with 9 keys, 2 free-market residential units and 2 affordable housing units. The application is meeting the dimensional requirements of height (28 feet), building setbacks (10 feet along Hopkins and 5 feet along all other property lines) and unit size (no greater than 2,000 sq. ft. per residential unit). All required parking is met on-site. The application has been reviewed at public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission at four meetings: March 17th, September 15th, October 20th and November 17th of this year. The greatest design changes occurred between the March and September meetings. Minutes from the meetings are provided. DISCUSSION: With the redevelopment of a mixed-use building, Commercial Design Review is required. Topics that were reviewed in addition to the actual design of the building include the design of the public amenity space, location and size of the trash and utility area, compliance with off-street parking standards, as well as the required affordable housing for the proposal. March 2015 The Commission first discussed the project on March 17th, at that time the applicant was requesting to develop a mixed use building with the following components: • 8 hotel units with 9 keys • 3 free-market residences • 2 affordable housing units As part of the application a number of requests were made regarding height, floor area, parking and setbacks. Specifically, the following items were requested: • A reduction in the required parking from 10 to 2 spaces (through Special Review) P107 XI.a • A reduction in setbacks (via Planned Development Review) • An increase in the Allowable Floor Area for the lodging component (though Special Review) • A height allowance of 32 feet through Commercial Design Review Staff recommended substantial changes to the project, both in the design and dimensions proposed, and the Commission concurred. Revisions were made and the application came before the Commission again in September 2015. September 2015 The design that was reviewed in September reorganized the location of the uses within the building, added parking, and removed any requests for reductions in parking and setbacks. Height was still requested at 32 feet through Commercial Design Review. The project included the following components: • 4 hotel units with 9 keys • 2 free-market residences • 2 affordable housing units • 11 parking spaces Staff recommended continued revision of the project by incorporating a reduced building height, refinement of the building’s relationship with grade, potential removal of the two at grade parking spaces to remove additional mass, and to continue working on the mass, scale and design of the building to better fit the neighborhood context. The Commission still had concerns regarding the design of the building and continued the meeting to October 20th. P108 XI.a October 2015 At the October 20th meeting an amended design was presented by the applicant. The design changed the public amenity’s relationship with surrounding grade, incorporated gable roof forms into the design of the project and requested a height of 32 feet. The project included the following components: • 4 hotel units with 9 keys • 2 free-market residences • 2 affordable housing units • 11 parking spaces Staff’s recommendation was similar to the September meeting with an emphasis on continued revision of the project’s height, refinement of the building’s relationship with grade, potential removal of the two at grade parking spaces to remove additional mass, and to continue working on the mass, scale and design of the building to better fit the neighborhood context. The Commission narrowed their concerns regarding the design of the building to height and refinement of the Hopkins façade. The meeting was continued to November 17th. November 2015, Aspen St. facade P109 XI.a November 2015, Hopkins Ave. façade The Commission again discussed the project on November 17th. The public amenity space had been further refined, the building was proposed at 28 feet, and additional massing changes occurred along Aspen Street and Hopkins Avenue. The building was proposed with the following components: • 4 hotel units with 9 keys • 2 free-market residences • 2 affordable housing units • 9 parking spaces Staff again suggested changes to the project, both in the design and dimensions proposed with a recommendation of denial. After much deliberation, and based upon the direction provided at the last hearing, the Commission voted to approve the conceptual design of project. The Commission did include a recommendation in the approved resolution to have the applicant consider further refinement along the Hopkins Ave. façade. The Small Lodge character area contains design objectives that include an objective to “create a distinctive experience for lodging with a sense of being in a neighborhood.” The design objective further states that “lodge overlay sites offer a special opportunity to experience the community more closely, and to feel a part of a neighborhood. Therefore, these lodges should appear related to the context in their design, while also conveying the unique character of an exciting accommodations facility.” Staff stated that additional refinement of the design of the project was necesssary inclusive of building elements, façade composition, and modulation of form was necessary to meet guidelines 5.5 and 5.7: 5.5 Within an established residential context, a lodge building should reflect traditional lot widths in more than one of the following ways: • The variation of building height. • The modulation of building elements. • The variation in faced heights. • The street façade composition. • The variation in design and materials to emphasize the building module. P110 XI.a 5.7 A building should respect the traditional lot width and scale of the context in the form, modulation and variation of the roofscape At the December 14th Notice of Call-up a council person asked about changes in the size of the building. The following table shows changes over the course of the Commission’s review. Additionally, all staff memos and exhibits for the Commission are available via SIRE. MEETING DATE GROSS SQ. FT. CUMULATIVE FLOOR AREA LODGE FLOOR AREA FREE MARKET FLOOR AREA AFFORDABLE HOUSING FLOOR AREA ORIGINAL HOTEL 12,084 10,901 10,006 0 895 MARCH 17TH 16,918 14,663 8,632 4,278 1,753 SEPTEMBER 15TH 20,160 10,167 4,334 4,468 1,365 OCTOBER 20TH 19,848 10,855 4,733 4,485 1,637 NOVEMBER 17TH 19,622 10,489 4566 4,485 1,438 RECOMMENDATION: As noted earlier, the final P&Z vote on this application was unanimous (5- 0); however, staff did not recommend approval of Conceptual Commercial Design Review and still feels that additional refinement in the design is necessary and recommends remand of the project by Council. RECOMMENDED MOTION: “I move to remand P&Z Resolution No. 20, Series of 