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

200 S. Aspen St.
11/17/2015
Page 1 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.

200 S. Aspen St.
11/17/2015
Page 2 of 6

 Figure 3: Height over topography

Hopkins Ave.

Aspen St.

Figure 4: Floor to ceiling sections (south elevation)

200 S. Aspen St.
11/17/2015
Page 3 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.
200 S. Aspen St.
11/17/2015
Page 4 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.”
200 S. Aspen St.
11/17/2015
Page 5 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

200 S. Aspen St.
11/17/2015
Page 6 of 6