2015.” CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Approved Plans_ P&Z Architecturals_11.17.15 Exhibit B: P&Z Resolution No. 20, Series of 2015 Exhibit C: P&Z Minutes – March 17, 2015 Exhibit D: P&Z Minutes – September 15, 2015 Exhibit E: P&Z Minutes – October 20, 2015 Exhibit F: P&Z Minutes – November 17, 2015 Exhibit G: P&Z Staff Memo (without exhibits) – November 17, 2015 P111 XI.a 200 S ASPEN RENDERINGS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.01 P 1 1 2 X I . a 200 S ASPEN RENDERINGS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.02 P 1 1 3 X I . a 200 S ASPEN RENDERINGS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.03 P 1 1 4 X I . a 200 S ASPEN RENDERINGS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.04 P 1 1 5 X I . a 200 S ASPEN RENDERINGS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.05 P 1 1 6 X I . a 200 S ASPEN EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.06 P 1 1 7 X I . a 200 S ASPEN EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.07 P 1 1 8 X I . a 200 S ASPEN EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.08 P 1 1 9 X I . a 200 S ASPEN EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.09 P 1 2 0 X I . a 200 S ASPEN LOWER LEVEL FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.10 F UP RG RG REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E PARKING GARAGE CAR LIFT LODGE MECHANICAL STAIR 2 LODGE STORAGE STAIR 1ELEVATOR CATERING KITCHEN LOBBY ELEV. MECH. LU.20 LU.17 LU.18 LU.19 F F F EMPLOYEE LOUNGE EMPLOYEE R/R LU.23 LU.23 LU.21LU.21 LU.22 LU.22 P 1 2 1 X I . a 200 S ASPEN MAIN LEVEL FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.11 F F F F F UP U P W W W W LU.20 LU.17 LU.18 LU.19 REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E UNIT 104 UNIT 105 UNIT 106 ELEVATOR STAIR 1 MAIN ENTRY CAR LIFT BATH WETBAR WETBAR UNIT 103 MGMNT VALET BATH UNIT 102 BATH UNIT 107 LIBRARY BATH UNIT 203 UNIT 204 HOUSE KEEPING WETBAR WETBAR WETBAR STAIR 2 BATH BATH BATH BATH BATH F F LU.23 LU.23 OPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO STAIR BELOW OPEN TO STAIR BELOW UNIT 101 WETBAR WETBAR LU.21LU.21 LU.22 LU.22 P 1 2 2 X I . a 200 S ASPEN PARK LEVEL FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.12 OPEN TO STAIR BELOW OPEN TO STAIR BELOW UP DW RG DW RG W W W LU.20 LU.17 LU.18 LU.19 201.75 sq ft ELECTRICAL REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E UNIT 202 UNIT 201 GARAGE CAR LIFT STAIR 1 STAIR TRASH ENCLOSURE TRANSFORMER GAME LOUNGE / BAR UNIT 203 UNIT 204 WETBAR ELEVATORHALL ENTRY BATH BATH RESTROOM BATH BATH RESTROOM LOUNGE LOBBY UNIT 204 STORAGE UNIT 203 STORAGE DECK F F F OPEN TO STAIR BELOW LU.23 LU.23 DW F LU.21LU.21 LU.22 LU.22 GAS OPEN TO BELOW HOUSE- KEEPING P 1 2 3 X I . a 200 S ASPEN UPPER LEVEL FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.13 OPEN TO STAIR BELOW OPEN TO STAIR BELOW U P LU.20 LU.17 LU.18 LU.19 REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E UNIT 302 STAIR 1 ELEVATOR HALL UNIT 301 STAIR BATH BATH DECK DECK DECK BEDROOM BEDROOM F W DW W LU.23 LU.23 LU.21LU.21 LU.22 LU.22 F DW FP P 1 2 4 X I . a 200 S ASPEN ROOFTOP LEVEL FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.14 F OPEN TO STAIR BELOW U P UP U P LU.20 LU.17 LU.18 LU.19 REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E ELEVATOR DECK DECK DECK STAIR 1 MECHANICAL LU.23 LU.23 LU.21LU.21 LU.22 LU.22 P 1 2 5 X I . a 200 S ASPEN ROOF PLAN FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.15 F U P UP U P UP U P REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E OUTLINE OF PERIMETER WALL BELOW ROOF DECK BELOW 0:12 0:120:12 8:12 8:12 8:12 8:12 8:12 8:12 8:12 8:12 8:12 8:12 8:12 8:12 0:12 0:12 8:12 0:12 0:12 P 1 2 6 X I . a 200 S ASPEN PROPOSED SITE PLAN FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.16 F U P UP U P 5'-0" 1 0 ' - 0 " 5'-0" 5 ' - 0 " SS LINE GAS LINE W LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE 790679057904 7 9 0 3 7 9 0 2 79 0 1 79 0 7 7900 7899 78 9 8 7897 7896 OUTLINE OF PERIMETER WALL BELOW ROOF S . A S P E N S T R E E T E. HOPKINS AVENUE ALLEY F R A N C I S W H I T A K E R P A R K S I D E Y A R D FRONT YARD REAR YARD S I D E Y A R D N P 1 2 7 X I . a 200 S ASPEN WEST ELEVATION FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.17 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINE MIXED WEATHERED WOOD WIRE RAILING GLASS WOOD SIDING WIRE RAILING PLASTER FINISH 87'-0" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL 110'-6" T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL 110'-6" T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL 133'-6" T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK 133'-6" T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK 134'-8" T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK 134'-8" T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK 121'-0" T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE 121'-0" T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE 100'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL 131'-6" T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK 131'-6" T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK 122'-0" T.O. F.F. SOUTH PENTHOUSE 122'-0" T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE 87'-0" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL HISTORIC GRADE FINISH GRADE 87'-0" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL 100'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL P 1 2 8 X I . a 200 S ASPEN NORTH ELEVATION FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.18 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINE MIXED WEATHERED WOOD WIRE RAILING GLASS WOOD SIDING PLASTER FINISH 110'-6" T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL 110'-6" T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL 87'-0" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL 133'-6" T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK 133'-6" T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK 134'-8" T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK 134'-8" T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK 121'-0" T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE 121'-0" T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE 100'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL 131'-6" T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK 131'-6" T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK 122'-0" T.O. F.F. SOUTH PENTHOUSE 122'-0" T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE FINISH GRADE HISTORIC GRADE 87'-0" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL 100'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL P 1 2 9 X I . a 200 S ASPEN EAST ELEVATION FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.19 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINE WOOD SIDING WIRE RAILING GLASS MIXED WEATHERED WOOD WIRE RAILING 87'-0" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL 110'-6" T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL 110'-6" T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL 133'-6" T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK 133'-6" T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK 134'-8" T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK 134'-8" T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK 121'-0" T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE 121'-0" T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE 100'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL 131'-6" T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK 131'-6" T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK 122'-0" T.O. F.F. SOUTH PENTHOUSE 122'-0" T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE HISTORIC GRADE FINISH GRADE 87'-0" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL 87'-0" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL 100'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL P 1 3 0 X I . a 200 S ASPEN SOUTH ELEVATION FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.20 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINE MIXED WEATHERED WOOD WIRE RAILING GLASS 121'-0" T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE 110'-6" T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL 121'-0" T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE 110'-6" T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL 100'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL 87'-0" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL 133'-6" T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK 133'-6" T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK WIRE RAILING PLASTER FINISH WOOD SIDING 134'-8" T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK 134'-8" T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK 131'-6" T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK 131'-6" T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK 122'-0" T.O. F.F. SOUTH PENTHOUSE 122'-0" T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE FINISH GRADE HISTORIC GRADE 100'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL 87'-0" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL P 1 3 1 X I . a 200 S ASPEN SECTIONS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.21 9 ' - 1 " 1 1 ' - 7 " 9 ' - 1 " 9 ' - 3 " 87'-0" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL 110'-6" T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL 110'-6" T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL 133'-6" T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK 133'-6" T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK 134'-8" T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK 134'-8" T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK 121'-0" T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE 121'-0" T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE 100'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL 131'-6" T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK 131'-6" T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK 122'-0" T.O. F.F. SOUTH PENTHOUSE 122'-0" T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE PARKING GARAGE CATERING KITCHENLOBBY FINISH GRADE 87'-0" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL 87'-0" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL 100'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL MAIN ENTRY HALL HOUSE- KEEPING UNIT 202 LOUNGE LOBBY ENTRY UNIT 301 HALL UNIT 301 RESTROOM MANAGEMENT VALET LU.21 NORTH SECTION P 1 3 2 X I . a 200 S ASPEN SECTIONS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.22 1 1 ' - 7 " 9 ' - 1 " 1 0 ' - 3 " 9 ' - 9 " 1 0 ' - 1 " 1 1 ' - 5 " 87'-0" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL 110'-6" T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL 110'-6" T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL 133'-6" T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK 133'-6" T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK 134'-8" T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK 134'-8" T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK 131'-6" T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK 121'-0" T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE 121'-0" T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE 100'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL 131'-6" T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK 131'-6" T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK 122'-0" T.O. F.F. SOUTH PENTHOUSE 122'-0" T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE PARKING GARAGE FINISH GRADE FINISH GRADE 87'-0" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL 100'-0" = 7896'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL 87'-0" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL 100'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL UNIT 302 UNIT 302STAIR STAIR HALL LIBRARY UNIT 204 UNIT 204 UNIT 102 LU.22 SOUTH SECTION P 1 3 3 X I . a 200 S ASPEN SECTIONS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.23 1 1 ' - 7 " 9 ' - 1 " 9 ' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 1 " 1 0 ' - 3 " 1 1 ' - 7 " 9 ' - 1 " 9 ' - 1 " 87'-0" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL 110'-6" T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL 110'-6" T.O. F.F. @ PARK LEVEL 133'-6" T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK 133'-6" T.O. F.F. @ MID ROOF DECK 134'-8" T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK 134'-8" T.O. UPPER ROOF DECK 121'-0" T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE 121'-0" T.O. F.F. @ NORTH PENTHOUSE 100'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL 131'-6" T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK 131'-6" T.O. LOWER ROOF DECK 122'-0" T.O. F.F. SOUTH PENTHOUSE 122'-0" T.O. F.F. @ SOUTH PENTHOUSE FINISH GRADE 87'-0" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL 87'-0" T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL 100'-0" T.O. F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL LODGE STORAGE PARKING GARAGE CAR LIFTUNIT 105 HALL HALL HALL GAME LOUNGE / BAR HOUSEKEEPING UNIT 302 UNIT 301 CLOSET LIBRARY REST ROOM LU.23 EAST SECTION P 1 3 4 X I . a 200 S ASPEN WEST HEIGHT COMPARISON FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.24 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINE PARK CENTRAL WEST PEAK @ 7938'-10" (32' -0")208 HOPKINS PEAK @ 7932'-5" (32'-6") 116 ASPEN ST. PEAK @ 7929'-8" (32'-8") 214 HOPKINS PEAK @ 7935'-10" (32'-0") 200 SOUTH ASPEN PEAK @ 7931'-1" (27'-8") 200 SOUTH ASPEN PEAK @ 7934'-8" (28'-9") SIDEWALK @ 7897'-0" ALLEY @ 7904'-0" ALLEY @ 7906'-6" P 1 3 5 X I . a 200 S ASPEN EAST HEIGHT COMPARISON FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.25 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINE PARK CENTRAL WEST PEAK @ 7938'-10" (32' -0") 208 HOPKINS PEAK @ 7932'-5" (32'-6") 116 ASPEN ST. PEAK @ 7929'-8" (32'-8") 214 HOPKINS PEAK @ 7935'-10" (32'-0")200 SOUTH ASPEN PEAK @ 7934'-8" (28'-9")200 SOUTH ASPEN PEAK @ 7931'-1" (27'-8") SIDEWALK @ 7903'-8"SIDEWALK @ 7904'-6" ALLEY @ 7907'-6" P 1 3 6 X I . a 200 S ASPEN HEIGHTS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.26 F U P UP U P REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E 79 0 0 7906 79 0 5 7904 79 0 2 79 0 1 7899 7898 78 9 7 8 1 1312 5 4 3 2 6 1718 16 15 23 22 21 14 8 20 10 9 19 7 11 BUILDING OUTLINE AT GRADE OUTLINE OF PERIMETER WALL BELOW ROOF 15' OFFSET 0:12 0:120:12 8:12 8:12 8:12 8:12 8:12 8:12 8:12 8:12 8:12 8:12 8:12 0:12 0:12 8:12 0:12 8:12 0:12 79 0 3 Elevation Label Elevation of Historic Grade Elevation of Proposed Grade Most Restrictive Roof Height over Topography Actual Roof Height over Most Restrictive 1 7905'-5"7906'-6"HISTORIC 7927'-0"21-'7" 2 7905'-6"7906'-6"HISTORIC 7927'-7 5/8"22'-1 5/8" 3 7905'-3"7906'-6"PROPOSED 7928'-11 1/4"22'-5 1/4" 4 7904'-4"7903'-5"PROPOSED 7927'-3 1/2"23'-10 1/2" 5 7901'-0"7901'-6"HISTORIC 7927'-0"26'-0" 6 7900'-8"7901'-6"HISTORIC 7927'-7"26'-11" 7 7899'-8"7901'-3"HISTORIC 7927'-8"28'-0" 8 7899'-3"7900'-6"HISTORIC 7927'-3"28'-0" 9 7900'-2"7901'-1"HISTORIC 7928'-2"28'-0" 10 7901'-0"7901'-10"HISTORIC 7928'-1"27'-1" 11 7902'-0"7902'-0"HISTORIC 7930'-0"28'-0" 12 7904'-1"7905'-2"HISTORIC 7931'-3"27'-2" 13 7904'-6"7906'-4"HISTORIC 7931'-2"26'-8" 14 7906'-3"7906'-6"HISTORIC 7931'-5"25'-2" 15 7906'-6"7906'-6"HISTORIC 7931-2 3/8"24'-8 3/8" 16 7906'-3"7906'-6"HISTORIC 7930-11 3/8"24'-8 3/8" 17 7903'-9"N/A HISTORIC 7937'-10"34'-1" (OVERRUN) 18 7902'-8"N/A HISTORIC 7939'-7" 36'-11" (OVERRUN) 19 7901'-9"N/A HISTORIC 7928'-0"26'-3" 20 7900'-11"N/A HISTORIC 7928'-7"27'-8" 21 7901'-11"N/A HISTORIC 7929'-11"28'-0" 22 7903'-3"7904'-1'HISTORIC 7929'-7 1/2"25'-10" 23 7903'-6"N/A HISTORIC 7930'-8"27'-2" Height Over Topography (Proposed) 200 S. Aspen Street HEIGHTS OVER TOPOGRAPHY P 1 3 7 X I . a 200 S ASPEN EXISTING SUBGRADE WALL CALCS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.27 FAR (Existing) 200 S. Aspen Street Lodge AHU Non-Unit Lower Level unit area totals by use 2,878.25 1,056.50 867.00 Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed -922.26 -338.53 -277.81 Lower Level FAR totals by use 1,955.99 717.97 589.19 Lodge AHU Non-Unit Main Level unit area totals by use 3,374.00 0.00 573.00 Main Level FAR totals by use 3,374.00 0.00 573.00 Lodge AHU Non-Unit Upper Level unit area totals by use 3,101.00 0.00 590.75 Upper Level FAR totals by use 3,101.00 0.00 590.75 Square Feet (Sq Ft) Gross Lodge (Sq Ft)9,353.25 Gross AHU (Sq Ft)1,056.50 Total Unit Floor Area (Sq Ft) excludes non-unit area 10,409.75 Application of Use Category Percentages to Non-Unit Floor Area Lodge Floor Area (Sq Ft)Non-Unit @ 89.96%Total Lower Level (Sq Ft)1,955.99 529.40 2,485.39 Main Level (Sq Ft)3,374.00 514.85 3,888.85 Upper Level (Sq Ft)3,101.00 530.79 3,631.79 Gross Lodge (Sq Ft)10,006.03 AHU Floor Area (Sq Ft)Non-Unit @ 10.04%Total Lower Level (Sq Ft)717.97 59.80 777.77 Main Level (Sq Ft)0.00 58.15 58.15 Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 59.96 59.96 Total AHU FAR (Sq Ft)895.88 Total FAR (Sq Ft)10,901.91 Allowable Limit (Sq Ft)Existing (Sq Ft)Proposed (Sq Ft) Lodge (.75:1) 8,970 10,006.03 4,566.55 AHU (2:1) 17,940 895.88 1,438.86 Free Market (.50:1) 4,485 ------4,450.26 Cumulative (2:1) 17940 10,901.91 10,455.68 Lower Level Main Level Upper Level Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category (referenced from “Gross Unit Area” chart) Percentage (%) 89.85% 10.15% 100.00% Lodge FAR AHU FAR Total Lodge FAR Summary Subgrade Wall Area (Existing) 200 S. Aspen Street Existing Lower Level Wall Calculations Lower Level Wall Label Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)Unex. Wall Area (Sq Ft) 1 664.75 87.50 577.25 2 112.25 112.25 0 3 32.25 32.25 0 4 104.25 104.25 0 5 32.25 32.25 0 6 104.25 104.25 0 7 32.25 32.25 0 8 104.25 104.25 0 9 32.25 32.25 0 10 112.50 72.25 40.25 11 112.25 57.25 55 12 32.00 12.75 19.25 13 92.25 30.75 61.5 14 32.00 8.00 24 15 415.25 25.75 389.5 16 637.75 1.75 636 Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft)2,652.75 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)850.00 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)32.0% Unexposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)1802.75 % of Unexposed Wall (Unexposed / Total)68.0% 9 ' - 6 " 8 '-0 1 /4 " 8 '-0 1 /4 " 9 '-6 1 /4 " 74'-8" 44'-8" 14'-0" 4'-0"13'-0"4'-0"13'-0"4'-0"13'-0"4'-0"14'-0" 35'-2"4'-0"11'-6"4'-0"14'-0" 67'-0" 8 '-0 1 /4 " 166.75 sq ft 410.50 sq ft 40.25 sq ft 389.50 sq ft24.00 sq ft61.50 sq ft19.25 sq ft55.00 sq ft 636.00 sq ft 14.75 sq ft 58.75 sq ft 7.00 sq ft 7.00 sq ft 112.25 sq ft 32.25 sq ft 104.25 sq ft 32.25 sq ft 104.25 sq ft 32.25 sq ft 104.25 sq ft 32.25 sq ft 72.25 sq ft 25.75 sq ft8.00 sq ft30.75 sq ft12.75 sq ft57.25 sq ft 1.75 sq ft 8 '-0 1 /4 " 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 EXPOSED WALL AREA UNEXPOSED WALL AREA SUBGRADE WALL AREA EXISTING LOWER LEVEL SUBGRADE WALL P 1 3 8 X I . a 200 S ASPEN EXISTING FLOOR AREA CALCS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.28 Allowable Limit (Sq Ft)Existing (Sq Ft)Proposed (Sq Ft) Lodge (.75:1) 8,970 10,006.03 4,565.68 AHU (2:1) 17,940 895.88 1,438.58 Free Market (.50:1) 4,485 ------4,484.98 Cumulative (2:1) 17940 10,901.91 10,489.24 Total Lodge FAR Summary Percentage (%) Lodge Area (Sq Ft)89.85% AHU Unit Area (Sq Ft)10.15% Total Unit Area (Sq Ft) excludes non-unit area 100.00% Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft) excluded from gross n/a Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category 10,409.75 2,030.75 Square Feet (Sq Ft) 9,353.25 1,056.50 013 867.00 sq ft 491.25 sq ft 565.25 sq ft 355.00 sq ft 186.75 sq ft 2,336.50 sq ft UP UP PROPERTY LINE LINE OF SETBACK 01 6 011 00 6 001 003 005 007 009 01 2 01 4 00 2 01 0 00 4 00 8 015 900.25 sq ft 35.25 sq ft 102.50 sq ft 441.50 sq ft 1,473.25 sq ft 1,118.25 sq ft UP UP UP DN DN UP PROPERTY LINE LINE OF SETBACK 3,101.00 sq ft 590.75 sq ft DN DN DN PROPERTY LINE LINE OF SETBACK DECK BELOW PROPERTY LINE LINE OF SETBACK NON UNIT AREA AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT AREA LODGE AREA FREE MARKET AREA DECK AREA AREA USE BY CATEGORY EXISTING LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS EXISTING MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS EXISTING UPPER LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS EXISTING ROOF LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS P 1 3 9 X I . a 200 S ASPEN EXISTING NET LEASABLE PLANS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.29 858.00 sq ft 35.25 sq ft 1,090.00 sq ft 102.50 sq ft 438.25 sq ft 1,397.75 sq ft UP UP UP DN DN UP PROPERTY LINE LINE OF SETBACK 587.00 sq ft 2,950.25 sq ft DN DN DN PROPERTY LINE LINE OF SETBACK 2,254.75 sq ft 532.25 sq ft 458.75 sq ft 180.00 sq ft 351.50 sq ft 847.75 sq ft UP UP PROPERTY LINE LINE OF SETBACK DECK BELOW REAR PROPERTY LINE REAR SETBACK Net Leasable & Net Livable (Existing) 200 S. Aspen Street Lodge (Leasable)AHU (Livable)Non-Unit 351.50 458.75 847.75 180.00 532.25 ------ 2,254.75 ------------ Lower Level area totals by use 2,786.25 991.00 847.75 Lodge (Leasable)AHU (Livable)Non-Unit 1,397.75 ------438.25 1,090.00 ------102.50 858.00 ------35.25 Main Level area totals by use 3,345.75 0.00 576.00 Lodge (Leasable)AHU (Livable)Non-Unit 2,950.25 ------587.00 Upper Level area totals by use 2,950.25 0.00 587.00 Area totals by use 9,082.25 991.00 2010.75 Square Feet (Sq Ft) Gross Lodge (Sq Ft)9,353.25 Gross AHU (Sq Ft)1,056.50 Total Unit Floor Area (Sq Ft) excludes non-unit area 10,409.75 Application of Use Category Percentages to Non-Unit Floor Area Lodge (Leasable)Non-Unit @ 89.96%Total Main Level (Sq Ft)2,786.25 761.71 3,547.96 Upper Level (Sq Ft)3,345.75 517.54 3,863.29 Upper Level (Sq Ft)2,950.25 527.42 3,477.67 10,888.93 AHU (Livable)Non-Unit @ 10.04%Total Lower Level (Sq Ft)991.00 86.04 1,077.04 Main Level (Sq Ft)0.00 58.46 58.46 Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 59.58 59.58 1,195.07 Allowable Limit (Sq Ft)Existing (Sq Ft)Proposed (Sq Ft) Lodge ------10,888.93 11,415.61 AHU ------1,195.07 2,667.50 Free Market ------------5,537.14 Cumulative ------12,084.00 19,620.25 Lower Level Main Level Upper Level Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category (referenced from “Gross Unit Area” chart) Percentage (%) 89.85% 10.15% 100.00% Lodge Net Leasable Total Lodge Net Leasable & Net Livable Summary Total Lodge Net Leasable (Sq Ft) Total AHU Net Leasable (Sq Ft) NON UNIT AREA AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT AREA LODGE AREA FREE MARKET AREA DECK AREA AREA USE BY CATEGORY EXISTING MAIN LEVEL NET LEASABLE / LIVABLE EXISTING UPPER LEVEL NET LEASABLE / LIVABLE EXISTING LOWER LEVEL NET LEASABLE / LIVABLE EXISTING ROOF LEVEL NET LEASABLE / LIVABLE P 1 4 0 X I . a 200 S ASPEN PROPOSED GROSS AREA CALCS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.30 45.50 sq ft UP UP UP REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E 4,205.50 sq ft REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E OPEN TO STAIR BELOW OPEN TOSTAIR BELOW 2,649.00 sq ft 143.00 sq ft 73.75 sq ft 990.25 sq ft170.50 sq ft 89.25 sq ft 89.25 sq ft REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E OPEN TO STAIR BELOW OPEN TO STAIR BELOW 2,150.75 sq ft 1,939.25 sq ft 1,064.50 sq ft REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E OPEN TOSTAIR BELOW OPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO STAIR BELOW 1,951.50 sq ft 566.50 sq ft REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E Lodge AHU Free Market 1,951.50 ------------ 566.50 ------------ ------------------ Total Subgrade Level Unit Area by use 2,518.00 0.00 0.00 Lodge AHU Free Market 1,939.25 1,064.50 ------ 2,150.75 ------------ ------------------ Total Entry Level Unit Area by use 4,090.00 1,064.50 0.00 Lodge AHU Free Market 2,649.00 990.25 143.00 170.50 178.50 73.75 Total Second Level Unit Area by use 2,819.50 1,168.75 216.75 Lodge AHU Free Market ------------4,205.50 Total Third Level Unit Area by use 0.00 0.00 4,205.50 Lodge AHU Free Market ------------45.50 Total Roof Level Unit Area by use 0.00 0.00 45.50 Gross Lodge (Sq Ft) Gross AHU (Sq Ft) Gross Free Market (Sq Ft) Lodge Area (Sq Ft) AHU Unit Area (Sq Ft) Free Market Unit Area (Sq Ft) Total Lodge, AHU, FM Area (Sq Ft) Total Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft) Gross Area (Sq Ft) Gross Unit Area (Proposed) 200 S. Aspen Street 22,392.50 Percentage (%) 58.45% 13.85% 27.70% 100.00% n/a n/a Square Feet (Sq Ft) MAIN LEVEL LOWER LEVEL PARK LEVEL 16,128.50 6,264.00 UPPER LEVEL ROOF DECK LEVEL 4,467.75 Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category Gross Summary 9,427.50 2,233.25 4,467.75 9,427.50 2,233.25 PROPOSED ROOFTOP LEVEL GROSS AREA CALCULATIONSPROPOSED UPPER LEVEL GROSS AREA CALCULATIONS PROPOSED PARK LEVEL GROSS AREA CALCULATIONSPROPOSED MAIN LEVEL GROSS AREA CALCULATIONSPROPOSED LOWER LEVEL GROSS AREA CALCULATIONS AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT AREA LODGE UNITS AREA FREE MARKET AREA EXEMPT AREA AREA USE BY CATEGORY P 1 4 1 X I . a 200 S ASPEN PROPOSED SUBGRADE WALL CALCS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.31 Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit Lower Level unit area totals by use 2,488.25 ------------3,649.50 Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed -2,488.25 -------------3,649.50 Lower Level FAR totals by use 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit Main Level unit area totals by use 3,987.50 1,063.25 ------857.75 Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed -2,747.09 -732.50 -------590.93 Main Level FAR totals by use 1,240.41 330.75 0.00 266.82 Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit Park Level unit area totals by use 2,610.25 978.25 146.50 669.00 Subgrade areas exemption (26.575.20.D.8) less % unexposed 168.00 162.00 79.00 ------ Park Level FAR totals by use 2,778.25 978.25 225.50 669.00 Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit Upper Level unit area totals by use ------------3,955.00 ------ Upper Level FAR totals by use 0.00 0.00 3,955.00 0.00 Lodge AHU Free Market Non-Unit Roof Deck Level unit area totals by use ------------45.25 ------ Roof Deck Level FAR totals by use 0.00 0.00 45.25 0.00 Square Feet (Sq Ft) Gross Lodge (Sq Ft)9,427.50 Gross AHU (Sq Ft)2,233.25 Gross Free Market (Sq Ft)4,467.75 Total Unit Floor Area (Sq Ft) excludes non-unit area 16,128.50 Non-Unit Area Subgrade Exemption Total Lower Level (Sq Ft)3,649.50 -3,649.50 0.00 Main Level (Sq Ft)857.75 -590.93 266.82 Park Level (Sq Ft)669.00 0.00 669.00 Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00 Roof Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00 -4,240.43 935.82 Lodge Floor Area Non-Unit @ 58.45%Total Lower Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00 Main Level (Sq Ft)1,240.41 155.97 1,396.38 Park Level (Sq Ft)2,778.25 391.05 3,169.30 Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00 Roof Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00 547.01 Total Lodge FAR (Sq Ft)4,565.68 AHU Floor Area Non-Unit @13.85%Total Lower Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00 Main Level (Sq Ft)330.75 36.95 367.70 Park Level (Sq Ft)978.25 92.63 1,070.88 Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00 Roof Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00 129.58 Total Affordable Housing Unit FAR (Sq Ft)1,438.58 Free Market Floor Area Non-Unit @ 27.7%Total Lower Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 0.00 Main Level (Sq Ft)0.00 73.91 73.91 Park Level (Sq Ft)225.50 185.32 410.82 Upper Level (Sq Ft)3,955.00 0.00 3,955.00 Roof Level (Sq Ft)45.25 0.00 45.25 259.23 Total Free Market FAR (Sq Ft)4,484.98 Total FAR (Sq Ft)10,489.24 Allowable Limit (Sq Ft)Existing (Sq Ft)Proposed (Sq Ft) Lodge (.75:1) 8,970 9,081.60 4,565.68 AHU (2:1) 17,940 342.86 1,438.58 Free Market (.50:1) 4,485 0.00 4,484.98 Cumulative (2:1) 17,940 9,424.46 10,489.24 100.00% 13.85% 27.70% Applied Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft) Affordable Housing Unit FAR Lodge FAR Application of Use Category Percentages to Non-Unit Floor Area Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft) Total Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft) Applied Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft) 200 S. Aspen Street FAR (Proposed) UPPER LEVEL ROOF DECK LEVEL PARK LEVEL MAIN LEVEL LOWER LEVEL 58.45% Percentage (%) Total Lodge FAR Summary Free Market FAR Applied Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft) Applied Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft) Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category (referenced from “Gross Unit Area” chart) EXPOSED WALL AREA UNEXPOSED WALL AREA SUBGRADE WALL AREA Subgrade Wall Area (Proposed) 200 S. Aspen Street Existing Lower Level Wall Calculations Lower Level Wall Label Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)Unex. Wall Area (Sq Ft) 1 841.75 0.00 841.75 2 961.50 0.00 961.50 3 841.75 0.00 841.75 4 961.50 0.00 961.50 Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft)3,606.50 3,606.50 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)0.00 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)0.00% Unexposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)3,606.50 % of Unexposed Wall (Unexposed / Total)100.00% Main Level Wall Label 5 403.00 135.25 267.75 6 7.00 2.75 4.25 7 86.25 35.50 50.75 8 7.00 3.25 3.75 9 163.00 97.50 65.50 10 134.25 119.50 14.75 11 40.00 35.50 4.50 12 161.50 143.75 17.75 13 40.00 35.50 4.50 14 72.50 57.75 14.75 15 7.00 4.00 3.00 16 113.25 57.75 55.50 17 7.00 3.25 3.75 18 289.75 88.00 201.75 19 662.00 0.00 662.00 20 768.00 102.00 666.00 Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft)2,961.50 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)921.25 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)31.11% Unexposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)2,040.25 % of Unexposed Wall (Unexposed / Total)68.89% 14.75 sq ft 119.50 sq ft 55.50 sq ft 57.75 sq ft 267.75 sq ft 135.25 sq ft 35.50 sq ft 50.75 sq ft 97.50 sq ft 65.50 sq ft4.25 sq ft 2.75 sq ft 3.75 sq ft 3.25 sq ft 88.00 sq ft 201.75 sq ft 3.00 sq ft 4.00 sq ft 3.75 sq ft 3.25 sq ft19.75 sq ft 14.75 sq ft 11 ' - 7 " 72'-8"83'-0" 72'-8"83'-0" 4'-45/8"17'-93/8"4'-45/8"14'-93/8" 11 ' - 7 " 9' - 1 " 9' - 3 " 44'-43/8" 71'-361/64"82'-813/32" 91/4"9'-6"91/4"17'-93/4"3'-95/8"91/4"12'-5"91/4"31'-1025/32" 841.75 sq ft 961.50 sq ft 841.75 sq ft 961.50 sq ft 35.50 sq ft 143.75 sq ft 35.50 sq ft 25.50 sq ft 25.50 sq ft 25.50 sq ft 25.50 sq ft 666.00 sq ft662.00 sq ft 005 006 007 008 009 010 019 020 001 002 003 004 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 4.50 sq ft 17.75 sq ft 4.50 sq ft PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL AND MAIN LEVEL SUBGRADE WALL CALCULATIONS P 1 4 2 X I . a 200 S ASPEN PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.32 45.25 sq ft UP UP UP REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E OPEN TO STAIR BELOW 3,955.00 sq ft REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E OPEN TOSTAIR BELOW OPEN TOSTAIR BELOW 2,610.25 sq ft 146.50 sq ft 79.00 sq ft 500.00 sq ft 978.25 sq ft168.00 sq ft 669.00 sq ft 81.00 sq ft 81.00 sq ft REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E OPEN TOSTAIR BELOW OPEN TO BELOW 005 020 019 018 013 012 011 010 015 014 016 017 006 007 008 009 2,083.25 sq ft 1,904.25 sq ft 1,063.25 sq ft 857.75 sq ft REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E OPEN TO STAIR BELOW OPEN TO STAIR BELOW OPEN TO BELOW 3,649.50 sq ft 1,921.75 sq ft 566.50 sq ft 004 001 003 002 REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E PROPOSED ROOFTOP LEVEL FAR CALCULATIONSPROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FAR CALCULATIONS PROPOSED PARK LEVEL FAR CALCULATIONSPROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FAR CALCULATIONSPROPOSED LOWER LEVEL FAR CALCULATIONS AREA USE BY CATEGORY NON UNIT AREA AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT AREA LODGE UNITS AREA FREE MARKET AREA DECK AREA EXEMPT AREA P 1 4 3 X I . a 200 S ASPEN PROPOSED NET LEASABLE PLANS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.33 UP UP UP 40.00 sq ft REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E OPEN TO STAIR BELOW 481.50 sq ft1,646.25 sq ft 1,730.75 sq ft REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E OPEN TOSTAIR BELOW OPEN TOSTAIR BELOW 401.00 sq ft 455.00 sq ft 457.25 sq ft 659.25 sq ft 79.00 sq ft 152.25 sq ft 663.25 sq ft 68.75 sq ft 68.00 sq ft 1,410.75 sq ft 144.00 sq ft REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E OPEN TO STAIR BELOW OPEN TO BELOW 348.00 sq ft 453.00 sq ft 457.00 sq ft 341.75 sq ft 345.00 sq ft 338.50 sq ft 168.50 sq ft 542.25 sq ft 350.25 sq ft 555.00 sq ft 389.25 sq ft 79.25 sq ft70.75 sq ft856.50 sq ft REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E OPEN TO STAIR BELOW OPEN TO STAIR BELOW OPEN TO BELOW 1,784.25 sq ft 488.75 sq ft 153.50 sq ft 275.75 sq ft 246.00 sq ft 2,921.75 sq ft REAR SETBACK REAR PROPERTY LINE FRONT SETBACK FRONT PROPERTY LINE SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E SI D E SE T B A C K SI D E PR O P E R T Y LI N E Net Leasable & Net Livable (Proposed) 200 S. Aspen Street Lodge (Livable)AHU (Livable)Free Market (Livable)Non-Unit 1784.25 ------------153.50 488.75 ------------275.75 ------------------246.00 ------------------2,921.75 Lower Level area totals by use 2,273.00 0.00 0.00 3,597.00 Lodge (Livable)AHU (Livable)Free Market (Livable)Non-Unit 168.50 453.00 ------856.50 70.75 457.00 ------------ 341.75 ------------------ 345.00 ------------------ 338.50 ------------------ 348.00 ------------------ 79.25 ------------------ 542.25 ------------------ 389.25 ------------------ 555.00 ------------------ 350.25 ------------------ Main Level area totals by use 3,528.50 910.00 0.00 856.50 Lodge (Livable)AHU (Livable)Free Market (Livable)Non-Unit 1,410.75 455.00 144.00 663.25 659.25 457.25 79.00 ------ 401.00 68.75 ------------ 152.25 68.00 ------------ Park Level area totals by use 2,623.25 1,049.00 223.00 663.25 Lodge (Livable)AHU (Livable)Free Market (Livable)Non-Unit ------------1,646.25 ------ ------------1,730.75 ------ ------------481.50 ------ Upper Level area totals by use 0.00 0.00 3,858.50 0.00 Lodge (Livable)AHU (Livable)Free Market (Livable)Non-Unit ------------40.00 ------ Roof Deck Level area totals by use 0.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 Area totals by use 8,424.75 1,959.00 4,121.50 5,116.75 Areas by Use Category Lodge AHU Free Market Total Gross Sq Ft Lower Level (Sq Ft) Main Level (Sq Ft) Park Level (Sq Ft) Upper Level (Sq Ft) Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft) Total Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft) Non-Unit @ 0.5845 Total Lower Level (Sq Ft)2,102.53 4,375.53 Main Level (Sq Ft)500.65 4,029.15 Park Level (Sq Ft)387.69 3,010.94 Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 Total Lodge Net Livable (Sq Ft)11,415.61 Non-Unit @ 0.1385 Total Lower Level (Sq Ft)498.06 498.06 Main Level (Sq Ft)118.60 1,028.60 Park Level (Sq Ft)91.84 1,140.84 Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)0.00 0.00 Total ADU Net Livable (Sq Ft)2,667.50 Non-Unit @ 0.277 Total Lower Level (Sq Ft)996.40 996.40 Main Level (Sq Ft)237.26 237.26 Park Level (Sq Ft)183.73 406.73 Upper Level (Sq Ft)0.00 3,858.50 Roof Deck Level (Sq Ft)0.00 40.00 Total ADU Net Livable (Sq Ft)5,538.89 Non-Unit Area (Sq Ft) Non-Unit Floor Area per Level Lodge (Livable) 2,273.00 3,528.50 0.00 0.00 663.25 856.50 3,597.00 5,116.75 PARK LEVEL MAIN LEVEL LOWER LEVEL Free Market Net Livable 40.00 3,858.50 223.00 0.00 0.00 Free Market (Livable) 0.00 0.00 1,049.00 910.00 0.00 AHU (Livable) AHU Net Livable Lodge Net Livable 0.00 2,623.25 0.00 100.00%16,128.50 ROOF DECK LEVEL UPPER LEVEL 13.85%2,233.25 58.45%9,427.50 Percentage (%)Gross Square Feet (Sq Ft) Percentages of Gross Unit Area by Use Category (referenced from “Gross Unit Area” chart) 4,467.75 27.70% PROPOSED ROOFTOP LEVEL NET LEASABLE CALCULATIONSPROPOSED UPPER LEVEL NET LEASABLE CALCULATIONS PROPOSED PARK LEVEL NET LEASABLE CALCULATIONSPROPOSED MAIN LEVEL NET LEASABLE CALCULATIONSPROPOSED LOWER LEVEL NET LEASABLE CALCULATIONS NON UNIT AREA AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT AREA LODGE UNITS AREA FREE MARKET AREA DECK AREA EXEMPT AREA AREA USE BY CATEGORY P 1 4 4 X I . a 200 S ASPEN AHU MITIGATION FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.34 Affordable Housing Mitigation Credit 200 S. Aspen Street Proposed Affordable Housing Floor Area Calculations AHU Space Floor Area (Sq Ft)Employees Mitigated 2-BD Unit 908.00 2.25 2-BD Unit 914.25 2.25 Total Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,822.25 Total Employees Mitigated 4.50 Proposed Free Market Net Leasable Employees Generated Residential Net Leasable Floor Area (Sq Ft)Applicable Residential Area %Area After Reduction (Sq Ft)Employees Generated/400 Sq Ft Employees Generated Upper Level 3,478.25 30%1,043.48 1.00 2.61 Employees Generated 2.61 Proposed Lodge Unit Employees Generated Number of Units Employees Generated per Bedroom Employees Generated 9.00 0.30 2.70 Reduction % Due to Lodge Unit Size 60% Calculated Credit 1.62 Proposed Total Employees Generated 4.23 Total Mitigation Credit Calculation Employees Generated Total Employees Mitigated 4.50 Total Employees Generated 4.23 Additional Credits Required -0.27 P 1 4 5 X I . a 200 S ASPEN PUBLIC AMENITY PLANS FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM Tuesday, November 10, 2015 LU.35 PROPOSED PUBLIC AMENITY SPACE = 2,113.25 SF 23.56% OF LOT AREA EXISTING SITE AMENITY PLAN PROPOSED SITE AMENITY PLAN P 1 4 6 X I . a P147 XI.a P148 XI.a P149 XI.a P150 XI.a P151 XI.a P152 XI.a P153 XI.a P154 XI.a P155 XI.a P156 XI.a P157 XI.a P158 XI.a P159 XI.a P160 XI.a P161 XI.a P162 XI.a P163 XI.a P164 XI.a P165 XI.a P166 XI.a P167 XI.a P168 XI.a P169 XI.a P170 XI.a P171 XI.a P172 XI.a P173 XI.a P174 XI.a P175 XI.a P176 XI.a P177 XI.a P178 XI.a P179 XI.a P180 XI.a P181 XI.a P182 XI.a P183 XI.a P184 XI.a P185 XI.a P186 XI.a P187 XI.a P188 XI.a P189 XI.a 200 S. Aspen St. 11/17/2015 Page 1 of 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: Hotel Lenado (200 South Aspen Street) – Commercial Design Review-Conceptual Review, Growth Management Reviews, Resolution No. , Series 2015 – Public Hearing MEETING DATE: November 17, 2015 Since the October 20th hearing, the applicant has updated the design of the building based on comments from the hearing. At the last hearing it appeared that the bulk of comments were related to height and the Hopkins Avenue façade. Certain changes have occurred since the last meeting and are discussed by topic. The conceptual design has continued to be refined and is improving. Specific Staff concerns and recommendations related to the update are outlined below, with a number of options for a motion. Hopkins Façade: At the last hearing staff voiced concern over the compatibility of the design with the neighborhood, in particular the residential building across the street. Gable roof forms had been added to the design of the building in some areas, providing a complementary reference to the transitional area the project is located within. The glazing along Hopkins has been reduced, providing a better relationship to the residential buildings that have limited glazing along their facades. Additionally, the northeast corner of the building has been modified by pulling back the façade along the park level of the building, adding a deck along that level of the building and removing the balcony on the upper level. These changes assist in reducing the mass along a portion of the Hopkins façade and creating a distinct module. Figure 1: Changes to the northeast corner along Hopkins P190 XI.a 200 S. Aspen St. 11/17/2015 Page 2 of 6 Additional refinement of the façade should occur to promote “sensitive contextual design” of the building. Additional modulation of the building height, building elements, façade composition, and modulation in form can assist in successfully meeting guidelines 5.5 and 5.7: 5.5 Within an established residential context, a lodge building should reflect traditional lot widths in more than one of the following ways: 5.7 A building should respect the traditional lot width and scale of the context in the form, modulation and variation of the roofscape. Figure 2: Amended Hopkins façade (arrow indicates area for further refinement) Height: The Mixed Use Zone District restricts height to 28’ with the ability to increase height to 32’ when certain criteria are met. According to the submission, the current design meets the height allowance of 28 feet or lower, with the exception of the rooftop elevator and stairwell which are within the allowed height exception for these two features. The overall height of the building has been modified and the some floor to ceiling heights have been changed to lower the building height. Both the entry and park level are close to the same height of nine feet, while the upper floor ranges from about ten to eleven and a half feet depending on location. Floor to ceiling heights affect the perceived height of the building as well as how a story is located on the site. Although the third story is stepped back in most locations assisting in reducing the perceived scale at the street edge, the floor to ceiling heights do not comport with traditional design, where the first floor, particularly on a commercial building, is designed to be the tallest. The current design still promotes a top heavy building. P191 XI.a 200 S. Aspen St. 11/17/2015 Page 3 of 6 Figure 3: Height over topography Figure 4: Floor to ceiling sections (south elevation) Aspen St. Hopkins Ave. P192 XI.a 200 S. Aspen St. 11/17/2015 Page 4 of 6 Overall design: A number improvements have occurred on the site including changes to the Hopkins façade, better entry and public amenity space relationship with grade, and the pulling back of a portion of the upper level story from the façade. In Staff’s opinion, the design of the lodge, although greatly improved, still does not successfully respond to its location within a transition area between the commercial forms of the downtown core and the Shadow Mountain residential area. The primary discussion point for the Commission and for Staff during the past public hearings has been whether the proposed architecture fits into the existing context as required by the Design Guidelines. The Small Lodge Character Area Design Objectives in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Objectives and Guidelines state the following: “Create a distinctive experience for lodging with a sense of being in a neighborhood. Lodge overlay sites offer a special opportunity to experience the community more closely, and to feel a part of a neighborhood. Therefore, these lodges should appear related to the context in their design, while also conveying the unique character of an exciting accommodations facility.” Overall, the guidelines note that a small lodge’s “dimensions and character should respect their surroundings.” Staff’s opinion is the building should still be reduced in mass and scale to relate better to the neighborhood. Growth Management update: The current proposal includes four lodge units with a lock-off combination that includes 9 keys. The average size of a unit is 980 sq. ft. while an individual key is 435 sq. ft.. Two free-market units average1,800 sq. ft. in size and the two affordable housing units average 911 sq. ft. each. The following calculations reflect the updated proposal: The lodge development includes: • 9 lodge bedrooms requiring eighteen 18 lodge pillow allotments (2 pillows per bedroom). As the existing lodge has 19 lodge bedrooms no additional allotments are required; • 2 affordable housing units requiring two 2 affordable housing allotments. As the existing lodge has two units no additional allotments are required; • 2 new free-market residential units requiring two 2 residential allotments. Lodge: Mitigation for the nine lodge bedrooms is required at 60% of the employees generated due to the density of lodge units proposed. 9 lodge bedrooms * 0.3 FTEs = 2.7 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs)s generated 2.7 FTEs @ 60% mitigation = 1.62 FTEs required mitigation for lodge Free-Market Residential: Mitigation for the free- market residential is required to be 30% of the free-market residential net livable proposed. P193 XI.a 200 S. Aspen St. 11/17/2015 Page 5 of 6 Provide 30% of free-market residential square feet as affordable housing above grade. 3,600 sq ft * 30% = 1,080 sf net livable area required above grade as affordable housing or 2.7 FTEs 1.62 FTEs + 2.7 FTEs = 4.32 FTEs The applicant proposes two 2-bedroom units that equal 4.5 FTEs. The onsite FTE requirement is met. There is combined 1,049 sf of Affordable Housing net livable area proposed above grade. 1,080 sf is required to meet the above grade requirement for free market residential mitigation. Staff finds that Growth Management requirements are not met and recommends the applicant restudy the design as described above to meet the above grade requirement for affordable housing. As previously noted in past memos, Staff recommends one affordable housing unit be for sale. RECOMMENDATION: The Commission has reviewed this application and the design changes associated with it over four meetings, Staff recommends that the Commission take action this evening. Although substantive changes have occurred, Staff believes additional changes need to happen including restudy of the height, mass and scale. Specifically staff believes the building should be amended to incorporate the following: • The height of the upper level should be reduced to be in line with the height of the entry and park levels. • The mass, scale and design be amended to be compatible with the neighborhood. Continue to work on the Hopkins façade so that it relates better to the residential character across the street as described above. Reduce the size of the building to better relate to the neighborhood. • Meet the growth management requirements for above grade net livable space for the AH units. One affordable housing unit be for sale. • Verify dimensional requirements are met, specifically Floor Area calculations. At this point Staff recommends denial of the application as the lodge does not “appear related to the context” enough to feel part of the neighborhood and that the massing does not meet guideline 5.5: “within an established residential context, a lodge building should reflect traditional lot widths.” In the alternative, if the Commission prefers to grant approval, staff recommends that the suggestions bulleted above be included as part of the motion and required to be incorporated into the Final Commercial Design application. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to deny to the Hotel Lenado application.” P194 XI.a 200 S. Aspen St. 11/17/2015 Page 6 of 6 ATTACHMENTS: (ATTACHMENTS IN BOLD ARE PROVIDED FOR THIS MEMO) EXHIBIT A – Growth Management Review Criteria EXHIBIT B – Special Review Criteria EXHIBIT C – Commercial Design Review Criteria EXHIBIT D – Planned Development- Project Review Criteria EXHIBIT E – Development Review Committee Comments EXHIBIT F – Public Comment EXHIBIT G – Applicant responses to Development Review Comments EXHIBIT H – Application – dated 1/2015 EXHIBIT I – Amended Architectural Drawings EXHIBIT J – Growth Management Review Criteria EXHIBIT K –Commercial Design Review Criteria [from 9/15/15] EXHIBIT L –Development Review Committee Comments [from 9/15/15] EXHIBIT M – Amended application - summary EXHIBIT N – Amended application – drawings EXHIBIT O – Amended Growth Management Review Criteria Exhibit P - Amended application – drawings Exhibit Q – P&Z meeting minutes dated 9/15/15 Exhibit R - Amended Growth Management Review Criteria Exhibit S – Amended Commercial Design Review Criteria Exhibit T- Amended application – drawings P195 XI.a